Human–Wildlife Conflicts and the Need to Include Coexistence

Frank, Béatrice; Glikman, Jenny Anne

doi:10.1017/9781108235730.004

Cited by 58 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The focus on human–wildlife conflict has often been a constraint to wildlife conservation, as practitioners have centered their attention on reducing negative interactions, rather than on increasing positive relations between humans and wildlife. To work toward solutions that maximize conservation success, it is necessary to include positive interactions, coexistence, and attitudes of tolerance toward wildlife [ 11 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coexistence between human and wildlife: the nature, causes and mitigations of human wildlife conflict around Bale Mountains National Park, Southeast Ethiopia

Mekonen

2020

BMC Ecol

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human–wildlife conflict occurs when the needs and behavior of wildlife impact negatively on humans or when humans negatively affect the needs of wildlife. To explore the nature, causes and mitigations of human wildlife conflict, the coexistence between human and wildlife assessment was conducted around Bale Mountains National Park. Data were collected by means of household questionnaires, focus group discussion, interview, field observation and secondary sources. The nature and extent of human wildlife conflict in the study area were profoundly impacted humans, wild animal and the environment through crop damage, habitat disturbance and destruction, livestock predation, and killing of wildlife and human. The major causes of conflict manifested that agricultural expansion (30%), human settlement (24%), overgrazing by livestock (14%), deforestation (18%), illegal grass collection (10%) and poaching (4%). To defend crop raider, farmers have been practiced crop guarding (34%), live fencing (26%), scarecrow (22%), chasing (14%), and smoking (5%). However, fencing (38%), chasing (30%), scarecrow (24%) and guarding (8%) were controlling techniques to defend livestock predator animals. As emphasized in this study, human–wildlife conflicts are negative impacts on both human and wildlife. Accordingly, possible mitigate possibilities for peaceful co-existence between human and wildlife should be create awareness and training to the local communities, identifying clear border between the closure area and the land owned by the residents, formulate rules and regulation for performed local communities, equal benefit sharing of the local communities and reduction of human settlement encroachment into the national park range. Generally, researcher recommended that stakeholders and concerned bodies should be creating awareness to local community for the use of wildlife and human–wildlife conflict mitigation strategies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coexistence between human and wildlife: the nature, causes and mitigations of human wildlife conflict around Bale Mountains National Park, Southeast Ethiopia

Mekonen

2020

BMC Ecol

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The type of interaction is context-laden and varies depending on an array of factors, from the costs and benefits of sharing the landscapes with wildlife to social and cultural context, including human-human interactions (Morzillo et al 2014;Frank 2016;Yurco et al 2017). Conflict-to-coexistence dispositions toward wildlife are dynamic and can change over time, across geographical scales, and in intensity, shifting along the continuum as interactions with wildlife evolve (Frank and Glikman 2019). Ultimately, human-wildlife interactions are not about the presence or absence of conflict or coexistence; they are about how the relationship shifts along the conflict-to-coexistence continuum over space and time and across species.…”

Section: Living With Large Carnivores: Looking At the Glass Half-fullmentioning

confidence: 99%

Large carnivores and zoos as catalysts for engaging the public in the protection of biodiversity

Consorte-McCrea¹,

Fernández²,

Bainbridge³

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Addressing the biodiversity crisis requires renewed collaborative approaches. Large carnivores are ambassador species, and as such they can aid the protection of a wide range of species, including evolutionarily distinct and threatened ones, while being popular for conservation marketing. However, conflicts between carnivores and people present a considerable challenge to biodiversity conservation. Our cross disciplinary essay brings together original research to discuss key issues in the conservation of large carnivores as keystone species for biodiversity rich, healthy ecosystems. Our findings suggest the need to promote coexistence through challenging ‘wilderness’ myths; to consider coexistence/conflict as a continuum; to include varied interest groups in decision making; to address fear through positive mediated experiences, and to explore further partnerships with zoos. As wide-reaching institutions visited by over 700 million people/year worldwide, zoos combine knowledge, emotion and social context creating ideal conditions for the development of care towards nature, pro-environmental behaviors and long-term connections between visitors and carnivores. Based on current research, we provide evidence that large carnivores and zoos are both powerful catalysts for public engagement with biodiversity conservation, recognizing barriers and suggesting future ways to collaborate to address biodiversity loss.

show abstract

“…Large carnivores can therefore sometimes become a means to channel or express deeper cultural divides and differences in paradigms and world views (Madden and McQuinn, 2014). As such, an alternative method to mitigate human-human conflict over conservation is increasingly to engage the involved parties in participatory processes (von Korff et al, 2010;Frank and Glikman, 2019), whereby different stakeholders (including academia) work together and cocreate solutions through a facilitated open dialogue approach (Creighton, 2005;Bixler et al, 2015). As a first step, however, in managing conflicts around large carnivores in a participatory approach would be the greater understanding of the nature of the conflicts and the context in which they have developed and persist (Altwood and Breck, 2012;Redpath et al, 2013;Hartel et al, 2019) -and in the case of large carnivores in Europe to explore the nature of conflicts across different regions to explore the potential for participatory processes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Salvatori¹,

Balian

Blanco³

et al. 2020

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Human–Wildlife Conflicts and the Need to Include Coexistence

Cited by 58 publications

References 70 publications

Coexistence between human and wildlife: the nature, causes and mitigations of human wildlife conflict around Bale Mountains National Park, Southeast Ethiopia

Coexistence between human and wildlife: the nature, causes and mitigations of human wildlife conflict around Bale Mountains National Park, Southeast Ethiopia

Large carnivores and zoos as catalysts for engaging the public in the protection of biodiversity

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About