Data from: How can we tackle interruptions to human-wildlife feeding management? Adding media campaigns to the wildlife manager's toolbox

In recent years, wildlife managers have been seeking ways to reduce the occurrence of independent, recreational human-wildlife feeding interactions, which continue to gain global popularity and may have negative effects on the humans and wildlife involved. Current popular methods, such as signage and posters, have yielded mixed results and their application is often interrupted, though the effects of these interruptions on feeding levels are currently unknown. This has led to calls to both identify a management option that can be applied successfully from a distance and to determine whether this action may assist in recovering long-term programmes from the potential effects of interruptions. Marketing and media tools have been shown to successfully change human behaviours in conservation campaigns, flagging them as a potential tool that could be applied to human-wildlife feeding management. Here, we performed a 4-year study using a wild fallow deer population in a popular urban green space as our model system. We tracked changes in human feeding behaviours across four different management stages. These included pre-management (stage 1), during traditional management (i.e. "don't feed the deer" signage, stage 2), mid-interruption (i.e. COVID-19 pandemic, stage 3), and during the application of a structured media campaign (stage 4). We found that feeding by visitors decreased during traditional management (stage 2), but rapidly returned to pre-management levels during the interruption (stage 3) despite traditional controls still being in place. However, we discovered that feeding dropped significantly after the release of a media campaign (stage 4), despite the audience and conditions being unchanged. We also identified which imagery and educational messages resonated with viewers; information that can be applied to future campaigns in other locations. We, therefore, recommend that wildlife managers both investigate and be prepared for the negative effects that interruptions of any type (e.g. the recent COVID-19 pandemic, other interruptions to funding) may have on ongoing management campaigns of this ilk. We recommend that media campaigns be explored as a potential tool to reduce the occurrence of the unregulated feeding of wildlife by humans in these sites, thereby promoting better human-wildlife coexistence.Funding provided by: Office of Public Works*Crossref Funder Registry ID: Award Number: Funding provided by: University College DublinCrossref Funder Registry ID: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001631Award Number: Funding provided by: British Deer SocietyCrossref Funder Registry ID: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100009558Award Number: Funding provided by: Mammal Conservation Trust*Crossref Funder Registry ID: Award Number:A key thing to note initially is that this data was collected over 4 key stages based on the management activities currently in action, aiming to reduce human-deer feeding within the site. These stages occurred across 4 years (2018-2021), with each stage representing a summer collection (i.e. June-July) for a consecutive year. These stages included pre-management (Stage 1), introduction of internal controls such as signage, posters, and ranger patrols (Stage 2), interruption of management by Covid-19 (Stage 3), and release of a targeted media campaign across both traditional and social media (Stage 4). All areas of the Park that are open to the public were identified and divided into sectors. As fallow deer are naturally sexually segregated during the summer months, this was performed by splitting the Park into the area utilised by the males (eastern side of the Park) and the area utilised by the females (western side of the Park) as outlined by the Park rangers. Both the male and female areas were then subdivided into four sectors each, of roughly the same size and habitat type, resulting in a final total of eight sectors. A stratified a priori schedule was then made to ensure that all sectors were sampled across all times of the day and days of the week, alternating between starting in a male area and female area sector each morning. This prevented pseudoreplication from occurring due to oversampling the same herds and areas repeatedly. All observation periods were scheduled during peak visiting hours within the Park (i.e. 8:30am to 5pm), when interactions were most likely to occur. If no deer were present in the assigned starting sector, then the sectors were walked systematically until a herd was found. A herd was defined as a group of 2+ individuals within 50m of each other and broadly within view of each other (i.e. they had to be a cooperative unit rather than separate groups that were unaware of each other due to barriers such as hills or thickets). When a herd was located, data collection was initiated. The herd size, the start time of the observation, and the location of the herd (recorded using a Garmin etrex 30 unit) were all immediately documented. Observations of the herd continued until the scheduled end time (which varied daily based on a stratified schedule to ensure that observations encompassed all times of the day on all days of the week for both the male and female sides of the Park) or until the herd diverged or merged with another herd or ran from the area, at which point we terminated the observation and began a new one. The new observation began on either the remaining herd present in that sector, a herd in that sector selected at random (if multiple herds were present), or else, if the sector had been vacated rapidly (i.e. the deer had run out of the sector and out of sight, often due to some disturbance), then the sectors were walked again until a new herd was located. The end time was noted anytime an observation was terminated. Every 15 minutes, the number of people within a 250-metre radius of the edge of the herd was documented. The number of those people that were exercising or walking a dog was also counted and later removed from the total number of people observed in each scan, providing us with a proxy for the number of visitors available to interact with the herd over the course of the observation. Whenever people approached to feed the deer, the number of people who attempted to feed was recorded. The herd location was also taken every 15 minutes. These GPS points were used to calculate a final mean location for each herd; i.e. a single GPS location point for that herd over the total observation period. Observations were non-invasive and conducted under research permit UCD AREC-E-18-28. Observers remained passive, maintained their distance, and did not interact with either the deer or the public. Full collection protocols can be found in Griffin et al. 2022