Cited by 94Wildlife Ecology and ConservationWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationLand Use and Ecosystem Services

Socioeconomic Benefits of Large Carnivore Recolonization Through Reduced Wildlife‐Vehicle Collisions

Open access
Gilbert, Sophie L., Sivy, Kelly J., Pozzanghera, Casey B., DuBour, Adam, Overduijn, Kelly, Smith, Matthew M., Zhou, Jiake, Little, Joseph M. +1 more·2017·Conservation Letters

Abstract

The decline of top carnivores has released large herbivore populations around the world, incurring socioeconomic costs such as increased animal–vehicle collisions. Attempts to control overabundant deer in the Eastern United States have largely failed, and deer–vehicle collisions (DVCs) continue to rise at alarming rates. We present the first valuation of an ecosystem service provided by large carnivore recolonization, using DVC reduction by cougars as a case study. Our coupled deer population models and socioeconomic valuations revealed that cougars could reduce deer densities and DVCs by 22% in the Eastern United States, preventing 21,400 human injuries, 155 fatalities, and $2.13 billion in avoided costs within 30 years of establishment. Recently established cougars in South Dakota prevent $1.1 million in collision costs annually. Large carnivore restoration could provide valuable ecosystem services through such socio‐ecological cascades, and these benefits could offset the societal costs of coexistence.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/conl.12280

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Dense populations of deer in urban and suburban areas result in numerous deer-vehicle collisions, causing severe injuries and potentially death.

    “Dense populations of deer in urban and suburban areas result in numerous deer-vehicle collisions, causing severe injuries and potentially death (Conover et al., 1995;Gilbert et al., 2017).”

    From Of Rarity and Symbolism: Understanding Human Perceptions of Charismatic Color Morphs (2024) · cites this paper as Gilbert et al., 2017

    The Introduction reports that rising deer numbers have contributed to more deer-vehicle collisions in the United States, with 29,000 injuries and over 200 deaths annually. It does not locate those dense deer populations or collisions specifically in urban and suburban areas. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Bowyer, R.T., Bleich, V.C., Stewart, K.M., Whiting, J.C. & Monteith, K.L. (2014) Density dependence in ungulates: a review of causes, and concepts with some clarifications. J. Wildl. Manage., 100, 550-572.
  2. Carter, N.H., Shrestha, B.K., Karki, J.B., Man, N., Pradhan, B. & Liu, J. (2012) Coexistence between wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 109, 15360-15365.
  3. Conover, M.R., Pitt, W.C., Kessler, K.K., Dubow, T.J. & Sanborn, W.A. (1995) Review of human injuries, illnesses, and economic losses caused by wildlife in the United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 23, 407-414.
  4. Dickman, A.J., Macdonald, E.A. & Macdonald, D.W. (2011) A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human-carnivore coexistence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 108, 13937-13944.
  5. Gunson, K.E., Mountrakis, G. & Quackenbush, L.J. (2011) Spatial wildlife-vehicle collision models: a review of current work and its application to transportation mitigation projects. J Environ. Manage., 92, 1074-1082.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gilbert, S. L., Sivy, K. J., Pozzanghera, C. B., DuBour, A., Overduijn, K., Smith, M. M., Zhou, J., Little, J. M., & Prugh, L. R.
Affiliations
University of Alaska Fairbanks (US)
Corresponding author
  • Gilbert, Sophie L.
  • Prugh, Laura R.
Venue
Conservation Letters
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-08-29
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
431-439
ISSN
1755-263X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2464487016
Cited by
94
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2
FWCI
3.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Conservation Letters (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
Keywords
Puma concolor, deer-vehicle collisions, ecosystem services valuation, socioeconomic costs, eastern United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review