Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Aug 16;19(8):e0309017. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309017

COVID-19 could accelerate the decline in recreational hunting: A natural experiment from Northern Italy

Jacopo Cerri 1, Carmela Musto 2, Marco Ferretti 3, Mauro Delogu 2, Sandro Bertolino 4, Adriano Martinoli 5, Francesco Bisi 5,*, Damiano Giovanni Preatoni 5, Clara Tattoni 5, Marco Apollonio 1
Editor: Mattias Gaglio6
PMCID: PMC11329146  PMID: 39150926

Abstract

Although many studies highlighted the potential of COVID-19 to reshape existing models of wildlife management, empirical research on this topic has been scarce, particularly in Europe. We investigated the potential of COVID-19 pandemic to accelerate the ongoing decline in an aging population of recreational hunters in Italy. Namely, we modelled spatiotemporal trends between 2011 and 2021 in the number of recreational hunters in 50 Italian provinces with a varying incidence of COVID-19, and temporally delayed waves of infection. Compared to projections from 2011–2019 data, we detected a lower number of hunters who enrolled for the hunting season, both in 2020 (14 provinces) and in 2021 (15 provinces). The provinces with the highest incidence of COVID-19 in the Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna regions were also those experiencing the most marked decrease in hunting participation. Our findings revealed that a wildlife management system based on recreational hunting can be rapidly destabilized by epidemics and their associated public health measures, particularly when the average age of hunters is high, like in Italy. Considered the high incidence attained by COVID-19 in many European countries, where hunters are pivotal for the management of large ungulates and where they were already declining before the pandemic, our findings call for further large-scale research about the impact of COVID-19 on hunting participation.

Introduction

Between early 2020 and early 2023, Sars-CoV-2 infected over 655 million people globally, leading to more than 6 million official deaths [1] and a much higher excess mortality [2]. Millions of people experienced long-term physical and mental harm and COVID-19 caused temporary global reductions in human mobility [3].

In conservation science, the COVID-19 pandemic was studied from multiple viewpoints [4, 5]. Some studies explored how changes in human mobility affected the ecology (e.g., diet, [6, 7]), demographics [8] and behaviour of wildlife (e.g., movement, [911]). Other research quantified changes in human-nature relationships [12] and explored the potential effects of the pandemic on existing management models for wildlife and ecosystems [13].

Some other studies suggested that the sustained impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on outdoor activities [1416], could potentially result in long-lasting changes in patterns of outdoor recreation [17], including recreational hunting. This consequence is plausible from both demographic and behavioural viewpoints. In facts, COVID-19 resulted into a significant increase in the death rate or health complications among people above 65 years of age [18, 19]. Consequently, the pandemic may have prompted many hunters to prematurely end their hunting career due to health problems, caregiving responsibilities for older relatives, or even higher mortality among older hunters [20, 21]. Moreover, many countries repeatedly enforced restrictions to human mobility, whenever they experienced peaks in SARS-CoV2 incidence and deaths from COVID-19, and some even halted the hunting season (e.g., Portugal [22]). This could have increased the uncertainty of hunters about the upcoming hunting seasons in 2020 and 2021, potentially leading them to not renew their licenses.

While both mechanisms are possible, and despite some research has been conducted about recreational angling [23], empirical research on the impact of COVID-19 on hunting licenses has been limited to two studies, carried out in North America. Namely, Chizinski et al. [24] found a decrease of approximately 90% in permits for non-resident turkey hunters across the US in 2020 compared to the previous three years. Conversely, Danks et al. [25] reported an increase in participation in turkey hunting across the US in 2020, aligning with grey literature that indicated an overall increase in hunting licenses across the US in 2020 and 2021 [26].

Given the critical role that hunters play in the management of wildlife in Europe, the lack of studies in this continent is cause for concern. The monitoring [27, 28], control [29] and epidemiological surveillance [30] of wildlife populations are among the many tasks that hunters are responsible for in many nations.

In this study we investigated the potential of COVID-19 pandemic to accelerate the ongoing decline in recreational hunting, using Italy as a natural experiment. In this country ungulate hunters are responsible of extensive monitoring to gain data necessary to produce management plans and COVID 19 prevented these activities during 2020 and 2021. Northern Italy was the first epicentre of 2020 COVID-19 outbreak in Europe [31] and Italian regions differed in the temporal progression of the pandemic, as well as in the implementation of restrictions on crowding and human mobility [32]. This allowed us to: i) model spatiotemporal trends in the number of recreational hunters (2011–2019) across 50 Italian provinces with varying incidence of SARS-CoV2, and temporally delayed waves of infection, ii) detect discrepancies between the observed and predicted number of hunters in 2020 and 2021 and iii) correlate these discrepancies with spatial differences in the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials and methods

The study area encompassed 50 provinces across the regions of Emilia-Romagna, Friuli Venezia-Giulia, Lombardy, Piedmont, Veneto, and Tuscany in Central and Northern Italy (Fig 1). Overall, these regions housed 28.4 million residents in 2020, accounting for 47.7% of the Italian population.

Fig 1. Map of the study area, representing the 50 provinces, divided between the 6 different regions.

Fig 1

Administrative boundaries were downloaded from the Italian National Institute of Statistics and are subjected to a CCBY 4.0 license (https://www.istat.it/note-legali/).

In Italy, professional hunting does not exist, and hunting is a recreational activity. Wildlife is considered a public property and falls under the ownership of the state. During each hunting season, which typically spans from September to January, hunters are required to pay a tax for hunting license to the Italian government and the region where they reside and then a tax to the hunting area/s (i.e. Ambiti Territoriali di Caccia and Comprensori Alpini) where they hunt. While recreational hunting has focused in the past on small game and migratory passerines [33], there has been a consistent rise in the abundance and exploitation of wild ungulates since the early 2000s [34]. The annual hunting bags for these species are nowadays considerable exceeding 500.000 heads [35].

Over the past four decades, Italy has experienced a considerable long-term decline in recreational hunting. In 1980 there were 1,701,853 hunters, whereas in 2017 the Ministry of the Interior estimated a total of 678,970 hunting licenses. The overall number of hunters in the study area fell by 37.8% in Emilia-Romagna, 29.1% in Friuli Venezia-Giulia, 33.2% in Lombardy, 36.9% in Piedmont, 44.6% in Tuscany, and 29.2% in the Veneto region, between 2004 and 2019. In urbanised areas, this loss was more noticeable [36]. In addition, recreational hunters had been aging. In 2010 the percentage of hunters above 60 years of age was approximately 52% in Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna region [37, 38], and 43% in the Lombardy region [39].

In 2020, the evolution of COVID-19 varied across the five regions in the study area. The initial wave, occurring in spring 2020, predominantly affected Lombardy and parts of the Emilia-Romagna and Piedmont regions, with no significant excess deaths observed in Friuli Venezia-Giulia, Veneto, and Tuscany regions [4042]. The spread of the virus was mitigated by the nationwide implementation of non-pharmaceutical measures [43], from March to May, possibly influenced by the progressive increase in air temperatures [44]. However, a second wave of COVID-19 emerged in autumn 2020, affecting the entire study area, and excess deaths became widespread throughout 2021 [45]. Despite the imposition of various restrictions on human mobility throughout 2020 and 2021, the hunting season was regularly opened in September during both years.

To assess the impact of COVID-19 on hunting participation, we gathered data on the number of hunting licenses issued by each province from 2011 to 2019. Hunting licenses were employed as a proxy for hunting participation, recognizing that some hunters may have renewed their licenses without actively participating in the season. In Italy the hunting season starts in September; consequently, we quantified the number of licenses for the 2020/2021 season (hereinafter “2020”) and the 2021/2022 season (hereinafter “2021”).

We used Bayesian Generalized Linear Models to capture spatiotemporal variations in the number of hunters in the study area. Specifically, we used a negative binomial distribution to model the annual number of hunters in each province. Model selection was based on leave-one-out cross validation, and diagnostic assessment followed the approach outlined by Zuur et al. [46]. Overall, we tried multiple spatio-temporal structures to account for different potential spatiotemporal patterns, as suggested by Blangiardo & Cameletti [47]. Model selection retained a best candidate model where the number of hunters was modelled according to a non-linear random walk term, with a random intercept assigned to each region, to account for differences in the total number of residents across provinces. We also accounted for temporal trends between 2011 and 2019 through a linear term.

Finally, we compared the total number of hunters in each province, during 2020 and 2021, against predicted values from the posterior distribution of our model, trained on 2011–2019 data. We considered anomalies those values that exceeded the boundaries of the 95% credibility interval. Additionally, we compared the number of hunters in 2020 and 2021 against the median value of the posterior distribution, which in Bayesian models represent the most likely predicted value [48]. Regarding the Veneto region, we could only test for anomalies for the 2020/2021 season, because the number of hunting licenses for 2021 was not available at the time of the study.

Statistical models were implemented using INLA [49] and the “inlabru” package in R [50]. A reproducible dataset and software code are available at https://osf.io/j25cr/

Results

Our findings indicate that the number of hunters who enrolled for the hunting season was lower than expected based on the 2011–2019 trend in 14 Italian provinces during 2020 and in 15 provinces in 2021. Anomalous decreases were observed specifically in provinces within the Lombardy, Emilia-Romagna, and Tuscany regions (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Difference between the observed number of hunting licenses and predictions from 2011–2019 data, during the 2020–2021 season (left) and the 2021–2022 season (right).

Fig 2

Anomalies are expressed as the difference between the median value of the posterior distribution, which in Bayesian models represent the most probable value, and observed values. Provinces in grey did not have any anomalous variation. Administrative boundaries were downloaded from the Italian National Institute of Statistics and are subjected to a CCBY 4.0 license (https://www.istat.it/note-legali/).

Lombardy exhibited the most pronounced decrease in both 2020 and 2021. By comparing the observed number of hunters in Lombardy with the median value of the posterior distribution, it was found that there were 3,904 (2,936–4,911, compared to the upper and lower bound of 95% Credibility Interval) fewer hunters in 2021 and 2,720 (1,790–3,688) fewer in 2020. There were 808 fewer hunters in the Emilia-Romagna region in 2020 (255–1,382) and 682 in 2021 (138–1,249). There were 538 fewer hunters in the Tuscany region in 2020 (259–828) and 741 fewer in 2021 (213–1,291), however only two out of ten regions in 2020 and three provinces in 2021 were affected by these anomalies. A complete overview of the decrease in hunters for each province is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Overview of predicted and observed number of hunters in the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 hunting season.

Only provinces with an anomalous decrease are included in the table. Excess mortality was obtained from the Italian National Institute of Statistics [45] and it was represented as the percentage increase from the mean mortality in 2015–2019.

Hunting season: 2020/2021
Province Region Excess mortality compared to 2015–2019 (%) Number licences (observed) Number licences (predicted, most likely) Number licences (predicted, min-max) Anomalous decrease (compared to the median) Anomalous decrease (min-max)
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Milan Lombardy + 32% 5067 5640 5463–5823 573 -10.20% 396–756 -7.20% / -13.00%
Cremona Lombardy + 52% 2879 3386 3278–3498 507 - 5.00% 399–619 -12.20% / -17.70%
Lodi Lombardy + 47% 1176 1660 1578–1746 484 -29.20% 402–570 -25.50% / -32.60%
Bergamo Lombardy + 60% 9061 9530 9236–9835 469 -4.90% 175–774 -1.90% / -7.90%
Pavia Lombardy + 32% 3726 4166 4034–4303 440 -10.60% 308–577 -7.60% / -13.40%
Massa Carrara Tuscany + 16% 1490 1792 1732–1854 302 -16.90% 242–364 -14.00% / -19.60%
Bologna Emilia-Romagna + 13% 4882 5152 4990–5320 270 -5.20% 108–438 -2.20% / -8.20%
Siena Tuscany +1% 6824 7060 6841–7288 236 -3.30% 17–464 -0.20% / -6.40%
Varese Lombardy + 27% 2460 2653 2567–2742 193 -7.30% 107–282 -4.20% / -10.30%
Parma Emilia-Romagna + 31% 3274 3444 3330–3563 170 -4.90% 56–289 -1.70% / -8.10%
Modena Emilia-Romagna + 16% 3496 3659 3543–3780 163 -4.50% 47–284 -1.30% / -7.50%
Reggio Emilia Emilia-Romagna + 15% 2924 3045 2947–3146 121 -4.00% 23–222 -0.80% / -7.10%
Ferrara Emilia-Romagna + 8% 1811 1895 1832–1960 84 -4.40% 21–149 -1.10% / -7.60%
Monza and Brianza Lombardy + 33% 1519 1573 1520–1629 54 -3.40% 2–110 -0.10% / -6.80%
Hunting season: 2021/2022
Province Region Excess mortality compared to 2015–2019 (%) Number licences (observed) Number licences (predicted, most likely) Number licences (predicted, min-max) Anomalous decrease (compared to the median) Anomalous decrease (min-max)
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Milan Lombardy + 8% 4991 5449 5275–5629 458 -8.41% 284–638 -5.38% / -11.33%
Lodi Lombardy + 5% 1147 1604 1524–1688 457 -28.49% 377–541 -24.74% / -32.05%
Cremona Lombardy + 2% 2879 3271 3165–3382 392 -11.98% 286–503 -9.04% / -14.87%
Bergamo Lombardy + 2% 8817 9207 8918–9508 390 -4.24% 101–691 -1.13% / -7.27%
Pavia Lombardy + 5% 3694 4025 3895–4160 331 -8.22% 201–466 -5.16% / -11.20%
Siena Tuscany + 7% 6514 6821 6605–7046 307 -4.50% 91–532 -1.38% / -7.55%
Pisa Tuscany + 7% 7160 7408 7174–7651 248 -3.35% 14–491 -0.20% / -6.42%
Bologna Emilia-Romagna + 9% 4749 4977 4818–5143 228 -4.58% 69–394 -1.43% / -7.66%
Prato Tuscany + 21% 2186 2372 2294–2454 186 -7.84% 108–268 -4.71% / -10.92%
Modena Emilia-Romagna + 9% 3387 3536 3421–3655 149 -4.21% 34–268 -0.99% / -7.33%
Parma Emilia-Romagna + 5% 3205 3328 3215–3445 123 -3.70% 10–240 -0.31% / -6.97%
Reggio Emilia Emilia-Romagna + 7% 2838 2942 2846–3042 104 -3.54% 8–204 -0.28% / -6.71%
Varese Lombardy + 13% 2467 2563 2479–2651 96 -3.75% 12–184 -0.48% / -6.94%
Monza and Brianza Lombardy + 12% 1437 1520 1468–1574 84 -5.53% 31–137 -0.02% / -8.70%
Ferrara Emilia-Romagna + 10% 1752 1830 1769–1895 78 -4.26% 17–143 -0.96% / -7.55%

The province of Milan exhibited the most significant decrease overall (396–756 fewer hunters in 2020 and 284–638 in 2021), followed by Cremona (399–619 fewer hunters in 2020 and 286–503 in 2021), Lodi (402–570 fewer hunters in 2020 and 377–541 in 2021) and Bergamo (175–774 fewer hunters in 2020 and 101–691 in 2021).

According to the Italian National Institute of Statistics, the Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna regions exhibited the highest excess mortality in 2020, compared to the 2015–2019 average [45] and provinces with negative anomalies in hunting licenses concentrated in these areas (Table 1, Fig 3).

Fig 3. Overlap between provinces with an anomalous decrease in hunting licences and excess mortality, for 2020–2021 and 2021–2022.

Fig 3

Anomalies are expressed as the difference between the median value of the posterior distribution, which in Bayesian models represent the most probable value, and observed values. Provinces with anomalous values were highlighted and marked with an asterisk. Excess mortality is represented as the percentage increase from the mean mortality in 2015–2019: for the 2020–2021 hunting season 2020 excess mortality was used, while 2021 excess mortality was used for the 2021/2022 season. Administrative boundaries were downloaded from the Italian National Institute of Statistics and are subjected to a CCBY 4.0 license (https://www.istat.it/note-legali/).

In 2020 the decrease in licences correlated positively with excess mortality (Spearman’s rho = 0.52, panel a of Fig 4); this relationship was negative in 2021 (Spearman’s rho = -0.62, panel a of Fig 4), and the decrease in licences during 2021 correlated positively with 2020 excess mortality (Spearman’s rho = 0.43, panel c of Fig 4).

Fig 4. Relationship between the decrease in hunting licences and excess mortality, in each province: Relationship in 2020–2021 (a), in 2021–2022 (b) and between 2021–2022 licences and 2020 excess mortality (c).

Fig 4

Anomalies are expressed as the difference between the median value of the posterior distribution, which in Bayesian models represent the most probable value, and observed values. To assist the interpretation of the plots the decrease in hunting licences was expressed as an absolute value. Administrative boundaries were downloaded from the Italian National Institute of Statistics and are subjected to a CCBY 4.0 license (https://www.istat.it/note-legali/).

Discussion

Although many studies highlighted the potential of the COVID-19 pandemic to reshape socio-ecological systems [51], the amount of empirical research quantifying its implications on wildlife management models has been relatively limited. Through an examination of regional differences in COVID-19 progression in Northern Italy, we found that areas of the country experiencing the most immediate and pronounced impacts from COVID-19 also exhibited an anomalous decline in the number of hunting licenses in 2020 and 2021. We believe our study holds important implications to understand how wildlife management in Italy and Europe can be impacted by large scale epidemic events, and it calls for further large-scale collaborative research on trends in recreational hunting across Europe.

Our findings revealed that a wildlife management system where recreational hunters are aging, can be rapidly destabilized by epidemics and the associated public health measures. Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna regions exhibited high excess mortality in 2020 compared to the 2015–2019 average [45]. Interestingly, most provinces with negative anomalies in hunting licenses are concentrated in these regions (Fig 3), suggesting a potential decrease in hunting activity related to COVID-19 diffusion, particularly during 2020. We believe this pattern to have resulted from at least four different mechanisms.

On the one hand, since COVID-19 predominantly affected people above 60 years of age [52], older hunters could have died from COVID-19, or from consequence of the lack of health care deriving from it (e.g., from missed diagnoses [53]). The Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna regions were characterized by an impressive number of excess deaths and recoveries in intensive care units, particularly during spring 2020. Consequently, a higher-than-usual number of hunters may have perished from COVID-19 as they were in the most affected demographic segment.

Despite the current estimates of COVID-19 incidence are subject to debate, these areas likely experienced a higher total burden of COVID-19 in terms of incidence [45]. Hunters may have refrained from the hunting season to provide assistance to their relatives [20, 21] or because affected by long-COVID symptoms that could persists for months after the infection [54]. In turn, these two dynamics may have been mutually reinforcing, leading to the rapid dissolution of established social networks within the hunting community: as some hunters died, and others quit hunting, more hunters could have simply not renewed their licenses as their social circle was destroyed. The impact of social circle disruption, and the prohibition of gathering in groups from local health authorities, could have significantly affected forms of hunting, like wild boar drives with hounds [34], where teams must attain a minimum number of participants in order for hunting to take place. Finally, hunters might have ceased hunting due to uncertain about the opening of the hunting season, especially during 2020, as sanitary restrictions caused a confused situation where no firm decision were anticipated. Our data also suggest that these mechanisms were concentrated in time. Those provinces of the Lombardy and Emilia-Romagna regions, with the highest excess mortality in 2020 also had the highest anomalous decrease in hunting licences during the 2021/2022 season (Fig 3). This point is confirmed by considering the association between the reduction of hunting licences and excess mortality. As shown in the results, in 2020 the decrease in licences correlated positively with excess mortality, but this relationship was negative in 2021 and indeed the decrease in licences during 2021 correlated positively with 2020 excess mortality. Therefore, most impacts on hunters, their relatives and social circles, probably occurred during the first wave of COVID-19 in 2020, which made withdrawn people in 2020 and 2021. This dynamic can be considered analogous to the “harvesting effect” of pandemics, which is the compensatory reduction in mortality, which follows a temporary increase in the number of deaths among the most at-risk individuals.

The relative weight of these mechanisms is open to debate. In Italy restrictions, such as the lockdown in spring 2020, were implemented at the national level and therefore, if uncertainty had really played a major role, we should have observed an anomalous decrease across the entire study area. Future studies, carried out through structured questionnaires administered to a representative sample of hunters [55], will be crucial for delving into the ways in which COVID-19 affected the quality of the hunting experience. These investigations will help elucidate how each one of these four mechanisms could have affected the behaviour of hunters. Moreover, future studies should also replicate our analyses with long-term data, whenever these are available from regional offices: it is possible that the observed trends in 2020 and 2021 could have reversed in 2022, with some hunters renewing their hunting licenses.

However, we believe that the anomalies we observed in 2020 and 2021 should raise an alarm regarding the potential long-term consequences of COVID-19 for wildlife management in Italy. In this country, wildlife management relies almost entirely on the voluntary work of hunters, and professional hunting is forbidden by the legal framework (Legislative decree n. 157/1992). Voluntary cooperation from hunters will almost certainly collapse as they withdraw from hunting, a dynamic which COVID-19 will be further accelerated. We believe that updating existing laws to allow for the professionalization of hunting could partially counteract this collapse, by creating a corps of gamekeepers to assist local governments in wildlife management actions. Moreover, it will be necessary to reconsider management praxis to cope with a more aged and limited hunters population that could not afford physically demanding tasks.

Our findings also raise an alarm for those parts of Europe where COVID-19 had a high incidence and mortality since late 2020 [56]. In these areas, where hunters are already declining [57], a further decrease in recreational hunting could undermine the management of wild ungulates, whose populations have expanded [34] and nowadays require intensive culling [58, 59], as well as the integrated management of African Swine Fever [60]. To better understand the severity of this risk it is urgent to create a pan-European dataset about hunting licenses in Europe, to model large-scale trends in recreational hunting. This initiative will be fundamental to navigate potentially rapid changes in existing models of wildlife management and to design policies aimed at minimizing social conflicts related to wildlife.

Acknowledgments

We express our gratitude to the people and the institutions that provided us with access to data on hunters: Alessandra Berto and the Piedmont Region “Settore Conservazione e Gestione Fauna Selvatica e Acquicoltura”, CSI Piemonte, Dario Colombi (Friuli Venezia-Giulia Region), Guido Lavazza and Stefano Omizzolo of the Veneto Region and the staff of the “Territorial Services for Agriculture, Hunting and Fishing” (STACP is the Italian acronym) of the Emilia-Romagna Region.

Data Availability

A reproducible dataset and software code are available at https://osf.io/j25cr/.

Funding Statement

The co-author Carmela Musto was partially supported by a research grant funded by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) [10.47379/ESR20009], the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.WHO—World Health Organization. COVID-19 Epidemiological Update—29 September 2023. 2023. https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/covid-19-epidemiological-update—29-september-2023
  • 2.Wang H, Paulson KR, Pease SA, Watson S, Comfort H, Zheng P. Estimating excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic analysis of COVID-19-related mortality, 2020–21. The Lancet. 2022;399(10334):1513–1536. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02796-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bates AE, Primack RB, Moraga P, Duarte CM. COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdown as a “Global Human Confinement Experiment” to investigate biodiversity conservation. Biological conservation. 2020; 248:108665. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108665 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bates AE, Primack RB, Biggar BS, Bird TJ, Clinton ME, Command RJ, et al. Global COVID-19 lockdown highlights humans as both threats and custodians of the environment. Biological conservation. 2021; 263, 109175. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109175 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gibbons DW, Sandbrook C, Sutherland W J, Akter R, Bradbury R, Broad S,et al. The relative importance of COVID‐19 pandemic impacts on biodiversity conservation globally. Conservation Biology. 2021; 36(1): e13781. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13781 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gilby BL, Henderson C J, Olds AD, Ballantyne JA, Bingham EL, Elliott BB, et al. Potentially negative ecological consequences of animal redistribution on beaches during COVID-19 lockdown. Biological Conservation. 2021; 253:108926. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108926 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Vez-Garzón M, Giménez J, Sánchez-Márquez A, Montalvo T, Navarro J. Changes in the feeding ecology of an opportunistic predator inhabiting urban environments in response to COVID-19 lockdown. Royal Society Open Science. 2023;10(4):221639. doi: 10.1098/rsos.221639 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Costa L Lopes, Machado PM, de Moura Barboza CA, Soares-Gomes A, Zalmon IR. Recovery of ghost crabs metapopulations on urban beaches during the Covid-19 “anthropause”. Marine Environmental Research. 2022;180,105733. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2022.105733 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Corradini A, Peters W, Pedrotti L, Hebblewhite M, Bragalanti N. Tattoni C, et al. Animal movements occurring during COVID-19 lockdown were predicted by connectivity models. Global Ecology and Conservation. 2021:32, e01895. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01895 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Schrimpf MB, Des Brisay PG, Johnston A, Smith AC, Sánchez-Jasso J, Robinson BG. Reduced human activity during COVID-19 alters avian land use across North America. Science Advances. 2021;7(39): eabf5073. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abf5073 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tucker MA, Schipper AM, Adams TS, Attias N, Avgar T, Babic NL. Behavioral responses of terrestrial mammals to COVID-19 lockdowns. Science. 2023;380(6649):1059–1064. doi: 10.1126/science.abo6499 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Soga M, Evans MJ, Cox DT, Gaston KJ. Impacts of the COVID‐19 pandemic on human–nature interactions: Pathways, evidence and implications. People and Nature. 2021;3(3):518–527. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10201 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lindsey P, Allan J, Brehony P, Dickman A, Robson A, Begg C, et al. Conserving Africa’s wildlife and wildlands through the COVID-19 crisis and beyond. Nature ecology & evolution. 2020;4(10):1300–1310. doi: 10.1038/s41559-020-1275-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Schweizer A M, Leiderer A, Mitterwallner V, Walentowitz A, Mathes GH, Steinbauer MJ. Outdoor cycling activity affected by COVID-19 related epidemic-control-decisions. Plos one. 2021;16(5):e0249268. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249268 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Venter ZS, Barton DN, Gundersen V, Figari H, Nowell MS. Back to nature: Norwegians sustain increased recreational use of urban green space months after the COVID-19 outbreak. Landscape and urban planning. 2021;214:104175. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104175 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hansen AS, Beery T, Fredman P, Wolf-Watz D. Outdoor recreation in Sweden during and after the Covid-19 pandemic–management and policy implications. Journal of environmental planning and management. 2023: 66(7):1472–1493. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2022.2029736 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pröbstl-Haider U, Gugerell K, Maruthaveeran S. Covid-19 and outdoor recreation–Lessons learned? Introduction to the special issue on “Outdoor recreation and Covid-19: Its effects on people, parks and landscapes”. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism. 2023;41:100583. doi: 10.1016/j.jort.2022.100583 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Yanez ND, Weiss NS, Romand JA, Treggiari MM. COVID-19 mortality risk for older men and women. BMC public health. 2020; 20(1):1–7. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09826-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Sorensen RJD, Barber RM, Pigott DM, Carter A, Spencer CN, Ostroff SM. Variation in the COVID-19 infection-fatality ratio by age, time, and geography during the pre-vaccine era: A systematic analysis. The Lancet. 2022; 399(10334): 1469–1488. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02867-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Fusar‐Poli L, Surace T, Meo V, Patania F, Avanzato C, Pulvirenti A, et al. Psychological well‐being and family distress of Italian caregivers during the COVID‐19 outbreak. Journal of Community Psychology. 2021; 50(5):2243–2259. doi: 10.1002/jcop.22772 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Messina A, Lattanzi M, Albanese E, Fiordelli M. Caregivers of people with dementia and mental health during COVID-19: findings from a cross-sectional study. BMC geriatrics. 2022;22(1):56. doi: 10.1186/s12877-022-02752-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Garcia F, da Silva A A, Freitas H, Sousa JP, Alves J. The effect of COVID-19 confinement on the activity behaviour of red deer. Global Ecology and Conservation. 2023; 45:e02525. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02525 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Britton JR, Pinder AC, Alós J, Arlinghaus R, Danylchuk AJ, Edwards W, et al. Global responses to the COVID-19 pandemic by recreational anglers: considerations for developing more resilient and sustainable fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. 2023; 33:1095–1111. doi: 10.1007/s11160-023-09784-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Chizinski CJ, Gruntorad MP, Lusk JJ, Meduna LR, Inselman WM, Fontaine J J. The influence of the COVID‐19 pandemic on spring turkey hunting. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 2022; 86(3), e22202. doi: 10.1002/jwmg.22202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Danks ZD, Schiavone MV, Butler AB, Fricke K, Davis A, Cobb DT. Effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic on 2020 spring turkey hunting across the United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 2022; 46(2):e1294. doi: 10.1002/wsb.1294 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.CAHSS—Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports. Hunting licence sales 2020–2021. 2021. https://fishwildlife.org/mscgp/application/files/2016/8691/8549/MicroSite_F22AP00350_2021_CAHSS_LIC_Report_Digital.pdf
  • 27.Cretois B, Linnell JD, Grainger M, Nilsen EB, Rød JK. Hunters as citizen scientists: Contributions to biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Global Ecology and Conservation. 2020; 23, e01077. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01077 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pokorny B, Cerri J, Bužan E. Wildlife roadkill and COVID‐19: A biologically significant, but heterogeneous, reduction. Journal of Applied Ecology. 2022;59(5): 1291–1301. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.14140 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gortázar C, Fernandez-de-Simon J. One tool in the box: the role of hunters in mitigating the damages associated to abundant wildlife. European Journal of Wildlife Research. 2022; 68(3):28. doi: 10.1007/s10344-022-01578-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Cardoso B, García-Bocanegra I, Acevedo P, Cáceres G, Alves PC, Gortázar C. Stepping up from wildlife disease surveillance to integrated wildlife monitoring in Europe. Research in Veterinary Science. 2022; 144:149–156. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2021.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Remuzzi A, Remuzzi G. COVID-19 and Italy: what next?. The lancet. 2020;395(10231):1225–1228. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30627-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Pelagatti M, Maranzano P. Assessing the effectiveness of the Italian risk-zones policy during the second wave of COVID-19. Health Policy. 2021;125(9):1188–1199. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2021.07.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sharp R, Wollscheid KU. An overview of recreational hunting in North America, Europe and Australia. In: Dickson B., Hutton J., & Adams W. A. eds. Recreational hunting, conservation and rural livelihoods: science and practice. 2009; p. 25–38. doi: 10.1002/9781444303179.ch2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Apollonio M, Andersen R, Putman R, editors. European ungulates and their management in the 21st century. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.ENETWILD‐consortium, Illanas S, Croft S, Smith GC, López‐Padilla S, Vicente J, et al. New models for wild ungulates occurrence and hunting yield abundance at European scale. EFSA Supporting Publications. 2022; 19(10): 7631E. doi: 10.2903/sp.efsa.2022.EN-7631 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Cerri J, Ferretti M, Coli L. Where the wild things are: urbanization and income affect hunting participation in Tuscany, at the landscape scale. European journal of wildlife research. 2018; 64, 1–9. doi: 10.1007/s10344-018-1183-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Regione Toscana. Piano Regionale Agricolo Forestale 2012–2015. 2012. https://www.regione.toscana.it/documents/10180/71336/PRAF/63dd2550-00e3-4002-b98e-b7bf126e5d4c
  • 38.Regione Emilia-Romagna. Piano Faunistico Venatorio Regionale 2018–2023. 2018. https://agricoltura.regione.emilia-romagna.it/caccia/temi/normativa/indirizzi-pianificazione/piano-faunistico-2018/piano-faunistico-venatorio-regionale-2018-2023
  • 39.Regione Lombardia. Piano Faunistico Venatorio Regionale. 2022. https://www.regione.lombardia.it/wps/portal/istituzionale/HP/DettaglioRedazionale/servizi-e-informazioni/cittadini/agricoltura/fauna-selvatica-e-caccia/piano-faunistico-venatorio-regionale/piano-faunistico-venatorio-regionale
  • 40.Blangiardo M, Cameletti M, Pirani M, Corsetti G, Battaglini M, Baio G. Estimating weekly excess mortality at sub-national level in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic. PloS one. 2020;15(10), e0240286. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240286 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Henry NJ, Elagali A, Nguyen M, Chipeta MG, Moore CE. Variation in excess all-cause mortality by age, sex, and province during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. Scientific reports. 2022;12(1): 1077. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-04993-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Konstantinoudis G, Cameletti M, Gómez-Rubio V, Gómez IL, Pirani M, Baio G, et al. Regional excess mortality during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic in five European countries. Nature communications. 2022;13(1): 482. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28157-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bezzini D, Schiavetti I, Manacorda T, Franzone G, Battaglia MA. First wave of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: data and evidence. In: Asea A.A.A., Kaur P. (eds) Coronavirus Therapeutics–Volume II. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, vol 1353. Springer, Cham; 2021. p. 91–113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Balboni E, Filippini T, Rothman K J, Costanzini S, Bellino S, Pezzotti P, et al. The influence of meteorological factors on COVID-19 spread in Italy during the first and second wave. Environmental Research. 2023; 228:115796. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.115796 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.ISTAT Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. Impatto dell’epidemia COVID-19 sulla mortalità totale della popolazione residente. Anni 2020–2021 e gennaio 2022. https://www.istat.it/it/files//2022/03/Report_ISS_ISTAT_2022_tab3.pdf
  • 46.Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Saveliev AA. Spatial, temporal and spatial-temporal ecological data analysis with R-INLA. Newburgh: Highland Statistics Ltd; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Blangiardo M, Cameletti M. Spatial and spatio-temporal Bayesian models with R-INLA. John Wiley & Sons. 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kruschke JK, Liddell TM. The Bayesian New Statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective. Psychonomic bulletin & review. 2018;25:178–206. doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1221-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Lindgren F, Rue H. Bayesian spatial modelling with R-INLA. Journal of statistical software. 2015; 63(19): 1–25. doi: 10.18637/jss.v063.i19 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Bachl FE, Lindgren F, Borchers DL, Illian JB. inlabru: an R package for Bayesian spatial modelling from ecological survey data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution. 2019; 10(6):760–766. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13168 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Kadykalo AN, Beaudoin C, Hackenburg DM, Young N, Cooke SJ. Social–ecological systems approaches are essential for understanding and responding to the complex impacts of COVID-19 on people and the environment. PLOS Sustainability and Transformation.2022;1(4):e0000006. doi: 10.1371/journal.pstr.0000006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Mannucci PM, Galbussera AA, D’Avanzo B, Tettamanti M, Remuzzi G, Fortino I. Two years of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and COVID-19 in Lombardy, Italy. Internal and Emergency Medicine. 2023;18(5):1445–1451. doi: 10.1007/s11739-023-03315-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Angelini M, Teglia F, Astolfi L, Casolari G, Boffetta P. Decrease of cancer diagnosis during COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Epidemiology. 2023; 38:31–38. doi: 10.1007/s10654-022-00946-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Davis HE, Assaf GS, McCorkell L, Wei H, Low RJ, Re’em Y, et al. Characterizing long COVID in an international cohort: 7 months of symptoms and their impact. EClinicalMedicine. 2021; 38:101019. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Vaske JJ. Survey research and analysis. 2nd ed. Urbana, IL: Sagamore-Venture; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Dijkstra L. The regional impact of COVID.19. From the 8th Cohesion Report. 2022. https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/stories/s/The-regional-impact-of-COVID-19/24gj-n8r2/
  • 57.Massei G, Kindberg J, Licoppe A, Gačić D, Šprem N, Kamler J. et al. Wild boar populations up, numbers of hunters down? A review of trends and implications for Europe. Pest management science. 2015;71(4): 492–500. doi: 10.1002/ps.3965 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Valente AM, Acevedo P, Figueiredo AM, Fonseca C, Torres RT. Overabundant wild ungulate populations in Europe: management with consideration of socio‐ecological consequences. Mammal Review. 2020;50(4):353–366 [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Carpio AJ, Apollonio M, Acevedo P. Wild ungulate overabundance in Europe: contexts, causes, monitoring and management recommendations. Mammal Review. 2021; 51(1), 95–108. doi: 10.1111/mam.12221 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.EFSA—Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), More S, Miranda MA, Bicout D, Bøtner A, Butterworth A, et al. African swine fever in wild boar. EFSA Journal. 2018; 16(7):e05344. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5344 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mattias Gaglio

28 Jun 2024

PONE-D-24-18605COVID-19 could accelerate the decline in recreational hunting: a natural experiment from Northern ItalyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bisi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 12 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mattias Gaglio, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The co-author Carmela Musto was partially supported by a research grant funded by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) [10.47379/ESR20009]."  

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that Figures 1 and 2 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper addresses the impacts of COVID-19 on the number of hunting licences in selected regions of Italy over approximately a decade. The text is very well written and the conclusions are straightforward. The authors demonstrate a large and immediate decrease of hunting licences upon the emergence of COVID-19. The article complies with the seven criteria used by PLoS ONE for a publication to be accepted.

Major comments:

Objective iii) has not been addressed explicitly in this paper. It should be straightforward to add one predictor to the model describing the intensity of the COVID-19 epidemic at a province level, and support the claims in lines 168-171.

The large albeit heterogeneous reduction of the number of hunting licences after onset of COVID-19 begs the question of what happened with the relative abundance of ungulate species targeted by recreational hunting in these provinces. Is there any indication that ungulate numbers went up?

Minor comments:

lines 196-198: I don't fully understand the meaning of this sentence. Typos?

Reviewer #2: This paper assesses the decline in hunting (licenses) in relation to the COVID-epidemic in Italy. The author note a decline in hunting, while it is the most important tool in ungulate monitoring and management in Italy. They indicate a concern how epidemics can reduce hunting, and call for further research on the topic in Europe (and beyond). This is an important topic to raise, as research on it has been limited. The writing, analysis and conclusions are sound and important, and therefore I would advise to accept this manuscript, with almost no additional changes needed. Underneath I mark a small amount of minor comments.

While the work shows a decline in hunting in relation to the COVID-lockdown, the statistical methods did not link the impacts of covid directly to the decline in hunting. L169-171 + 176-178: Would there be a (statistical) way to link the impacts of covid (e.g. death rate) to the observed hunter declines?

The paper is very well written and concise. I did not detect spelling or grammatical errors and the writing is very much to the point.

L175: ‘… where hunters are aging…’ : Are your results only relevant for aging populations of hunters? I don’t think this can be deducted from the data. But I agree with the suggested mechanisms.

L208-216: I agree that hunting may have picked up (hunters renewing their licenses) after the epidemic. I think the paper shows that hunting declines during an epidemic, but there is no reason to assume that this does not pick up again afterwards (unless due to death of hunters in an aging population), as many other human activities have been shown to do. However, I do agree with the increased need/role of hunters in managing ungulate populations. Perhaps indicating that hunting should be professionalized? I agree with the message for further research.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Bjorn Mols

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Aug 16;19(8):e0309017. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309017.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Jul 2024

Rebuttal letter

PONE-D-24-18605: “COVID-19 could accelerate the decline in recreational hunting: a natural experiment from Northern Italy”

Dear Editor,

please find all the responses in the following letter

################################################################################

#Editor’s comments

################################################################################

Comment: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62 PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Reply: we followed the published guidelines

Comment: Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "The co-author Carmela Musto was partially supported by a research grant funded by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) [10.47379/ESR20009]." Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Reply: we modified the financial disclosure as you suggested and we reported the new sentence in the Cover Letter. "The co-author Carmela Musto was partially supported by a research grant funded by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) [10.47379/ESR20009], the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

Comment: We note that Figures 1 and 2 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

• USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

• The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

• Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

• NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

• Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

• USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

• Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Reply: we used polygons from the Italian National Institute of Statistics, which are covered by a CCBY 4.0 license. We now specified this in the caption of each figure.

Comment: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reply: we reviewed the reference list and no changes have been made

################################################################################

Review Comments to the Author - Reviewer #1:

################################################################################

Comment: This paper addresses the impacts of COVID-19 on the number of hunting licences in selected regions of Italy over approximately a decade. The text is very well written and the conclusions are straightforward. The authors demonstrate a large and immediate decrease of hunting licences upon the emergence of COVID-19. The article complies with the seven criteria used by PLoS ONE for a publication to be accepted.

Reply: Thanks for appreciating our study, we addressed each one of your comments in detail.

Comment: Objective iii) has not been addressed explicitly in this paper. It should be straightforward to add one predictor to the model describing the intensity of the COVID-19 epidemic at a province level, and support the claims in lines 168-171.

Reply: we agree with your suggestion. Now we explored the association between anomalous variations in hunting licences during 2020 and 2021, and the associated excess mortality in each year. We downloaded excess mortality estimates from the Italian National Institute of Statistics (https://www.istat.it/it/files//2022/03/Report_ISS_ISTAT_2022_tab3.pdf) and plotted them on a map. Moreover, we used Spearman’s correlation to test for the association between anomalies in hunting licences and excess mortality in 2020, 2021 and between 2021 licences and 2020 mortality. This analysis tested for hypothesis iii) and also revealed the probable occurrence of the “harvesting effect”, with most impacts on hunters having occurred in 2020 and preventing further decrease in 2021. Please see lines 180 – 183 and Figure 4 and additional comments in the discussion chapter.

Comment: The large albeit heterogeneous reduction of the number of hunting licences after onset of COVID-19 begs the question of what happened with the relative abundance of ungulate species targeted by recreational hunting in these provinces. Is there any indication that ungulate numbers went up?

Reply: unfortunately, we do not possess enough information to answer this question, which would be absolutely fascinating. In the study area, wild ungulate populations are estimated with methods and sampling schemes that differ between the various regions. Therefore, even in the pre-pandemic period was already hard to compare region-level estimates. This problem was exhacerbated by the fact that in 2020, regional offices often suspended large-scale population monitoring, due to the difficulty in engaging voluntary hunters, while complying with sanitary restrictions. Also neither roadkill data, nor hunting bags are an option: in the study area there is no systematic collection of roadkill (https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14140) and the interpretation of hunting bags, across short temporal scales, relies on adjusting them for hunting effort. Which is impossible to quantify as regions do not collect effort measures from hunters. Finally, it is worth mentioning that any future interpretation of post-COVID19 trends for the wild boar might be influenced by the current epidemic of African Swine Fever, that started in January 2022 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Ftbed.14584).

Comment: lines 196-198: I don't fully understand the meaning of this sentence. Typos?

Reply: we now rephrased this sentence, please see lines 266-269.

################################################################################

Review Comments to the Author - Reviewer #2

################################################################################

Comment: This paper assesses the decline in hunting (licenses) in relation to the COVID-epidemic in Italy. The author note a decline in hunting, while it is the most important tool in ungulate monitoring and management in Italy. They indicate a concern how epidemics can reduce hunting, and call for further research on the topic in Europe (and beyond). This is an important topic to raise, as research on it has been limited. The writing, analysis and conclusions are sound and important, and therefore I would advise to accept this manuscript, with almost no additional changes needed. Underneath I mark a small amount of minor comments.

Reply: thanks for your appreciation. We addressed each one of your comments in detail.

Comment: While the work shows a decline in hunting in relation to the COVID-lockdown, the statistical methods did not link the impacts of covid directly to the decline in hunting. L169-171 + 176-178: Would there be a (statistical) way to link the impacts of covid (e.g. death rate) to the observed hunter declines?

Reply: we now explored the association between excess deaths in 2020 and 2021 and the decrease in hunting licences among provinces. We downloaded excess mortality estimates from the Italian National Institute of Statistics (https://www.istat.it/it/files//2022/03/Report_ISS_ISTAT_2022_tab3.pdf) and plotted them on a map. Moreover, we used Spearman’s correlation to test for the association between anomalies in hunting licences and excess mortality in 2020, 2021 and between 2021 licences and 2020 mortality. This analysis tested for hypothesis iii) and also revealed the probable occurrence of the “harvesting effect”, with most impacts on hunters having occurred in 2020 and preventing further decrease in 2021. Please see lines 180 – 183 and Figure 4 and additional comments in the discussion chapter.

Comment: The paper is very well written and concise. I did not detect spelling or grammatical errors and the writing is very much to the point.

Reply: thanks.

Comment: L175: ‘… where hunters are aging…’ : Are your results only relevant for aging populations of hunters? I don’t think this can be deducted from the data. But I agree with the suggested mechanisms.

Reply: It cannot be deducted from our data, but we explained in the “Materials and methods” that most hunters in the study area are older than 60 years of age (see lines 99-101).

Comment: L208-216: I agree that hunting may have picked up (hunters renewing their licenses) after the epidemic. I think the paper shows that hunting declines during an epidemic, but there is no reason to assume that this does not pick up again afterwards (unless due to death of hunters in an aging population), as many other human activities have been shown to do. However, I do agree with the increased need/role of hunters in managing ungulate populations. Perhaps indicating that hunting should be professionalized? I agree with the message for further research.

Reply: Even though the current legal framework in Italy does not allow for professional hunting, we now included your recommendation in the manuscript. We agree with it, as hunting will almost certainly keep declining in the near future, and the current wildlife management model, that relies entirely on volunteering, is unsustainable. Alternatives are needed and the professionalization of hunting might be one of that. Please see lines 255 - 264.

Comment: 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Reply: Yes, we would like to have the peer review history of our article published.

Comment: While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Reply: we used PACE software to check and fix figures.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter_PONE-D-24-18605.docx

pone.0309017.s001.docx (23.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Mattias Gaglio

5 Aug 2024

COVID-19 could accelerate the decline in recreational hunting: a natural experiment from Northern Italy

PONE-D-24-18605R1

Dear Dr. Bisi,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mattias Gaglio, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All revisions requested have been addressed properly, and the paper is in good shape for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Mattias Gaglio

8 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-18605R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bisi,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mattias Gaglio

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter_PONE-D-24-18605.docx

    pone.0309017.s001.docx (23.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    A reproducible dataset and software code are available at https://osf.io/j25cr/.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES