Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interspecific Cohabitation in Urban Context: Modelling, Diagnostic and Problem-Solving from a Semiotics Perspective

  • Research
  • Published:
Biosemiotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present paper will summarise the methodology, the scientific outcomes, and the potential for generalisation of the model of a project that studied cohabitation between human inhabitants and liminal species (in the present case, corvids) in Tartu, Estonia, from October 2021 to July 2023, with a comparative field study in Paris, France. It will present the context and goals of using a semiotic model to map interspecific cohabitation, expose what kind of data can be used to feed the model in a relevant way and how it was done in the case of this project. This paper will present how the model diagnosed issues in cohabitation, both from material nuisances and cultural aspects, insisting on the concept of “hostile minority” that emerged from the study. It will discuss the importance of problem-solving in interspecific cohabitation, what the model suggested regarding this aspect, how this tool can be generalised to a large variety of cases and why it should be used this way.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

All data related to the project are available in open-access, please visit Tartu University Repository https://datadoi.ee/handle/33/571.

Notes

  1. “These ‘liminal’ animals are not domesticated, but nor are they living independently of humans in the wilderness. […] They exhibit their own distinctive patterns of interaction and interdependence that differ from those of both wilderness and domesticated animals. These liminal animals cannot be dismissed as anomalies.” (p. 63).

  2. An example seen in the pilot study in Paris was the protocols created to keep rats away from activity sectors where inhabitants thought they were creating nuisances (like catering or health structures). In contrast, no protocol was created for activity sectors where inhabitants did not think they were of any nuisance but where they were actively creating costly damages (like car maintenance and insurance sector).

  3. These sets of questions were developed from the results of a previous project (Delahaye, 2021) and then improved after gathering partial results in the current project (Delahaye, 2023b).

  4. If most of the young generation of Estonians can speak English, it is not the case for older people or people outside of the biggest cities. The solution found was to propose two identical versions of the survey, one in English and one in Estonian, to allow non-English speakers to answer. Since it was an online survey, it still left aside more easily the oldest people, and this point could not be solved.

  5. The “pet effect” is the increase of accurate knowledge, positive emotions and positive symbolic values toward a species (all together or not) observed in a human that has or had a representant of this species as a pet (be it a domesticated species or a wild, tamed individual). The “Ratatouille effect” is the same increase but observed at the scale of an entire age group and linked to the exposition of a particularly powerful and widespread narrative, different from the common narrative of the rest of the population.

  6. This was confirmed by the direct observation, during one of the Paris fieldworks, of parents explaining to their kids that the identification bands were a sign that crows were born in captivity and then released, despite the presence in the museum park of signs describing the program of identification and the work of the MNHN team.

  7. Participants could always skip an item if they had no opinion; the answers given here are the number of participants that answered this precise item. Percentages were rounded to the closer integer.

  8. Only 2% of participants chose an emotionally negative ambiguous answer (thinking they are useful but being frightened or disgusted by them), but 7% chose an emotionally positive ambiguous answer (thinking they are pests but not wanting them any harm). No participant in any sample opted for the “radical item” (thinking that corvids are pests and should be exterminated).

  9. Inhabitants can call the team in case of aggression from an individual. Usually, the team will simply find a chick that has fallen from the nest and relocate it to a place where the parents can take care of it without being disturbed, and the aggression stops. In some cases, when an individual is aggressive while defending a nest (usually the male while the female is on the eggs), “shock therapy” has been revealed to be successful. In this intervention, the male is captured with a net gun, a device entirely harmless for birds but imposing. The aggressive individual is kept in a cage for about 72 h, during which it is also checked by a veterinarian to exclude aggression caused by pain and injury. After that period, the individual is set free and observed back at its nest, where no aggression tends to occur during the rest of the nesting season.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is based on a project funded by the Estonian research fund Mobilitas Pluss sissetulev järeldoktoritoetus (MOBJD) under the MOBJD1010 grant.

Funding

The paper is based on a project funded by the Estonian research fund Mobilitas Pluss sissetulev järeldoktoritoetus (MOBJD) under the MOBJD1010 grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Semiotics Department, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

    Pauline Suzanne Delahaye

Authors
  1. Pauline Suzanne Delahaye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PSD was the PI of the project, conducted the study and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pauline Suzanne Delahaye.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Human Ethics and Consent to Participate

Not required. Interviewees were interviewed regarding their expert status. The survey involved no identifying data, no sensitive questions, and no active recruitment and displayed a complete information and consent form at the beginning.

Animal Ethics

Not required. Observations were strictly non-interventional.

Competing Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Delahaye, P.S. Interspecific Cohabitation in Urban Context: Modelling, Diagnostic and Problem-Solving from a Semiotics Perspective. Biosemiotics 17, 211–232 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-024-09555-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-024-09555-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation