Institutions for Achieving Human–Wildlife Coexistence

Linnell, John D. C.; Kaltenborn, Bjørn P.

doi:10.1017/9781108235730.017

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Anthropocene has and will continue to be a time of unprecedented change across socioecological systems experiencing climate change, habitat fragmentation, and de-democratization of institutions across the globe (Cassani and Pellegata, 2015). Conservation decisions will continue to be made by global, national, regional and local institutions (Linnell and Kaltenborn, 2019). Adaptive capacity of multi-scale governance systems will not only need to create and implement policies that address a complex combination of needs for both nature and humans, but also do so through processes that are perceived as legitimate, equitable and informed by both scientific knowledge and local perspectives.…”

Section: Continued Controversy Over Carnivores Despite Various Instit...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…livestock depredations or attacks on people; Redpath et al, 2015;Young et al, 2010) . Conflict within and among stakeholder groups and authorities is often over differences in values and uses for carnivores (i.e., from utilitarian to mutualistic values and uses ;Bruskotter et al, 2019;Dietsch et al, 2016), but is also related to social identity and the competition Carnivore conservation is sometimes mandated by an institutional nested-hierarchy, where international legislation provides a broad policy framework (Trouwborst et al, 2017) and delegates to ever lower levels with each level being constrained by the one above, such as in the case of carnivore conservation in Europe (Linnell and Kaltenborn, 2019;Sazatornil et al, 2019) . Multiple institutions can play a role in the ultimate decision-making process, ranging from subnational institutions to informal local groups or landowners.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conservation professionals' views on governing for coexistence with large carnivores

Lute

Carter

López‐Bao

et al. 2020

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Continued Controversy Over Carnivores Despite Various Instit...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation professionals' views on governing for coexistence with large carnivores

Lute

Carter

López‐Bao

et al. 2020

Biological Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Much of the scholarship exploring and defining coexistence has been conceptual or has addressed coexistence implicitly without definition (Gilroy et al, 2014;Lopez-Bao et al, 2015;Carter and Linnell, 2016;Bergstrom, 2017;Linnell and Kaltenborn, 2019). Rigorous assessment is needed to understand how these theoretical concepts operationalize in specific cases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are We Coexisting With Carnivores in the American West?

Lute

Carter

2020

Front. Ecol. Evol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human-carnivore coexistence is an oft-stated goal but assumptions about what constitutes coexistence can lead to goal misalignment and undermine policy and program efficacy. Questions about how to define coexistence remain and specific goals and methods for reaching coexistence require refining. Co-adaptation, where humans adapt to carnivores and vice versa, is a novel socioecological framework for operationalizing coexistence but has yet to be comprehensively examined. We explored co-adaptation and two additional coexistence criteria through analysis of three case studies involving large carnivores in the American West, each addressing differing approaches on how and what it means to coexist with carnivores: Mexican gray wolves (Canis lupus baileyi) in Arizona and New Mexico, grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and coyotes (Canis latrans) throughout the American West. We used a multiple case study design that analyzed within and across cases to understand coexistence broadly. For each case, we asked (1) are landscapes shared in space and/or time, (2) is co-adaptation occurring and (3) do stakeholders consider risks tolerable? To identify whether coexistence criteria are met, we investigated peer-reviewed published articles and news media and conducted key informant interviews. We found clear evidence to support land-sharing between humans and coyotes and limited spatial overlap between humans and grizzly bears and Mexican gray wolves. Co-adaptation was variable for wolves, possible with bears and clearly evident with coyotes. Tolerable risk levels are likely achievable for bears and coyotes based on the available literature assessing risk perceptions and tolerance. But disagreement regarding risk management is a driver of conflict over wolves and persistent barrier to achieving coexistence among diverse stakeholders. Patterns in coexistence criteria did not emerge based on taxonomy or geography but may be influenced by body size and behavioral plasticity. The common key to coexistence with each considered carnivore may be in more equitable distribution of costs and benefits among highly diverse stakeholders. Better understanding of these three coexistence criteria and innovative tools to achieve them will improve coexistence capacity with controversial carnivores on public and private lands in diverse American West contexts and beyond.

show abstract

Failure to coordinate management in transboundary populations hinders the achievement of national management goals: The case of wolverines in Scandinavia

Gervasi

Linnell

Brøseth

et al. 2019

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Large carnivores are expanding in Europe, and their return is associated with conflicts that often result in policies to regulate their population size through culling.Being wide-ranging species, their populations are often distributed across several jurisdictions, which may vary in the extent to which they use lethal control. This creates the conditions for the establishment of source-sink dynamics across borders, which may frustrate the ability of countries to reach their respective management objectives.2. To explore the consequences of this issue, we constructed a vec-permutation projection model, applied to the case of wolverines in south-central Scandinavia, shared between Norway (where they are culled) and Sweden (where they are protected). We evaluated the effect of compensatory immigration on wolverine population growth rates, and if the effect was influenced by the distance to the national border. We assessed to what extent compensatory immigration had an influence on the number of removals needed to keep the population at a given growth rate.3. In Norway, the model estimated a stable trend, whereas in Sweden it produced a 10% annual increase. The effect of compensatory immigration corresponded to a 0.02 reduction in population growth rate in Sweden and to a similar increase in Norway. This effect was strong closer to the Norwegian-Swedish border, but weak when moving away from it. An average of 33 wolverines was shot per year in the Norwegian part of the study area. If no compensatory immigration from Sweden had occurred, 28 wolverines shot per year would have been sufficient to achieve the same goal. About 15.5% of all the individuals harvested in Norway between 2005 and 2012 were compensated by immigrants, causing a decrease in population growth rate in Sweden. Synthesis and applications.When a population is transboundary, the consequences of management decisions are also transboundary, even though the political bodies in charge of those decisions, the stakeholders who influence them, and the taxpayers who finance them are not. It is important that managers and citizens be informed that a difference in management goals can reduce the efficiency, and increase the costs, of wildlife management. Nature State Inspectorate are charged with the task of removing an additional portion of the population, with a particular focus on K E Y W O R D S compensatory immigration, density-dependent dispersal, source-sink dynamic, spatial harvest, transboundary management, policy, transboundary species, vec-permutation matrix model

show abstract

Institutions for Achieving Human–Wildlife Coexistence

Cited by 6 publications

References 46 publications

Conservation professionals' views on governing for coexistence with large carnivores

Conservation professionals' views on governing for coexistence with large carnivores

Are We Coexisting With Carnivores in the American West?

Failure to coordinate management in transboundary populations hinders the achievement of national management goals: The case of wolverines in Scandinavia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About