Wildlife impacts and vulnerable livelihoods in a transfrontier conservation landscape

Participatory co-learning for human-wildlife coexistence: Reflections on a novel program applying systems thinking, nonviolent communication, and learning-based approaches

As wildlife habitats become increasingly fragmented, sharing landscapes with wildlife is becoming difficult and complex. Because stakeholders with diverging interests struggle to collaborate to manage human-wildlife interactions, new approaches are needed. Here we reflect on a novel participatory learning program we implemented with farmers in communal conservancies in the Zambezi region of Namibia. The 9 week program aimed to understand why human-wildlife conflict remained a challenge. We combined three theoretical framings in the program design-systems thinking, nonviolent communication, and learning based approaches. We summarize key outcomes of each session and reflect on the overall program. We found a synergistic effect of the three framings and concluded that our integrated program had been a useful collaborative learning tool to understand the human-wildlife governance system, identify interventions, empower communities, and build capacity for collaboration to improve human wellbeing and human-wildlife interactions. Drawing on our experience, we make suggestions for how the program could be adapted for similar or other environmental problems elsewhere.

Effects of climate, land use, and human population change on human-elephant conflict risk in Africa and Asia

Human-wildlife conflict is an important factor in the modern biodiversity crisis and has negative effects on both humans and wildlife (such as property destruction, injury, or death) that can impede conservation efforts for threatened species. Effectively addressing conflict requires an understanding of where it is likely to occur, particularly as climate change shifts wildlife ranges and human activities globally. Here, we examine how projected shifts in cropland density, human population density, and climatic suitability-three key drivers of human-elephant conflict-will shift conflict pressures for endangered Asian and African elephants to inform conflict management in a changing climate. We find that conflict risk (cropland density and/or human population density moving into the 90th percentile based on current-day values) increases in 2050, with a larger increase under the high-emissions "regional rivalry" SSP3 - RCP 7.0 scenario than the low-emissions "sustainability" SSP1 - RCP 2.6 scenario. We also find a net decrease in climatic suitability for both species along their extended range boundaries, with decreasing suitability most often overlapping increasing conflict risk when both suitability and conflict risk are changing. Our findings suggest that as climate changes, the risk of conflict with Asian and African elephants may shift and increase and managers should proactively mitigate that conflict to preserve these charismatic animals.

Why humans kill animals and why we cannot avoid it

Killing animals has been a ubiquitous human behaviour throughout history, yet it is becoming increasingly controversial and criticised in some parts of contemporary human society. Here we review 10 primary reasons why humans kill animals, discuss the necessity (or not) of these forms of killing, and describe the global ecological context for human killing of animals. Humans historically and currently kill animals either directly or indirectly for the following reasons: (1) wild harvest or food acquisition, (2) human health and safety, (3) agriculture and aquaculture, (4) urbanisation and industrialisation, (5) invasive, overabundant or nuisance wildlife control, (6) threatened species conservation, (7) recreation, sport or entertainment, (8) mercy or compassion, (9) cultural and religious practice, and (10) research, education and testing. While the necessity of some forms of animal killing is debatable and further depends on individual values, we emphasise that several of these forms of animal killing are a necessary component of our inescapable involvement in a single, functioning, finite, global food web. We conclude that humans (and all other animals) cannot live in a way that does not require animal killing either directly or indirectly, but humans can modify some of these killing behaviours in ways that improve the welfare of animals while they are alive, or to reduce animal suffering whenever they must be killed. We encourage a constructive dialogue that (1) accepts and permits human participation in one enormous global food web dependent on animal killing and (2) focuses on animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Doing so will improve the lives of both wild and domestic animals to a greater extent than efforts to avoid, prohibit or vilify human animal-killing behaviour.

Population Structure of Pyrola chlorantha (Family Ericaceae) at the Southern Range Margin (Samara Region, Russia)

The population structure of endangered species is one of the main criteria for assessing their state in their habitats. Representatives of the Ericaceae family are sensitive to environmental changes, including anthropogenic pressure; thus, they are considered the indicator species in assessing phytocenose stability. The population structure and density of the threatened species green-flowered wintergreen, Pyrola chlorantha Sw., have been described at the southern range margin (south-east of the European part of Russia, Samara Region). The observations were performed here in 2006–2021, and the main parameters of the age and spatial structure of P. chlorantha populations were revealed for the first time. Green-flowered wintergreen populations were studied at monitoring study sites and at temporarily established study plots. A bush part (ramet) was set as a counting unit. In total, 27 sub-populations were surveyed, with 1520 individuals registered. The age structure of populations was characterized using common demographic indicators: the recovery index and the population age index. The age structure of the population was associated with the efficiency of both vegetative and seed reproduction. Generally, the share of pre-generative individuals was 32.3%, generative, 66.9%, and senile, 1.8%. The studied populations were stable due to low anthropogenic impact at the growth sites.

A Perspective of the Human–Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) Conflicts in Kumrat Valley, Northern Pakistan

In developing countries, long-term conservation goals are hindered by the high economic costs of human–wildlife conflicts. The grey wolf is one of the prominent species indulged in these incidents. We investigated human–wolf conflicts (HWCs) by interviewing 104 respondents from five villages in Kumrat Valley, northern Pakistan. The respondents declared the grey wolf a common and highly dangerous carnivore. The grey wolf was found implicated in livestock predation, inflicting a yearly economic loss of USD 9225 (USD 88.70 per household (with monthly average income of 119 USD)). Our results confirmed that livestock predation was the main reason for the community’s hostile attitude (65.38%) and perception of the grey wolf. Concerning occupation, farmers have the most significant negative attitude (p = 0.040) towards the grey wolf, yet employees (p = 0.025) and students (p = 0.030) showed a positive attitude. In addition, the other factors contributing to the negative attitude towards the grey wolf were the grey wolf sightings and livestock predation (p = 0.016 and p = 0.006), respectively. Based on the findings, we believe that predation compensation and livestock vaccination programs (as done in Gilgit-Baltistan Province of northern Pakistan as a measure of snow leopard conservation, to prevent mass mortalities of livestock due to diseases and in turn safeguarding the predator from retaliatory killing by locals in case of livestock predation) educating the populous can be very promising in minimizing the HWCs in the study area. We also recommend robust and continuous coordination between the local communities and the concerned departments.

Participatory scenario planning to facilitate human-wildlife coexistence

Fostering human-wildlife coexistence requires transdisciplinary approaches that integrate multiple sectors, account for complexity and uncertainty, and ensure stakeholder participation. One such approach is participatory scenario planning, but to date, this approach has not been used in human-wildlife contexts. We devised a template for how participatory scenario planning can be applied to identify potential avenues for improving human-wildlife coexistence. We drew on 3 conceptual building blocks, namely the SEEDS framework, the notion of critical uncertainties, and the three-horizons technique. To illustrate the application of the proposed template, we conducted a case study in the Zambezi region of Namibia. We held 5 multistakeholder workshops that involved local people as well as numerous nongovernment and government stakeholders. We identified 14 important wildlife species that generated multiple services and disservices. The subsequent benefits and burdens, in turn, were inequitably distributed among stakeholders. Government actors played particularly influential roles in shaping social-ecological outcomes. We identified 2 critical uncertainties for the future: the nature of governance (fragmented vs. collaborative) and the type of wildlife economy (hunting vs. photography based). Considering these uncertainties resulted in 4 plausible scenarios describing future human-wildlife coexistence. Stakeholders did not agree on a single preferred scenario, but nevertheless agreed on several high-priority strategies. Bridging the remaining gaps among actors will require ongoing deliberation among stakeholders. Navigating the complex challenges posed by living with wildlife requires moving beyond disciplinary approaches. To that end, our template could prove useful in many landscapes around the world.

Wildlife impacts and changing climate pose compounding threats to human food security

High-level policy debates surrounding elephant management often dominate global conservation headlines, yet realities for people living with wildlife are not adequately incorporated into policymaking or evident in related discourse.^1,2 Human health and livelihoods can be severely impacted by wildlife and indirectly by policy outcomes.³ In landscapes where growing human and elephant (Loxodonta spp. and Elephas maximus) populations compete over limited resources, human-elephant conflict causes crop loss, human injury and death, and retaliatory killing of wildlife.^4-6 Across Africa, these problems may be increasingly compounded by climate change, which intensifies resource competition and food insecurity.^6-9 Here, we examine how human-wildlife impacts interact with climate change and household food insecurity across the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area, the world's largest terrestrial transboundary conservation area, spanning five African nations. We use hierarchical Bayesian statistical models to analyze multi-country household data together with longitudinal satellite-based climate measures relevant to rainfed agriculture. We find that crop depredation by wildlife, primarily elephants, impacts 58% of sampled households annually and is associated with significant increases in food insecurity. These wildlife impacts compound effects of changing climate on food insecurity, most notably observed as a 5-day shortening of the rainy season per 10 years across the data record (1981-2018). To advance sustainability goals, global conservation policy must better integrate empirical evidence on the challenges of human-wildlife coexistence into longer term strategies at transboundary scales, specifically in the context of climate change.^3,9-11.

Implementing a comprehensive approach to study the causes of human-bear (Ursus arctos pruinosus) conflicts in the Sanjiangyuan region, China

Personal injury and property loss caused by wildlife often deteriorates the relationship between humans and animals, prompting retaliatory killings that threaten species survival. Conflicts between humans and Tibetan brown bears (Ursus arctos pruinosus) (Human-Bear Conflicts, HBC) in the Sanjiangyuan region have recently dramatically increased, seriously affecting community enthusiasm for brown bears and the conservation of other species. In order to understand the driving mechanisms of HBC, we proposed six potential drivers leading to increased occurrences of HBC. We conducted field research in Zhiduo County of the Sanjiangyuan region from 2017 to 2019 to test hypotheses through semi-constructed interviews, marmot (Marmota himalayana) density surveys and brown bear diet analysis based on metagenomic sequencing. Analysis of herder perceptions revealed that the driving factors of HBC were related to changes in their settlement practice and living habits, changes in foraging behavior of brown bears and recovery of the brown bear population. Since the establishment of winter homes, brown bears have gradually learned to utilize the food in unattended homes. Although 91.4% (n = 285) of the respondents no longer store food in unattended homes, brown bears were reported to still frequently approach winter homes for food due to improper disposal of dead livestock and household garbage. The frequency and abundance of marmots were found to be high in brown bear diet, indicating that marmots were the bears' primary food. However, marmot density had no significant effect on brown bears utilizing human food (P = 0.329), and HBC appears to not be caused by natural food shortages. Distance to rocky outcrops (P = 0.022) and winter homes (P = 0.040) were the key factors linked to brown bears pursuing human food. The number of brown bears has increased over the past decade, and HBC is likely linked to its population recovery. Our findings will provide scientific basis for formulating effective mitigation measures and protection countermeasures for brown bears.

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.