Applying Participatory Processes to Address Conflicts Over the Conservation of Large Carnivores: Understanding Conditions for Successful Management

Salvatori, Valéria; Balian, Estelle; Blanco, Juan Carlos; Ciucci, Paolo; Demeter, László; Hartel, Tibor; Marsden, Katrina; Redpath, Stephen M.; Korff, Yorck von; Young, Juliette

doi:10.3389/fevo.2020.00182

Cited by 24 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, cases of wild boar and roe deer causing road accidents have increased exponentially (Lagos et al, 2012). The expansion of wolves to areas where livestock damage prevention measures were ceased long ago, following the extirpation of these species, are giving rise to social conflicts that require awareness efforts and the provision of preventive measures for conflict mitigation (Fernández-Gil et al, 2016;Salvatori et al, 2020). Cantabrian bears seem to be shy-selected bears (based on the low number of attacks to people and livestock recorded; see e.g.…”

Section: Increased Frequency Of Individuals With Bolder Personalitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological consequences of human depopulation of rural areas on wildlife: A unifying perspective

Martínez‐Abraín

Jiménez

Jiménez³

et al. 2020

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Increased Frequency Of Individuals With Bolder Personalitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological consequences of human depopulation of rural areas on wildlife: A unifying perspective

Martínez‐Abraín

Jiménez

Jiménez³

et al. 2020

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The project areas (Figure 1), were selected from countries where a recent increase in large-carnivore populations [1] has resulted in the complex management challenge of enabling both carnivores and of local activities to flourish. Additional criteria for selecting the project areas were based on the fact that the study contexts had been previously researched and explored, local authorities were available and in principle willing to participate, and that the areas presented several features that made the knowledge and learning accumulated in this study potentially transferable to other regions [28]. The project areas are described below, together with the reported conservation status of their large-carnivore populations as from the third assessment under Article 17 of Habitats Directive [47].…”

Section: Project Areasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Key stakeholders were interviewed in a preliminary knowledge-gathering phase to explore the main issues surrounding large-carnivore management in each project area and to identity potential participants for the decision workshops. Stakeholders were selected using a purposive, snowball sampling approach [62], as described in Salvatori et al [28]. A contact person was identified in each project area based on their knowledge of the area and their experience in carnivore conservation; their ability to represent a neutral position regarding large-carnivore management; and their willingness to engage in the process.…”

Section: Selection and Convening Of Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Following Salvatori et al [28], we grouped participants into six categories: farmers (F), including individual farmers and/or representatives of farming associations; hunters (H), including individual hunters and/or representatives of hunting associations, foresters, and private hunting-ground land owners; institutions (I), including representatives of local, provincial, regional, or national administrations, as well as the police corps; scientists (S), including members of scientific institutions or independent consultants; environmentalists (E), mainly representing local or national environmental organizations; animal welfare organizations (W), limited to the Italian study area, representing animal protection groups. We aimed at having a representative of each category in all project areas.…”

Section: Selection and Convening Of Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, although studies on human attitudes and ecological processes might serve to inform decision making in large-carnivore management, the final decisions remain inherently political [27]. With this in mind, the challenge of tackling carnivore conflicts lies in developing an adequate understanding of the underlying issues [19,28] and in elaborating methods and processes to integrate such an understanding into policy [29]. The social acceptability of carnivore policy hinges on their ability to address the existing plurality of cultures, values, and knowledge systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Are Large Carnivores the Real Issue? Solutions for Improving Conflict Management through Stakeholder Participation

Salvatori¹,

Blanco²,

Carbonell

et al. 2021

Sustainability

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social conflicts around large carnivores are increasing in Europe, often associated to the species expansion into human-modified and agricultural landscapes. Large carnivores can be seen as an added value by some but as a source of difficulties by others, depending on different values, attitudes, livelihoods, and everyday activities. Therefore, the effective involvement of the different interest groups is important to identify and shape tailored solutions that can potentially be implemented, complementing top-down approaches that might, on their own, result in lack of implementation and buy-in. To improve dialogue in conflictual situations, as part of a European project promoted by the European Parliament, we assessed the practical implementation of participatory processes in three sample areas in Europe where wolves and bears have recently been increasingly impacting human activities. Our results demonstrate that collaboration among different and generally contrasting groups is possible. Even in situations where large-carnivore impacts were seen as unsatisfactorily managed for many years, people were still willing and eager to be involved in alternative discussion processes hoping this would lead to concrete solutions. An important and common highlight among the three study areas was that all the management interventions agreed upon shared the general scope of improving the conditions of the groups most impacted by large carnivores. The process showed the importance of building trust and supporting dialogue for knowledge co-production and mitigation of conflicts between stakeholders and that controversial environmental issues have the potential to trigger a meaningful dialogue about broader societal issues. The direct involvement and support of competent authorities, as well as the upscaling of this process at larger administrative and social scales, remain important challenges.

show abstract

Emergency‐line calls as an indicator to assess human–wildlife interaction in urban areas

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human-wildlife interactions (HWIs) are increasingly common human disturbances as development continues to remove wildlife habitats. Documenting HWI is critical for environmental protection agencies to develop strategies and management decisions that meet the needs of both people and wildlife. However, evaluation of the frequency and types of HWI at broad spatial scales (e.g., national or regional level) can be costly and difficult to implement by managers. In this study, we apply a novel method for the evaluation of patterns of HWI in urban areas by using publicly available data from emergency calls (ECs) placed by inhabitants of Romania's urban areas. We used information from 4601 ECs placed at the Romanian National Emergency Call System 112, which consisted of (1) wildlife species, (2) spatial location, (3) date and time, and (4) a short description of the emergency. Of the 318 analyzed cities, 300 cities documented ECs on HWI between 2015 and 2020, with roe deer and brown bear being the most frequently mentioned species. We recorded an increasing trend in HWI-related ECs in 73% of the urban areas over the five-year period. We mapped the large-scale distribution of HWI by species and type of interactions in order to capture variations at the national level.Further, we analyzed the social and the biophysical factors potentially influencing the occurrence and frequency of HWI. The results showed that social factors have the same effect on all species, while the effect of the biophysical factors varied between species. Particularly, the presence of large natural habitats, represented by forests, influenced the number of calls only for brown bears. Seminatural landscapes with agricultural land have a different influence in terms of effect and significance for the considered species. Our results suggest that publicly available data from ECs can be used for the rapid assessment of HWI and for evaluating trends and predictors of HWI at broad spatial scales.Mihai I. Pop and Simona R. Gradinaru contributed equally to the work reported here.

show abstract

Applying Participatory Processes to Address Conflicts Over the Conservation of Large Carnivores: Understanding Conditions for Successful Management

Cited by 24 publications

References 38 publications

Ecological consequences of human depopulation of rural areas on wildlife: A unifying perspective

Ecological consequences of human depopulation of rural areas on wildlife: A unifying perspective

Are Large Carnivores the Real Issue? Solutions for Improving Conflict Management through Stakeholder Participation

Emergency‐line calls as an indicator to assess human–wildlife interaction in urban areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About