Coexisting With Different Human-Wildlife Coexistence Perspectives

Abstract

Over the last decade, there has been a remarkable increase in scientific literature addressing human–wildlife interactions (HWI) and associated concepts, such as coexistence, tolerance, and acceptance. Despite increased attention, these terms are rarely defined or consistently applied across publications. Indeed, the meaning of these concepts, especially coexistence, is frequently assumed and left for the reader to interpret, making it hard to compare studies, test metrics, and build upon previous HWI research. To work toward a better understanding of these terms, we conducted two World Café sessions at international conferences in Namibia, Africa and Ontario, Canada. Here, we present the array of perspectives revealed in the workshops and build upon these results to describe the meaning of coexistence as currently applied by conservation scientists and practitioners. Although we focus on coexistence, it is imperative to understand the term in relation to tolerance and acceptance, as in many cases these latter terms are used to express, measure, or define coexistence. Drawing on these findings, we discuss whether a common definition of these terms is possible and how the conservation field might move toward clarifying and operationalizing the concept of human-wildlife coexistence.

High striped hyena density suggests coexistence with humans in an agricultural landscape, Rajasthan

“…The coexistence of hyenas and humans in the shared landscape is supported by mutual benefits, where hyenas get benefits from food and humans’ benefit from waste removal. Thus, sharing landscape in a human-dominated landscape without negatively impacting each other is a possible key factor of human-wildlife coexistence [ 81 ].…”

Planning for Human-Wildlife Coexistence: Conceptual Framework, Workshop Process, and a Model for Transdisciplinary Collaboration

“…Human-wildlife coexistence has drawn increasing attention from researchers (Frank et al, 2019;Koenig et al, 2020;Pooley et al, 2021). Although relatively new to the HWI literature, the concept of coexistence has been addressed from multiple perspectives, with an emphasis on its conceptualization (Carter and Linnell, 2016;Pooley et al, 2021), relationship with similar conceptstolerance and acceptance-and with HWC (Frank, 2016;Glikman et al, 2021), and scales and levels of analysis (Carter et al, 2019;Koenig et al, 2020;Pooley et al, 2021). The framework described below is intended to contribute to this increasing body of knowledge by providing an approach for placing HWI in the context of planning and management concern.…”

“…The challenge with this, however, is that "coexistence" is a very vague vision, and can mean many different things to different people in different contexts. The conceptualization and operationalization of solutions to human-wildlife coexistence is still a matter of debate (Carter and Linnell, 2016;Koenig et al, 2020;Glikman et al, 2021;Pooley et al, 2021).…”

Towards More Resilient Conservation Practices: Bridging the Past and Present of Human–Wildlife Interactions

“…Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is defined as negative interactions between humans and wildlife, or between humans and humans over wildlife and its management [2,3], while human-wildlife coexistence infers that humans and wildlife prosper together and/or co-adapt while sharing landscapes and resources [1][2][3][4]. Because of the complexity of HWI and the potential backlash such interactions can have on biodiversity conservation, researchers have increasingly moved from a conflict focus to the inclusion of coexistence lexicon and approaches in conservation [1,3,5], all in an attempt to widen the array of solutions to address HWI in multifaceted and multi-stakeholder settings. While definitions have evolved and the understanding around HWI has deepened through research efforts, the line between what represents a conflict or coexistence interaction has remained blurred, as the relationships between humans and wildlife are dynamic, change over time, and may be perceived differently based on inter alia culture, location, severity, and the institutional architecture in place to manage conflicts [3,5,6].…”

“…Because of the complexity of HWI and the potential backlash such interactions can have on biodiversity conservation, researchers have increasingly moved from a conflict focus to the inclusion of coexistence lexicon and approaches in conservation [1,3,5], all in an attempt to widen the array of solutions to address HWI in multifaceted and multi-stakeholder settings. While definitions have evolved and the understanding around HWI has deepened through research efforts, the line between what represents a conflict or coexistence interaction has remained blurred, as the relationships between humans and wildlife are dynamic, change over time, and may be perceived differently based on inter alia culture, location, severity, and the institutional architecture in place to manage conflicts [3,5,6]. As HWI are increasing in many parts of the world [4,7], their complexity is becoming even more intractable as charismatic species, multiple stakeholders, clashing values, and varied institutional and governance arrangements are involved.…”