Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world

Abstract

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is a key topic in conservation and agricultural research. Decision makers need evidence-based information to design sustainable management plans and policy instruments. However, providing objective decision support can be challenging because realities and perceptions of humanwildlife interactions vary widely between and within rural, urban, and peri-urban areas. Land users who incur costs through wildlife argue that wildlife-related losses should be compensated and that prevention should be subsidized. Supporters of human-wildlife coexistence policies, such as urban-dwelling people, may not face threats to their livelihoods from wildlife. Such spatial heterogeneity in the cost and benefits of living with wildlife is germane in most contemporary societies. This Special Section features contributions on wildlife-induced damages that range from human perspectives (land use, psychology, governance, local attitudes and perceptions, costs and benefits, and HWC and coexistence theory) to ecological perspectives (animal behavior). Building on current literature and articles in this section, we developed a conceptual model to help frame HWC and coexistence dimensions. The framework can be used to determine damage prevention implementation levels and approaches to HWC resolution. Our synthesis revealed that inter-and transdisciplinary approaches and multilevel governance approaches can help stakeholders and institutions implement sustainable management strategies that promote human-wildlife coexistence.

Understanding drivers of human tolerance to gray wolves and brown bears as a strategy to improve landholder–carnivore coexistence

“…Therefore, it is essential to enable the adoption of husbandry methods compatible with PAs and large carnivores by working with stakeholders in a cultural and social meaningful way. To this end, König et al (2020) provide a conceptual framework to determine damage prevention implementation levels.…”

Wild ungulate overabundance in Europe: contexts, causes, monitoring and management recommendations

“…However, the admissible levels of population densities vary in relation to the ecological and socio‐economical context where they are located (Putman et al 2011b). Defining a population as overabundant or not also depends on the human perception of whoever makes the assessment, and this itself depends on the ecological and socio‐economical context (König et al 2020). Therefore, the criteria used to define a population as overabundant must be clearly set for each context, and should cover three perspectives: (1) biological (attributes of individuals and populations, e.g.…”

Quantitative Spatial Ecology to Promote Human-Wildlife Coexistence: A Tool for Integrated Landscape Management

“…Once the relative use of resource patches within the network can be anticipated from basic movement rules, the predictive model can be used to anticipate the outcome management actions on the risk of HWC. Conflicts can be mitigated using a large set of potential interventions (Miller et al, 2016;Nyhus, 2016;Ravenelle and Nyhus, 2017;König et al, 2020). For example, wildlife authorities may disturb and chase problem animals out of sensitive areas.…”