Can stakeholders agree on how to reduce human–carnivore conflict on Namibian livestock farms? A novel Q-methodology and Delphi exercise

Rust, Niki A.

doi:10.1017/s0030605315001179

Cited by 28 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Sample sizes for studies using purposive sampling can vary widely (e.g. Lee et al, 2017;Rust, 2017;Bashari et al, 2018;Redford et al, 2018;Mitchell et al, 2019), and we note that our sample size is within the range of other similar published studies. Criticisms of non-experimental evaluations such as ours include accounting for the effect of potential confounding factors on the achievement of program outcomes, which for our study might include changes in enforcement activity, fluctuations in incident reporting rates, variations in large carnivore populations, lack of actual participation despite signing up, or access to other programming unbeknownst to ourselves (Woodhouse et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Carnivores and Communities: A Case Study of Human-Carnivore Conflict Mitigation in Southwestern Alberta

Morehouse¹,

Hughes

Manners³

et al. 2020

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Facilitating long-term coexistence between people and large carnivores is a persistent, global conservation challenge. Evidence-based decisions to help design and implement programs that promote coexistence between people and carnivores are required. Using a case study approach, we evaluated the effectiveness of conflict mitigation efforts of a community-based program in southwestern Alberta, Canada: the Waterton Biosphere Reserve's (WBR) Carnivores and Communities Program (CACP). The CACP's overall goal is to support coexistence of people and large carnivores through initiatives including reducing livestock loss, damage to stored crops, and safety risks from carnivores by engaging residents in hands-on programming. We used an online survey to assess program participants' general awareness of and motivation to engage in the CACP, safety risks associated with living with large carnivores, and attractant management and deadstock removal programming. We received 116 completed surveys. Survey results indicated that participants felt the CACP effectively reduced conflicts with large carnivores, increased their sense of safety when living with large carnivores, and enabled them to learn skills and gain confidence in using mitigation tools (e.g., bear spray). We also evaluated temporal trends in large carnivore conflicts using occurrence records (i.e., complaint data) from 1999 through 2016. We classified these data into incidents (e.g., situations where carnivores caused property damage, obtained anthropogenic food, killed or attempted to kill livestock or pets) and focussed on incidents related to attractants, including deadstock. We focus our incident review on grizzly bears because most agricultural attractant incidents in the study area are caused by grizzly bears. We used a Chow test to evaluate if the 2009 CACP commencement represented a break point or structural change in the data. Although total reported incidents increased from 1999 through 2016, we show both reported attractant and deadstock-based incidents changed from increasing to decreasing after the CACP implementation in 2009. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of a contextually specific, community-based approach to addressing human-carnivore conflicts. More broadly, our evaluation and lessons learned provide other conservation organizations with a useful framework for addressing human-carnivore or other wildlife conflicts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Carnivores and Communities: A Case Study of Human-Carnivore Conflict Mitigation in Southwestern Alberta

Morehouse¹,

Hughes

Manners³

et al. 2020

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While human-wildlife conflict is a commonly documented phenomenon across sub-Saharan Africa ( Koziarski, Kissui & Kiffner, 2016 ; Loveridge et al, 2016 ; Rust, 2016 ), effective monitoring of conflict incidents is uncommon. Consequently, our understanding of the patterns and drivers of conflict is frequently poor.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bells, bomas and beefsteak: complex patterns of human-predator conflict at the wildlife-agropastoral interface in Zimbabwe

Loveridge

Kuiper

Parry³

et al. 2017

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reports of livestock depredation by large predators were systematically collected at three study sites in northwestern Zimbabwe from 2008–2013. We recorded 1,527 incidents (2,039 animals killed and 306 injured). Lions (Panthera leo) and spotted hyaenas (Crocuta crocuta) were mostly responsible, and cattle and donkeys most frequently attacked. Patterns of predation were variable among study sites. Nevertheless, some overall patterns were apparent. Predators selected livestock close to the size of their preferred wild prey, suggesting behaviours evolved to optimise foraging success may determine the domestic species primarily preyed upon. Most attacks occurred when livestock were roaming outside and away from their ‘home’ protective enclosures at night. Hyaena attacks were largely nocturnal; lions and leopards (Panthera pardus) were more flexible, with attacks occurring by day and at night. Livestock fitted with bells suffered a disproportionate number of attacks; the sound of bells appears to have conditioned predators to associate the sound with foraging opportunities. Lion and hyaena attacks on cattle were more frequent in the wet season suggesting that seasonal herding practices may result in cattle vulnerability. Only a small proportion of conflict incidents were reported to wildlife management officials with a bias towards lion predation events, potentially prejudicing conflict management policies. Predation on domestic stock involves an intricate interplay between predator behaviour and ecology on the one hand and human behaviour and husbandry practices on the other. Our data suggest that improved livestock husbandry (supervision of grazing animals, protection at night in strong enclosures) would greatly reduce livestock depredation.

show abstract

“…) participation in decision making improves a range of conservation outcomes. Furthermore, although different conservation managers and stakeholders are unlikely to always agree—for both practical and value‐based reasons (Rust ; St John et al. )—better understanding others’ positions and increasing dialogue helps foster more effective collaboration (Game et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts

Baynham-Herd

Redpath

Keane

2019

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is growing interest in developing effective interventions to manage socially and environmentally damaging conservation conflicts. There are a variety of intervention strategies that can be applied in various contexts, but the reasons one type of intervention is chosen over another remain underexplored. We surveyed conservation researchers and practitioners (n = 427) to explore how characteristics of conflicts and characteristics of decision makers influence recommendations to alleviate conservation conflict. Using a full-factorial design, we experimentally manipulated 3 aspects of the descriptions of 8 different wildlife-conflict scenarios (development status of the conflict country, conflict framing, and legality of killing wild animals) and recorded which of 5 intervention types (wildlife impact reduction, awareness, enforcement, economic incentives, or stakeholder engagement) respondents prioritized. We also recorded information on respondents' demographic and disciplinary backgrounds. Stakeholder-based interventions were recommended most often in the survey and in written feedback. However, when we fitted multinomial mixed logit models with fully completed scenario responses (n = 411), recommendations were influenced by small changes in the details of conflict and differed according to respondent characteristics. Enforcement and awareness interventions were prioritized relatively more for conflicts in more highly developed nations and by respondents with more natural science backgrounds and relatively less experience with conflict. Contrastingly, economic interventions were prioritized more when wildlife killing was described as illegal. Age, gender, and development status of the respondent's home country also predicted some intervention decisions. Further, interrogating the influences shaping conservation decision making will further helps in the development of evidence-informed interventions.

show abstract

Can stakeholders agree on how to reduce human–carnivore conflict on Namibian livestock farms? A novel Q-methodology and Delphi exercise

Cited by 28 publications

References 33 publications

Carnivores and Communities: A Case Study of Human-Carnivore Conflict Mitigation in Southwestern Alberta

Carnivores and Communities: A Case Study of Human-Carnivore Conflict Mitigation in Southwestern Alberta

Bells, bomas and beefsteak: complex patterns of human-predator conflict at the wildlife-agropastoral interface in Zimbabwe

Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About