Factors influencing community participation in wildlife conservation

Guidelines to Facilitate Human-Wildlife Interactions in Conservation Translocations

“…These are highly relevant to conservation as they influence decision making, from government policy to local support for focal species. Furthermore, attitudes and behaviours of community members towards a reintroduction project may differ with socio-demographic variables such as age, gender, race and ethnicity, education and income levels (Mogomotsi et al, 2020). While our understanding of species biology and ecosystem dynamics informs reintroduction planning, it must go beyond that to encompass the understanding of the role people play both at the root of conservation problems and at the root of their solutions.…”

“…Nevertheless, HWIs cannot be reduced only to monetary costs and benefits of conservation. Communities living alongside wildlife are often not granted recognition for their role in producing ecosystem goods, especially in developing countries, and may experience less tangible psychological and wellbeing gains and losses (Mogomotsi et al, 2020). Research suggests that the local community's rights to sustainable use and their need to access resources' rights, must be built into the co-management of the project, to secure long term collaboration (Freitas et al, 2020;Mogomotsi et al, 2020).…”

Reconciling livestock production and wild herbivore conservation: challenges and opportunities

“…Although these measures have significantly reduced the frequency of FMD transmission and outbreaks as a result of buffalo-cattle interactions, they have had a considerable impact on the migratory behaviour of other wild species, such as blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), red hartebeest (Alcelaphus caama), and zebra (Equus quagga). Furthermore, such measures have failed to address the concerns of local subsistence producers, for which the risk of FMD transmission from buffalo was found to be a significant factor explaining negative attitudes and perceptions of wildlife for 74% of households surveyed in the Okavango delta [95]. Despite the potential for FMD and its management to affect both wild and domestic herbivores, important knowledge gaps remain, including the frequency and direction of transmission, the host or carrier status of other herbivore species of conservation concern (e.g., the African elephant Loxodonta africana), and the contribution of international herbivore movements to disease dynamics [93][94][95].…”

“…Furthermore, such measures have failed to address the concerns of local subsistence producers, for which the risk of FMD transmission from buffalo was found to be a significant factor explaining negative attitudes and perceptions of wildlife for 74% of households surveyed in the Okavango delta [95]. Despite the potential for FMD and its management to affect both wild and domestic herbivores, important knowledge gaps remain, including the frequency and direction of transmission, the host or carrier status of other herbivore species of conservation concern (e.g., the African elephant Loxodonta africana), and the contribution of international herbivore movements to disease dynamics [93][94][95]. Such uncertainties highlight the challenges of managing disease transmission between domestic and migratory wild herbivores (Figure 1).…”

Biodiversity Conservation and the Earth System: Mind the Gap

“…It seems unlikely, however, that these projects will adequately address the depletion of megafauna and restore the biome or earth system functions they drive without including measures specifically designed to do so. Indeed, where the conservation community has had some recent successes in conserving megafaunal populations, this can result in increased conflict between wildlife and local people unless adverse impacts can be appropriately managed [61,62]. In addition, human infrastructure such as fences, roads, and other urbanisation of landscapes often significantly restricts animal movement [63,64], constraining the scales over which key ecological functions can operate and hence limiting restoration potential even if megafaunal populations are locally able to recover.…”