Addressing inequality and intolerance in human-wildlife coexistence

Association between attitudes toward wildlife and patterns of risk of human-wildlife conflict near Giant Panda National Park

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is an escalating humanitarian issue and a conservation concern. In terms of protection and management, areas at high risk of HWC are not necessarily afforded the same resources as areas prioritized for protection. To improve allocation of limited protection resources and HWC mitigation efficiency, we determined management priorities based on HWC risk and people's attitudes toward wildlife around the Giant Panda National Park. We constructed an ensemble species distribution model with 1959 species' distribution loci and 337 conflict event records. This model was used to simulate the spatial distribution patterns of HWC risk and to evaluate the influence of diverse environmental factors. A survey of people's attitudes toward wildlife was conducted in 155 villages around the Giant Panda National Park. Priority areas for HWC management were concentrated near protected areas, where wildlife habitats and populations were recovering and expanding. We obtained 947 questionnaires, which showed that some residents were highly aware of conservation and had a high tolerance for wildlife, even when they were living in areas at high risk of HWC. However, people who had encountered conflicts with wild boar were more likely to have negative attitudes toward other wildlife, even giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Thus, HWC may lead to the generalization of negative attitudes toward wildlife conservation. In our study area, environmental (e.g., building fences and changing crop types) and social measures (e.g., insurance and ecocompensation) have been implemented to mitigate HWC. Our results can provide an important basis for the allocation of compensation resources and improvement of HWC management in areas of high conservation priority. Future studies should further explore how to develop more personalized HWC management plans based on the characteristics of different regions.

Broadening the spectrum of conflict and coexistence: A case study example of human-wolf interactions in British Columbia, Canada

Coexistence has seen an explosive rise within conservation social science scholarship. While this represents an exciting shift in the field, many academics are still skeptical. Some scholars have expressed concerns around the omission of "conflict", naïveté, and impracticality associated with coexistence literature. In this paper, we aim to demonstrate that critiques of coexistence often stem from reductionism and decontextualization, process inefficiencies and/or inequities, failure to address and prioritize human well-being as a goal, and a lack of tools to foster open, collaborative dialogue. We draw on a case study of human-wolf interactions in the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve Region, British Columbia, Canada, to illustrate how coexistence efforts can, and should, prioritize "conflict", be attentive to the real challenges of sharing spaces with wildlife, and encourage collaborative, inclusive processes that work toward tangible, actionable outcomes. We conducted 32 semi-structured interviews with residents from diverse backgrounds and levels of experience with wolves in the region. From these interviews, we articulated novel, co-developed, contextual definitions of human-wolf conflict and coexistence in the region. We then developed a collaborative tool for visualizing behavioral and cognitive elements of human-wildlife interactions through open and inclusive dialogue, using real examples from these research interviews. The research findings highlight three main principles: (1) that conflict and coexistence are contextual and should be understood as such, (2) that coexistence requires collaborative processes that pay attention to equity and inclusivity, and (3) that there are frameworks or tools that can help facilitate discussions toward practical outcomes of coexistence projects. We believe that this paper helps to disambiguate coexistence and reinforce that coexistence requires focused attention to the well-being of people as much as wildlife.

Creating constellations of coexistence through connections between people in human-wildlife conflict areas

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is a critical challenge to human development and well-being and threatens biodiversity conservation. Ideally, HWC mitigation should benefit both wildlife and communities and limit the costs associated with living alongside wildlife. However, place- and context-dependent realizations of conflict are often overlooked in HWC mitigation. Social and systemic dimensions of human-wildlife relationships often receive limited consideration in HWC as a concept and in mitigation strategies implemented globally. In recognizing our collective symmetries as a diverse group of researchers, we pose the idea of constellations of coexistence, based on Atallah et al.'s "constellation of co-resistance." Building on literature and our interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral experiences of working with diverse species inhabiting different sociocultural, sociopolitical, and socioeconomic landscapes, we considered evidence of cultural nuances (e.g., sociocultural dimensions of human-elephant and human-lion interactions in East Africa and India) in HWC mitigation and argue that failing to incorporate them in mainstream practices poses a myriad of ethical and practical consequences. Locally situated but globally relevant, participation of local and Indigenous communities in HWC mitigation activities produces better conservation outcomes. Centering communities in the ideation, implementation, and evaluation of HWC mitigation promotes more equitable and sustainable management strategies for long-term human-wildlife coexistence.

Transparency and adaptability aid in realigning the complexity of objectives, approaches, and systems in human-wildlife coexistence research

Human-wildlife interactions are situated within dynamic systems, characterized by social and ecological complexity. Human-wildlife coexistence research, however, typically focuses on one component of these systems in isolation. We inadvertently followed this norm while carrying out semi-structured interviews of livestock-owners in Northern Tanzania. As existing literature highlighted that this area was a hotspot for livestock depredation, our research questions focused on human interactions with carnivores. Interestingly, almost three quarters (72%, n = 72 of 100) of study participants independently raised African elephants (Loxodonta africana) as presenting the greatest impediments to coexistence. By centering our interviews on carnivores, we omitted vital components of this complex system. To counteract the effects of this oversimplification, we changed our intended analytical process after data collection. Instead of conducting a quantitative analysis of rates of livestock depredation and perceptions of risk posed by a suite of sympatric carnivores, we applied a grounded theory approach to assess interactions across multiple dimensions of this complex system. Through this transparent effort to realign our approaches with the complexity of the study system, we highlight the importance of designing research approaches that effectively reflect the complexities inherent to human-wildlife coexistence.

The importance of equity in payments to encourage coexistence with large mammals

Large mammals often impose significant costs such as livestock depredation or crop foraging on rural communities, and this can lead to the retaliatory killing of threatened wildlife populations. One conservation approach-payments to encourage coexistence (PEC)-aims to reduce these costs through financial mechanisms, such as compensation, insurance, revenue sharing, and conservation performance payments. Little is known about the equitability of PEC, however, despite its moral and instrumental importance, prevalence as a conservation approach, and the fact that other financial tools for conservation are often inequitable. We used examples from the literature to examine the capability of PEC-as currently perceived and implemented-to be inequitable. We recommend improving the equitability of current and future schemes through the cooperative design of schemes that promote compensatory equity and greater consideration of conservation performance payments and by changing the international model for funding PEC to reduce global coexistence inequalities. New and existing programs must address issues of equitability across scales to ensure that conservation efforts are not undermined by diminished social legitimacy.

A critical assessment of a protected area conflict analysis based on secondary data in the age of datafication

Recently, a global trend towards a broader use of secondary data in social sciences has been reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic. This evoked doubts about the validity of the results unless restrictive assessment procedures are implemented. To address this need in the field of protected area (PA) conflict analysis, we propose a three-fold approach (theory-, method-, and cross-scale simulation-driven) to assess the usefulness of the utilized state register dataset and the indicator analysis methodology for the multi-level recognition of PA conflict determinants. With the ultimate aim to inform case study selection, we processed 187 relevant indicators from the official Statistics Poland register for a Lesser Poland region. We distinguished five types of PA conflict determinants in Lesser Poland ('urbanity', 'agriculture', 'tourism', 'small-scale entrepreneurship', and 'sprawl') and respective groups of 15 clusters comprising local-level units. For one cluster, we juxtaposed the obtained results with secondary data from another source (Internet content) and for a specific PA (Tatra National Park). Although the reported conflict issues corresponded to the indicator-derived descriptors of the cluster, in the theory-driven phase of the assessment, the state register failed to address the key prerequisites of PA conflicts. We have demonstrated that, in crisis conditions such as COVID-19, the proposed method can serve as a proxy for a multi-level recognition of PA conflict potentials, provided that it synthesises the results of different methodological approaches, followed by in-person interviews in the selected case studies.

The wolf (canis lupus) as a symbol of an urban-rural divide? Results from a media discourse analysis on the human-wolf conflict in Germany

Given that wolves have been extinct in Germany for approximately 150 years, their return and growing population over the last decade has caused intense discussion and conflict. To develop a widely accepted and just coexistence between humans and wolves, a comprehensive understanding of the conflict is needed. There are indications that the conflict goes beyond dealing with the wolf population and marks a spatial-cultural divide between urban and rural areas. Nevertheless, the social dimensions of the human-wolf conflict in Germany have been little studied. The aim of this paper is to narrow this gap by means of a media discourse analysis including reader comments in order to provide insights into the constituent elements of this conflict. We conducted a qualitative content analysis. The sample comprises articles (n = 63) and reader comments (n = 515) over a period of one year (5/2018-5/2019) from six online periodicals in Germany. The results support the assumption of an urban-rural divide in terms of perspectives and values. The discourse indicates that rural actors who are most affected by the wolves' vicinity have more negative attitudes towards them. At the same time, they feel abandoned and dominated by urban perspectives and politics. In addition, linkages to right-wing populist positions and conspiracy narratives that can be interpreted as a consequence of political alienation are found.

Assessing the spatial-temporal patterns of conflicts between humans and Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus) around the Gaoligongshan Nature Reserve, China

Conflicts between humans and Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus) are widespread in Asia and pose challenges to human-bear coexistence. Identifying effective mitigation measures requires a thorough understanding of human-bear conflicts (HBC). We assessed spatial-temporal patterns of HBC and their impact factors around the Baoshan Section of the Gaoligongshan Nature Reserve (GNNR) between 2012 and 2020. The results suggested that crop raiding by bears occurred most commonly, followed by beehive loss, livestock depredation, and human casualties. HBC hotspots occurred near the protected area where local people frequently encountered bears. The landscapes with lower elevation and human density were at higher risk of HBC. Furthermore, villages with more fragmented forests or less fragmented croplands were more vulnerable to HBC. The differences in agricultural structures contributed to the diverse composition of HBC between the two regions. In addition, crop raiding by bears decreased significantly, probably due to the changing landscape composition and configuration derived from human behaviors, yet livestock depredation and beehive loss increased. Our findings indicated the complex interrelationship between the environment, bears, and humans, which could guide the implementation of mitigation measures. We recommend multiple approaches based on a social-ecological system to mitigate HBC.

Factors associated with human tolerance of snakes in the southeastern United States

Conservation of snakes is influenced by humans’ beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors toward these often-maligned animals. We investigated public attitudes toward snakes through an online survey of undergraduate students (n = 743) at a large public university in a southeastern U.S. state. We used behavioral intent (i.e., how a person would react if they encountered a snake) to assess tolerance of different snake species. We also examined various predictors of tolerance including demographic attributes and a variety of cognitive (e.g., knowledge, value orientations) and affective (e.g., emotions) social-psychological variables. Tolerance of snakes varied based on whether the snake was venomous or non-venomous: about 36% of students said they were likely to kill venomous snakes they encountered, compared with 9% who said they would kill non-venomous snakes and 21% of students who said they would kill snakes whose identity was uncertain. However, most students (54%) could not distinguish between venomous and non-venomous species. Value orientations and emotions were strong predictors of tolerance for snakes, suggesting snake outreach and management strategies should account for both cognitive and affective antecedents of behavior.

Stakeholder Perceptions of Success in Human-Carnivore Coexistence Interventions

Human-carnivore coexistence (HCC) on agricultural lands affects wildlife and human communities around the world, whereby a lack of HCC is a central concern for conservation and farmer livelihoods alike. For intervention strategies aimed at facilitating HCC to achieve their desired goals it is essential to understand how interventions and their success are perceived by different stakeholders. Using a grounded theory approach, interviews (n=31) were conducted with key stakeholders (commercial livestock farmers, conservationists and protected area managers) involved in HCC scenarios in Limpopo, South Africa. Interviews explored perceptions of successful intervention strategies (aimed at increasing HCC), factors that contribute to perceptions of strategy effectiveness and whether coexistence was a concept that stakeholders considered achievable. The use of grounded theory emphasised the individual nature and previously unexplored facets to HCC experiences. The majority of stakeholders based their measures of success on changes in livestock loss. Concern has been raised over the subjectivity and reliance on recall that this measure involves, potentially reducing its reliability as an indicator of functional effectiveness. However, it was relied on heavily by users of HCC interventions in our study and is therefore likely influential in subsequent behaviour and decision-making regarding the intervention. Nonetheless, perceptions of success were not just shaped by livestock loss but influenced by various social, cultural, economic and political factors emphasising the challenges of defining and achieving HCC goals. Perceptions of coexistence varied; some stakeholders considered farmer-carnivore coexistence to be impossible, but most indicated it was feasible with certain caveats. An important element of inter-stakeholder misunderstanding became apparent, especially regarding the respective perceptions of coexistence and responsibility for its achievement. Without fully understanding these perceptions and their underpinning factors, interventions may be restricted in their capacity to meet the expectations of all interested parties. The study highlights the need to understand and explore the perceptions of all stakeholders when implementing intervention strategies in order to properly define and evaluate the achievement of HCC goals.

Exploring Routes to Coexistence: Developing and Testing a Human–Elephant Conflict-Management Framework for African Elephant-Range Countries

Creating a future for elephants and people is a highly complex and dynamic challenge, involving social, behavioral, and ecological dimensions as well as multiple actors with various interests. To foster learning from human–elephant conflict (HEC) management projects and share best practices, a study was conducted to review the management of conflicts between elephants and humans in 12 African countries by qualitative expert interviews. Based on this information, a HEC management framework was developed in a two-tiered process. In the first phase, the theory of the framework was developed. In a second phase, the theoretical framework was validated and adjusted through stakeholder participation in two southern African projects (in Mozambique and Malawi). This holistic approach considers environmental as well as social, political, cultural, and economic factors directly or indirectly affecting interactions between people and wildlife. The framework integrates six interlinked strategies to guide managers and conservation practitioners to address HWC drivers and mitigate their impact. A legal environment and spatial planning form the basis of the framework. Social strategies, including meaningful stakeholder engagement and design of appropriate institutional structures and processes are considered the heart of the framework. Technical and financial strategies represent its arms and hands. At the top, monitoring steers all processes, provides feedback for adjustment, and informs decisions. The integration and coordination of these six strategies has great potential as a guiding route to human–wildlife coexistence in Africa and elsewhere.

Tigers bringing risk and security: Gendered perceptions of tiger reintroduction in Rajasthan, India

Human-wildlife conflict has been documented to impact some communities heterogeneously, particularly along gender lines (e.g., women experiencing inequitably increased workloads and economic hardship, and decreased physical safety and psychological wellbeing), leading to different attitudes towards wildlife. Despite possible gendered discrepancies, women's perceptions of conservation management are often insufficiently explored, leading to incomplete understandings of conservation dynamics, and unjust conservation policies. In an effort to investigate if and how perceptions of tiger reintroductions are disparate, we conducted focus group discussions with women and men living in and around Sariska Tiger Reserve in Rajasthan, India. Results demonstrate clear gendered delineations in perceptions, where male participants predominantly focused on economic and ecological benefits, and female participants highlighted threats to personal safety and hidden costs (e.g., potential abuse, dowry concerns). This research underscores the importance of documenting and understanding gendered perceptions of carnivores to achieve the broad community support necessary for successful reintroduction efforts worldwide.

Joining forces toward proactive elephant and rhinoceros conservation

Proactive approaches that anticipate the long-term effects of current and future conservation threats could increase the effectiveness and efficiency of biodiversity conservation. However, such approaches can be obstructed by a lack of knowledge of habitat requirements for wildlife. To aggregate and assess the suitability of current information available on habitat requirements needed for proactive conservation, we conducted a systematic review of the literature on elephant and rhinoceros habitat requirements and synthesized data by combining a vote counting assessment with bibliometric and term maps. We contextualized these numeric and terminological results with a narrative review. We mapped current methods, results, terminology, and collaborations of 693 studies. Quantitative evidence for factors that influence the suitability of an area for elephants and rhinoceros was biased toward African savanna elephants and ecological variables. Less than one third of holistic approaches considered equal amounts of ecological and anthropogenic variables in their assessments. There was a general lack of quantitative evidence for direct proxies of anthropogenic variables that were expected to play an important role based on qualitative evidence and policy documents. However, there was evidence for a segregation in conceptual frameworks among countries and species and between science versus policy literature. There was also evidence of unused potential for collaborations among southern hemisphere researchers. Our results indicated that the success of proactive conservation interventions can be increased if ecological and anthropogenic dimensions are integrated into holistic habitat assessments and holistic carrying capacities and quantitative evidence for anthropogenic variables is improved. To avoid wasting limited resources, it is necessary to form inclusive collaborations within and across networks of researchers studying different species across regional and continental borders and in the science-policy realm.

The Coexistence Potential of Different Wildlife Conservation Frameworks in a Historical Perspective

Wildlife management in contemporary society means balancing multiple demands in shared landscapes. Perhaps the greatest question facing today's policy makers and wildlife professionals is how to develop frameworks for coexistence between wildlife and the plethora of other land use interests. As a profession, the roots of wildlife management and conservation can be traced back to the 1600's, but most of the relevant frameworks that have shaped the management of wildlife over time have emerged after the mid-1800's and particularly since the 1960's. Here we examine the historical development of the main traits and concepts of a number of management and conservation frameworks that have all contributed to the multifaceted field of contemporary wildlife management and conservation in Europe and North America. We outline a chronology of concepts and ideologies with their underlying key ideas, values, and operational indicators, and make an assessment of the potential of each paradigm as a coexistence framework for dealing with wildlife. We tie this to a discussion of ethics and argue that the lack of unity in approaches is deeply embedded in the differences between rule-based (deontological) vs. results-based (consequentialist) or context dependent (particularist) ethics. We suggest that some of the conflicts between ideologies, value sets and frameworks can be resolved as an issue of scale and possibly zonation in shared landscapes. We also argue that approaches built on anthropocentrism, value pluralism and environmental pragmatism are most likely to succeed in complex socio-political landscapes. However, we caution against moral relativism and the belief that all types of cultural values are equally valid as a basis for contemporary wildlife management.

Socioeconomic characteristics of suitable wolf habitat in Sweden

Large carnivores are ecologically important, but their behaviour frequently put them in conflict with humans. I suggest that a spatial co-occurrence of suitable habitat and relatively poor socioeconomic conditions in rural areas may contribute to inflated human-carnivore conflict. Here, I test if there is potential for such an explanation for the human-wolf conflict in Sweden, a conflict that is arguably not congruent with the costs and damages imposed by the wolf population. I found negative correlations between wolf habitat suitability within Swedish municipalities and indicators of their relative socioeconomic conditions. I argue that geographic socioeconomic inequality may contribute to the Swedish human-wolf conflict, partly by the use of wolves as symbols for socioeconomic dissent and partly by using them as scapegoats for socioeconomic conditions. Therefore, regional policies aimed at alleviating geographic socioeconomic inequities may create a more favourable environment for solving the human-wolf conflict in Sweden.

Rethinking the study of human-wildlife coexistence

Although coexistence with wildlife is a key goal of conservation, little is known about it or how to study it. By coexistence we mean a sustainable though dynamic state in which humans and wildlife coadapt to sharing landscapes, where human interactions with wildlife are effectively governed to ensure wildlife populations persist in socially legitimate ways that ensure tolerable risk levels. Problems that arise from current conflict-oriented framing of human-wildlife interactions include reinforcing a human-nature dichotomy as fundamentally oppositional, suggesting coexistence requires the absence of conflict, and skewing research and management toward direct negative impacts over indirect impacts and positive aspects of living with wildlife. Human behavior toward wildlife is framed as rational calculus of costs and benefits, sidelining emotional and cultural dimensions of these interactions. Coexistence is less studied due to unfamiliarity with relevant methodologies, including qualitative methods, self-reflexivity and ethical rigor, and constraints on funding and time. These challenges are illustrated with examples from fieldwork in India and Africa. We recommend a basic approach to case studies aimed at expanding the scope of inquiries into human-wildlife relations beyond studies of rational behavior and quantification of costs and benefits of wildlife to humans.

Human-wildlife coexistence in a changing world

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is a key topic in conservation and agricultural research. Decision makers need evidence-based information to design sustainable management plans and policy instruments. However, providing objective decision support can be challenging because realities and perceptions of human-wildlife interactions vary widely between and within rural, urban, and peri-urban areas. Land users who incur costs through wildlife argue that wildlife-related losses should be compensated and that prevention should be subsidized. Supporters of human-wildlife coexistence policies, such as urban-dwelling people, may not face threats to their livelihoods from wildlife. Such spatial heterogeneity in the cost and benefits of living with wildlife is germane in most contemporary societies. This Special Section features contributions on wildlife-induced damages that range from human perspectives (land use, psychology, governance, local attitudes and perceptions, costs and benefits, and HWC and coexistence theory) to ecological perspectives (animal behavior). Building on current literature and articles in this section, we developed a conceptual model to help frame HWC and coexistence dimensions. The framework can be used to determine damage prevention implementation levels and approaches to HWC resolution. Our synthesis revealed that inter- and transdisciplinary approaches and multilevel governance approaches can help stakeholders and institutions implement sustainable management strategies that promote human-wildlife coexistence.