Introduction: Human-nature Interactions through a Multispecies Lens

Aisher, Alex; Damodaran, Vinita

doi:10.4103/0972-4923.197612

Cited by 36 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Here approaches such as multispecies ethnography, which studies the entanglements of human and non-human life, could be useful. Multispecies ethnography can combine ethological studies of animal behaviour with ethnographic studies of human behaviour, values, culture and beliefs, combining the material and the social, often grounded in locally specific human–animal relations (Aisher & Damodaran, 2016; Pooley et al, 2017). As such, it is well placed to understand the complexities of interactions between humans, extant and magical biodiversity (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thirdly, combining the previous two points, with few exceptions (e.g. Dickman et al, 2015; Aisher & Damodaran, 2016; Pooley et al, 2017) the conservation literature has given inadequate treatment to the complex social and cultural context, or the ontological system, in which magical animals are situated. Conservation may have an overly simplistic view of how to manage magical beliefs, promoting those seen as beneficial to conservation and repressing those that are not (Colding & Folke, 2001; Kibet, 2011).…”

Section: Magical Animals Conservation Rationalities and The Conservamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fantastic beasts and why to conserve them: animals, magic and biodiversity conservation

Holmes

Smith

Ward

2017

Oryx

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a broad set of human beliefs, attitudes and behaviours around the issue of magical animals, referring to both mythical animals not recognized by science and extant animals that are recognized by science but have magical properties. This is a broad issue ranging from spiritual beliefs around mythical animals living in Malagasy forests, to cultural heritage associated with the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland. Beliefs and behaviours around magical animals can have positive and negative impacts on biodiversity conservation goals. Yet, so far, the discipline of conservation biology has not adequately considered magical animals, neglecting to account for the broader knowledge from outside the natural sciences on this issue, and taking a narrow, utilitarian approach to how magical animals should be managed, without necessarily considering the broader impacts on conservation goals or ethics. Here we explore how magical animals can influence conservation goals, how conservation biology and practice has thought about magical animals, and some of the limitations of current approaches, particularly the failure to consider magical animals as part of wider systems of belief and culture. We argue that magical animals and their implications for conservation merit wider consideration.Keywords Conservation, ethics, Madagascar, magic, snakes, spirituality, Tanzania Introduction I n  a proposed new highway in Iceland was contested in court on the basis that it would cross the habitat of a valued species (The Guardian, ). In , , tourists visited a site in Scotland primarily because it is inhabited by a rare, endemic animal (ASVA, ), supporting a thriving ecotourism industry. Hyaenas Crocuta crocuta in Ethiopia are tolerated because they provide vital provisioning ecosystem services that benefit local communities (Baynes-Rock, ). In Madagascar, in contrast, some snakes are persecuted because they provide ecosystem disservices, harmful to human health (Tingle, ). These are seemingly straightforward conservation stories, where human-animal interactions produce benefits and costs for both biodiversity and people. Yet there is an often-overlooked complexity to these cases, with important implications for conservation outcomes. The species involved are either not recognized by science, or the properties of these species that local people resent or value are not recognized by science. The Icelandic protesters were protecting the habitat of Huldufólk, or elves. Ecotourists in Scotland were seeking the Loch Ness Monster Nessiteras rhombopteryx. The Ethiopian hyaenas provide the ecosystem service of eating evil spirits. The Malagasy snakes harm humans and cattle by transforming into sharp spear-like forms and dropping from trees. We argue that conservationists should take magical animals seriously, because they have important positive and negative implications for many species and habitats. Magical animals have been neglected and oversimplified within conservation, probably because of a lack of tr...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Magical Animals Conservation Rationalities and The Conservamentioning

confidence: 99%

Fantastic beasts and why to conserve them: animals, magic and biodiversity conservation

Holmes

Smith

Ward

2017

Oryx

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The challenge is to identify and delineate the communities of cross-species interest-rather than focus as Brakes et al (2019Brakes et al ( :1034 suggest on populations or social units to "predict how specific biological processes may influence conservation outcomes." Interesting ideas for how to study human-animal communities are emerging from human-animal studies (Marvin & McHugh 2018), etho-ethnology (Lestel et al 2006), field philosophy (Van Dooren 2019) and multispecies ethnography (Aisher & Damodaran 2016). Lestel et al (2014) object to more traditional ethologists' exclusion of animals that live or interact with humans as worthy subjects of study by deploying notions of disturbance (their term) or habituation.…”

Section: Conservation Biologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking the study of human–wildlife coexistence

Pooley

Bhatia

Vasava

2020

Conservation Biology

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although coexistence with wildlife is a key goal of conservation, little is known about it or how to study it. By coexistence we mean a sustainable though dynamic state in which humans and wildlife coadapt to sharing landscapes, where human interactions with wildlife are effectively governed to ensure wildlife populations persist in socially legitimate ways that ensure tolerable risk levels. Problems that arise from current conflictoriented framing of human-wildlife interactions include reinforcing a human-nature dichotomy as fundamentally oppositional, suggesting coexistence requires the absence of conflict, and skewing research and management toward direct negative impacts over indirect impacts and positive aspects of living with wildlife. Human behavior toward wildlife is framed as rational calculus of costs and benefits, sidelining emotional and cultural dimensions of these interactions. Coexistence is less studied due to unfamiliarity with relevant methodologies, including qualitative methods, self-reflexivity and ethical rigor, and constraints on funding and time. These challenges are illustrated with examples from fieldwork in India and Africa. We recommend a basic approach to case studies aimed at expanding the scope of inquiries into human-wildlife relations beyond studies of rational behavior and quantification of costs and benefits of wildlife to humans.

show abstract

“…Viewing humans and nonhuman species as interacting organisms that shape and create ecosystems reflects the worldviews of many animist communities (Descola 1994; Ingold 2000, 2011; Kohn 2013). For some human groups, such as the Nyishi people of upland Arunachal Pradesh in northeast India, “animated beings” extend to include natural entities and supernatural beings as well as living organisms (Aisher 2007; Aisher and Damodaran 2016). Therefore, approaching primate conservation through a multispecies lens and understanding habitats as multispecies landscapes not only supports the conservation of wildlife for its intrinsic value, regardless of function or value to humans (Pearson 2016); it also promotes the cultural diversity of local communities.…”

Section: Barriers To Interdisciplinary Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, social scientists among other scholars in the humanities (e.g., Gillespie and Collard 2015; Keil 2016; Rose et al 2012; Wilkie 2015) have considered the multiple possible realities perceived by diverse human communities and individuals that are shaped by religious and cultural beliefs, historical and social backgrounds, and ontological reasoning. Among human societies, people’s associations with wildlife range from ambiguous species boundaries and holistic concepts of nature that unite people, plants, animals, and supernatural beings to much more dualistic understandings whereby humans and animals, including primates, are considered as very separate entities, occupying distinct spaces (Aisher 2007; Aisher and Damodaran 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Breaking Through Disciplinary Barriers: Human–Wildlife Interactions and Multispecies Ethnography

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the main challenges when integrating biological and social perspectives in primatology is overcoming interdisciplinary barriers. Unfamiliarity with subject-specific theory and language, distinct disciplinary-bound approaches to research, and academic boundaries aimed at “preserving the integrity” of subject disciplines can hinder developments in interdisciplinary research. With growing interest in how humans and other primates share landscapes, and recognition of the importance of combining biological and social information to do this effectively, the disparate use of terminology is becoming more evident. To tackle this problem, we dissect the meaning of what the biological sciences term studies in “human–wildlife conflict” or more recently “human–wildlife interactions” and compare it to what anthropology terms “multispecies ethnography.” In the biological sciences, human–wildlife interactions are the actions resulting from people and wild animals sharing landscapes and resources, with outcomes ranging from being beneficial or harmful to one or both species. In the social sciences, human–nonhuman relationships have been explored on a philosophical, analytical, and empirical level. Building on previous work, we advocate viewing landscapes through an interdisciplinary “multispecies lens” in which humans are observed as one of multiple organisms that interact with other species to shape and create environments. To illustrate these interconnections we use the case study of coexistence between people of the Nalu ethnic group and Critically Endangered western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at Cantanhez National Park in Guinea-Bissau, to demonstrate how biological and social research approaches can be complementary and can inform conservation initiatives at the human–primate interface. Finally, we discuss how combining perspectives from ethnoprimatology with those from multispecies ethnography can advance the study of ethnoprimatology to aid productive discourse and enhance future interdisciplinary research.

show abstract

Introduction: Human-nature Interactions through a Multispecies Lens

Cited by 36 publications

References 41 publications

Fantastic beasts and why to conserve them: animals, magic and biodiversity conservation

Fantastic beasts and why to conserve them: animals, magic and biodiversity conservation

Rethinking the study of human–wildlife coexistence

Breaking Through Disciplinary Barriers: Human–Wildlife Interactions and Multispecies Ethnography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About