Human-wildlife coexistence in science and practice
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Received: 24 February 2021 Accepted: 25 February 2021
DOI: 10.1111/csp2.401
EDITORIAL
Human–wildlife coexistence in science and practice
Human–wildlife interactions shape human cultures, animal 2015). Evidence-based conservation typically addresses
communities, and species evolution. They are ubiquitous, such problems by systematically reviewing the scientific
diverse in nature, leading to desirable and undesirable con- knowledge base and synthesizing the findings
sequences (Frank, Glikman, & Marchini, 2019; Nyhus, (Sutherland et al., 2020). While systematic assessments
2016). The human–wildlife interface is dynamic; emerging have addressed specific issues of human–wildlife interac-
where humans expand into natural habitats or where wild- tions (Eklund, López-Bao, Tourani, Chapron, & Frank,
life populations expand into human-dominated areas. For 2017), they also suggest that generalizations and predic-
example, human–wildlife interactions increased through tions of conservation outcomes are often elusive. Achiev-
better habitat protection, climate change induced range ing coexistence in practice is difficult, being influenced
shifts, and where agricultural lands provide food and shel- by a plethora of forces, including local histories, political
ter to wildlife (König et al., 2020). Agricultural landscapes, dynamics, and uncertainty. Integrating place-based
because of the amplification of food production and rela- knowledge with applied conservation science can gener-
tively low-density human population, are a major arena for ate new insights that may help achieve human–wildlife
human–wildlife interactions. From an anthropocentric per- coexistence in a changing world.
spective, wildlife provides both benefits and costs. Benefits This special issue “Methods for integrated assessment of
include ecosystem services such as pollination, seed dis- human–wildlife interactions and coexistence in agricultural
persal, pathogen control, recreational value and income landscapes” features a collection of articles proposing,
through tourism (Power, 2010). Disservices include damage implementing and reviewing a variety of interdisciplinary,
to livestock, crops, pathogen transmission, or loss of human socioecological tools for addressing human–wildlife con-
life (Ceauşu, Graves, Killion, Svenning, & Carter, 2019; flicts (Table 1). The case studies and tools proposed here
Swinton, Lupi, Robertson, & Hamilton, 2007). Effectively support conservation practice in the context of agricultural
and equitably governing these ecosystem service tradeoffs landscapes, where benefits and costs of wildlife are experi-
remains a key challenge to sustainably sharing land- enced within the same area but distributed unevenly
scapes with wildlife in agricultural landscapes (Redpath among different groups of people. The articles in this spe-
et al., 2013). cial issue introduce suitable and interdisciplinary toolsets
Coexistence science is challenging because it is funda- that support the assessment of human–wildlife interactions
mentally multidimensional and comprises complex inter- and promote human–wildlife coexistence. In addition, the
actions and feedbacks. In the last decades, research on case studies highlight the inherent complexity of human–
human–wildlife coexistence has rapidly increased (König wildlife interactions. In total, this issue features 13 contri-
et al., 2020). Consolidating insights from those studies to butions, including three perspective essays, and 10 research
achieve sustainable coexistence on the ground remains a papers.
formidable challenge (Carter & Linnell, 2016; Lamb
et al., 2020; Lute, Carter, López-Bao, & Linnell, 2018).
Human–wildlife interactions are often framed as 1 | N E W PE R S P E C T I V E S O N
human–wildlife conflicts, yet this likely overly-simplifies HUMAN–W I L D L I F E C O E X I S TEN C E
a more complex and nuanced array of interactions
(Mason et al., 2018; Redpath, Gutiérrez, Wood, & Young, How we study human–wildlife coexistence evolves
alongside our strategies for reducing conflict and
amplifying benefits. Three papers in this issue touch
Contributed manuscript to the special section “Methods for integrated
assessment of human-wildlife interactions and coexistence in
on this evolving scholarship. van Eeden, Dickman,
agricultural landscapes.” Guest editors: König, H.J., Carter, N., Ceauşu, et al. (2021) propose a theory of change framework for
S., Kiffner, C., Lamb, C., Ford, A. T. promoting coexistence between dingoes and livestock,
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
© 2021 The Authors. Conservation Science and Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology
Conservation Science and Practice. 2021;3:e401. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/csp2 1 of 5
https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.4012 of 5 EDITORIAL
T A B L E 1 Topical summary of the 13 articles featured in the special issue “Methods for integrated assessment of human–wildlife
interactions and coexistence in agricultural landscapes”
Stakeholder
Reference Topic Geographic region Wildlife species involvement Method
van Eeden, Developing a ToC to Australia Australian dingo Australian public; ToC to promote
Dickman, promote (Canis spec.) Aboriginal people coexistence
Crowther, and coexistence Policy makers between livestock
Newsome (2021) between livestock Livestock sector producers and
producers and dingoes in
dingoes in Australia
Australia
König et al. (2021) Developing a Brandenburg state European bison (Bos Land users Participatory
framework for (Germany) bonasus), common methods,
integrated crane (Grus grus), semiquantitative,
assessments of wild boar (Sus FoPIA-SEEDS-3i
human–wildlife scrofa), gray wolf
conflicts (Canis lupus)
Osterman- Mobilizing the wide Global review Gray wolf (Canis General public Citizen science,
Miyashita, public to address (United States, EU, lupus), coyote review
Pernat, and human–wildlife Africa, Australia) (Canis latrans),
König (2021) conflict African elephant
(Loxodonta
africana) and
others
Jin et al. (2021) Identifying key Civilian Control Zone White-naped crane Farmers and farming Net-map, social
stakeholders for the (Republic of Korea) (Antigone vipio), enterprises, local network analysis of
conservation of red-crowned crane and national semiquantitative
crane species (Grus japonensis) governance interviews
agencies in
agencies in
agriculture and
environment,
national and
international NGOs
supporting wildlife
conservation,
research
institutions,
tourism industry
van Eeden, Assessing attitudes Washington state Gray wolf (Canis Residents of Online survey
Rabotyagov, toward wolves, (United States) lupus) Washington state (N = 420)
et al. (2021) ranching, wolf-
livestock
coexistence, and
wolf management
methods
Martin (2021) Adaptive governance Idaho (United States) Gray wolf (Canis Project partners and 40 semistructured
of the Wood-River lupus) related interviews,
wolf project stakeholders, qualitative analysis
including ranchers,
government
officialsEDITORIAL 3 of 5
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Stakeholder
Reference Topic Geographic region Wildlife species involvement Method
McInturff, Miller, Social–ecological California (United Coyote (Canis Current and former Combining social and
Gaynor, and approach to map States) latrans) livestock producers ecological
Brashares (2021) risk of sheep from the study area information to
predation by model predation
coyotes risk
Delclaux and Media coverage of the France (EU) Bee (Apis mellifera), Multiple Content analysis of
Fleury (2021) biodiversity- gray wolf (Canis newspaper and
agricultural lupus), brown bear descriptive statistics
interface (Ursus arctos) and
26 others
Plaschke Ecological Brandenburg state Gray wolf (Canis Federal forest Camera traps,
et al. (2021) effectiveness of (Germany) lupus), red deer department quantitative
green bridges (Cervus elaphus), analysis
roe deer (Capreolus
capreolus), wild
boar (Sus scrofa)
Barzen, Gossens, Effect of deterrence Wisconsin (United Greater sandhill Crane foundation, Resource selection
Lacy, and strategies on States) crane (Grus seed corporation studies at multiple
Yandell (2021) resource selection canadensis tabida) scales
of cranes
Kiffner et al. (2021) Integrated assessment Karatu district African elephants Subsistence farmers Combining social and
of methods to bordering (Loxodonta and rural residents ecological
mitigate crop Ngorongoro africana) information to
raiding by African Conservation Area assess the
elephants (Tanzania) effectiveness and
adoption potential
of methods to
reduce crop raiding
Marino et al. (2021) Parameterizing a Abruzzo (Italy) Brown bear (Ursus Rural residents who Interviews, WTM as
WTM for multiple arctos), gray wolf farmed for either the framework to
species (Canis lupus) commercial or define tolerance
noncommercial and identify
purposes correlates of
tolerance
Kansky, Kidd, and Parameterizing a Transboundary African lion Rural residents in Interviews, WTM as
Fischer (2021) WTM for multiple conservation (Panthera leo), Namibia and the framework to
species complex in African elephant Zambia define tolerance
Namibia and (Loxodonta and identify
Zambia africana), spotted correlates of
hyena (Crocuta tolerance
crocuta), greater
kudu (Tragelaphus
strepsiceros),
chacma baboon
(Papio ursinus)
Abbreviations: ToC, theory of change; WTM, wildlife tolerance model.
and highlight the importance of an evidence-based (2021), present an integrated assessment framework
understanding of the barriers and opportunities to that provides guidelines for systematically analyzing
changing human behavior toward wildlife. König et al. the multistage process of stakeholder participation,4 of 5 EDITORIAL
enabling a holistic approach for addressing the com- Both studies found that human tolerance for wildlife
plex challenge of human–wildlife conflicts. Finally, was both species and area specific. While many factors
Osterman-Miyashita et al. (2021) emphasize opportuni- may be associated with tolerance for a given species,
ties that Citizen Science offers in the field of monitor- increasing tangible and intangible benefits and reducing
ing and managing human–wildlife interactions. tangible and intangible costs are key for increasing
tolerance.
2 | S OC I AL –ECOLOGICAL
APPROACHES TOWARD 3 | CONCLUSIONS
COEXISTENCE
By highlighting advances in assessing, evaluating, and
For conservation science to provide actionable scholarship managing human–wildlife interactions, this special issue
in support of human–wildlife coexistence will require emphasizes the advantages of system thinking and
social–ecological approaches to theory, multidisciplinary employing holistic and transdisciplinary approaches. While
assessments and case studies. such integrated approaches are unlikely to fully resolve the
Understanding stakeholder concerns and action is complex and unique nature of most human–wildlife inter-
one primary vector of interest. Jin et al. (2021) actions, they will contribute toward making better deci-
mapped stakeholder networks, and revealed that trust sions while promoting human–wildlife coexistence.
between stakeholders and fair benefit sharing are key
for coexistence between humans and two threatened Hannes J. König1
crane species in Korea. van Eeden, Rabotyagov, et al. Neil Carter2
(2021) identified political ideology as critical in stake- Silvia Ceauşu3
holder conflicts while examining human-wolf con- Clayton Lamb4,5
flicts in the United States. Also examining human- Adam T. Ford5
wolf conflict in the United States, Martin (2021) Christian Kiffner1
shows that openly addressing struggles in project
1
implementation can provide important lessons for Junior Research Group Human-Wildlife Conflict and
practitioners in landscapes recolonized by wolves. Coexistence, Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape
McInturff et al. (2021) combine ecological informa- Research (ZALF), Müncheberg, Germany
2
tion and stakeholder perception to map predation risk School for Environment and Sustainability, University of
and show that integrated social–ecological approaches Michigan, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
improve the management opportunities for reducing MI 48109
3
livestock depredation by carnivores. Delclaux and Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research,
Fleury (2021) describe dynamic changes in media University College London, Gower Street, London,
coverage of the biodiversity-agriculture theme and WC1E 6BT, UK
4
how these changes are related to environmental Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta,
issues and political events. Edmonton, Canada
5
We also need to enhance our understanding of inter- Department of Biology, The University of British
ventions on human–wildlife interactions. Plaschke et al. Columbia (UBC), Kelowna, Canada
(2021) show that strategically planned overpasses can
effectively enable connectivity and recolonization of Correspondence
wolves and their prey in human-dominated landscapes Hannes J. König, Junior Research Group
in Germany. Barzen et al. (2021) analyze nonlethal miti- Human-Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence, Leibniz
gation methods for reducing yield loss by Greater San- Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF),
dhill cranes. Kiffner et al. (2021) tested the effectiveness Müncheberg, Germany.
of chili and beehive fences in reducing crop raiding by Email: hkoenig@zalf.de
African elephants and found that chili fences had higher
acceptability of implementation and reduced crop dam-
age. Marino et al. (2021) investigated human tolerance
for potentially problem-causing species such as brown ORCID
bears and wolves in Italy. Kansky et al. (2021) assessed Hannes J. König https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4980-7388
tolerance toward multiple wildlife species in the Neil Carter https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4399-6384
Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. Silvia Ceauşu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6278-6075EDITORIAL 5 of 5
Clayton Lamb https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1961-0509 Marino, F., Kansky, R., Shivji, I., di Croce, A., Ciucci, P., &
Adam T. Ford https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2509-7980 Knight, A. T. (2021). Understanding drivers of human tolerance
Christian Kiffner https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7475-9023 to gray wolves and brown bears as a strategy to improve
landholder–carnivore coexistence. Conservation Science and
Practice, e265.
R EF E RE N C E S Martin, J. V. (2021). Peace in the valley? Qualitative insights on col-
Barzen, J. A., Gossens, A. P., Lacy, A. E., & Yandell, B. S. (2021). laborative coexistence from the Wood River Wolf Project. Con-
Applying hierarchical resource selection concepts to solving servation Science and Practice, e197.
crop damage caused by birds. Conservation Science and Prac- Mason, T. H. E., Pollard, C. R. J., Chimalakonda, D.,
tice, e207. Guerrero, A. M., Kerr-Smith, C., Milheiras, S. A. G., …
Carter, N. H., & Linnell, J. D. C. (2016). Co-adaptation is key to Bunnefeld, N. (2018). Wicked conflict: Using wicked problem
coexisting with large carnivores. Trends in Ecology and Evolu- thinking for holistic management of conservation conflict.
tion, 31, 575–578. Conservation Letters, 11, 1–9.
Ceauşu, S., Graves, R. A., Killion, A. K., Svenning, J. C., & McInturff, A., Miller, J. R. B., Gaynor, K. M., & Brashares, J. S.
Carter, N. H. (2019). Governing trade-offs in ecosystem services (2021). Patterns of coyote predation on sheep in California: A
and disservices to achieve human–wildlife coexistence. Conser- socio-ecological approach to mapping risk of livestock-predator
vation Biology, 33, 543–553. conflict. Conservation Science and Practice, e175.
Delclaux, J., & Fleury, P. (2021). Medium-term evolution in French Nyhus, P. J. (2016). Human–wildlife conflict and coexistence.
national newspaper coverage of the interrelations between biodi- Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 143–171.
versity and agriculture. Conservation Science and Practice, e140. Osterman-Miyashita, E. F., Pernat, N., & König, H. J. (2021). Citi-
Eklund, A., López-Bao, J. V., Tourani, M., Chapron, G., & Frank, J. zen science as a bottom-up solution to human-wildlife conflicts:
(2017). Limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions From theories and methods to practical implications. Conserva-
to reduce livestock predation by large carnivores. Scientific tion Science and Practice, e385.
Reports, 7, 2097. Plaschke, M., Bhardwaj, M., König, H. J., Wenz, E., Dobias, K., &
Frank, B., Glikman, J. A., & Marchini, S. (2019). Human-wildlife Ford, A. T. (2021). Green bridges in a re-colonizing landscape:
interactions: Turning conflict into coexistence. Cambridge: Cam- Wolves (Canis lupus) in Brandenburg, Germany. Conservation
bridge University Press. Science and Practice, e364.
Jin, H., Hemminger, K., Fong, J., Sattler, C., SueKyoung, L., Power, A. G. (2010). Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs
Bieling, C., & König, H. J. (2021). Revealing stakeholders' motiva- and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
tion and influence in crane conservation in the Republic of Korea: Biological Sciences, 365, 2959–2971.
Net-map as a tool. Conservation Science and Practice, e384. Redpath, S. M., Gutiérrez, R. J., Wood, K. A., & Young, J. C. (2015).
Kansky, R., Kidd, M., & Fischer, J. (2021). Does money “buy” toler- Conflicts in conservation: Navigating towards solutions. Cam-
ance toward damage-causing wildlife ? Conservation Science bridge: Cambridge University Press.
and Practice, e262. Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M.,
Kiffner, C., Schaal, I., Cass, L., Peirce, K., Sussman, O., Grueser, A., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., … Gutiérrez, R. J. (2013).
… Kioko, J. (2021). Perceptions and realities of elephant crop Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in
raiding and mitigation methods. Conservation Science and Prac- Ecology and Evolution, 28, 100–109.
tice, e372. Sutherland, W. J., Alvarez-Castañeda, S. T., Amano, T.,
König, H. J., Kiffner, C., Kramer-Schadt, S., Fürst, C., Ambrosini, R., Atkinson, P., Baxter, J. M., … Wordley, C.
Keuling, O., & Ford, A. T. (2020). Human–wildlife coexistence (2020). Ensuring tests of conservation interventions build on
in a changing world. Conservation Biology, 34, 786–794. existing literature. Conservation Biology, 34, 781–783.
König, H. J., Ceauşu, S., Reed, M., Kendall, H., Hemminger, K., Swinton, S. M., Lupi, F., Robertson, G. P., & Hamilton, S. K. (2007).
Reinke, H., … Ford, A. T. (2021). Integrated framework for Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural
stakeholder participation in identifying and addressing human- ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecological Economics, 64,
wildlife conflicts. Conservation Science and Practice. 245–252.
Lamb, C. T., Ford, A. T., McLellan, B. N., Proctor, M. F., Mowat, G., van Eeden, L., Dickman, C., Crowther, M., & Newsome, N. (2021). A
Ciarniello, L., … Boutin, S. (2020). The ecology of human– theory of change for promoting coexistence between dingoes and
carnivore coexistence. Proceedings of the National Academy of livestock production. Conservation Science and Practice, e304.
Sciences of the United States of America, 117, 17876–17883. van Eeden, L., Rabotyagov, S., Kather, M., Bogezi, C.,
Lute, M. L., Carter, N. H., López-Bao, J. V., & Linnell, J. D. C. Wirsing, A., & Marzluff, J. (2021). Political affiliation pre-
(2018). Conservation professionals agree on challenges to dicts public attitudes toward gray wolf (Canis lupus) conser-
coexisting with large carnivores but not on solutions. Biological vation and management. Conservation Science and Practice,
Conservation, 218, 223–232. e137.You can also read
