In the Republic of Serbia, the brown bear population is currently recovering despite various ongoing challenges such as habitat fragmentation and habitat loss. The presence of bears is important because of their contribution to the ecosystem (e.g., seed dispersal, nutrient cycling, etc.).
On the other hand, the population recovery is often related to increased bear interactions and conflicts in areas where humans and bears share living space, primarily as bears are increasingly utilising resources that are at the same time managed or exploited by humans.
From an ecological perspective, this is an obvious outcome of habitat fragmentation and food availability. From a socio-ecological perspective, it is also about who pays the costs of conservation efforts and who benefits from it. This is why it is crucial to establish effective and just mechanisms that ensure human-bear coexistence.
The most frequent material damages caused by bear depredation are related to agricultural losses (depredation of livestock, destruction of beehives, and damage to crops) and property damages. Small-scale farmers, elderly residents, and economically marginalised households in rural and mountainous regions are often the most vulnerable. Such losses further affect the attitudes, beliefs, and values of local communities toward bears and may even lead to increased retributive behaviours, such as retaliatory killing. In other words, if local communities are expected to coexist with bears without adequate support, voice, or benefits, this becomes an imposed, idealistic or moralistic demand rather than a sustainable solution.
In this case, human-bear conflicts cannot be treated as a failure of the local population to tolerate bears in their surroundings, but a societal faliure to create adequate conditions for coexistence. Moreover, conflicts are sometimes interpreted as an unintended consequence of conservation efforts themselves.
In order to avoid this, we have to develop effective conservation measures that address the socio-economic dimensions of human-bear coexistence together with ecological drivers and adapt interventions to the specific needs of local populations. Nonetheless, there is a lack of empirical research on the socio-economic dimensions of human-bear coexistence in Serbia, which is necessary for designing effective measures. As a response, the Institute for Development and Innovation has conducted a socio-economic analysis of human-bear coexistence in the Republic of Serbia, in cooperation with the Bird Protection and Study Society of Serbia.
Human-bear coexistence is a dynamic but sustainable state in which humans and bears co-adapt to living together in shared spaces.
The data have shown that beehive damage was the most common bear-related issue on private property, and a majority of respondents who reported a bear conflict experienced it indirectly. Annual losses due to bear depredation reported by respondents were most often grouped in the category of 1,000 to 5,000 euros. In terms of technical measures, fencing was the dominant preventive strategy (alarm systems, guard dogs, and hive relocation were far less common).
While nearly half of the respondents applied for compensation and around half of them received full amounts, others obtained partial reimbursements or awaited decisions, indicating the existence of institutional gaps.
Although few had insurance, most would pay higher premiums for better compensation, indicating potential for insurance-based schemes. Lack of information and procedural difficulties exceeded costs as perceived barriers to implementing protective measures.
Among the group which reporded spending money on bear-protection measures, the majority of respondents spent less than 500 euros per year (nearly half reported annual expenditures below 200 euros). Finally, there is a strong reported willingness to adopt no-cost personal adaptation measures and a clear preference for practical preventive solutions like fencing.
Adequate, reliable, exhaustive and tailored compensation schemes, insurance mechanisms, and incentives for mitigating bear-related economic losses are necessary, but they are not sufficient. While it is clear that successful interventions must include mitigating economic loss for the most vulnerable groups, solutions should also integrate community-based co-management approaches that can empower local communities to be involved in monitoring bear activity and designing local conflict mitigation strategies. Most respondents stated that they would join wildlife protection programs with adequate compensation for damages. This way, conservation efforts could bring social benefits that, in turn, further strengthen conservation efforts.
Furthermore, experiences related to economic loss are not the only factors that shape human-bear coexistence. There are also social, cultural, cognitive and emotional factors that play a big role, and we must try to understand them the best we can in order to develop effective solutions for mitigating human-bear conflicts.
In this regard, our data suggest that conservation-oriented values are relatively well embedded among respondents, at least at the level of abstract beliefs and national-scale considerations. For example, the majority of respondents recognised the ecological importance of brown bears and expressed normative support for their presence in Serbia, legal protection, and opposition to bear hunting.
However, this support becomes more nuanced when bears are considered in close proximity to everyday life or when respondents are asked about active management interventions, such as increasing bear numbers. This indicates that conservation support is often context-dependent rather than unconditional, that is, influenced by perceived exposure to bear presence, risk, and lived experience. This indicates the need for strong support on the local level.
Improving institutional trust is critical, which requires demonstrable improvements in the timeliness, effectiveness, comprehensiveness and perceived fairness of conflict management and compensation mechanisms.
Nonetheless, the majority of respondents expressed dissatisfaction with public institutions’ ability to adequately resolve human-bear conflicts and to provide sufficient compensation for damages. Low levels of institutional trust might influence the expressed management preferences of around half of the respondents, such as openness to more restrictive spatial measures and selective lethal control under conditions of continuous bear attacks.
In summary, human–bear coexistence depends not only on technical or ecological measures, but equally on socio-economic and institutional factors. The results of the analysis suggest that strengthening compensation systems, enhancing institutional responsibility, and engaging local populations are as important as technical measures in ensuring socially acceptable, equitable, and sustainable coexistence between humans and bears.
Author: Siniša Borota, sociologist, Institute for Development and Innovation
