Linking human and ecological components to understand human–wildlife conflicts across landscapes and species

Abstract

Human–wildlife conflicts (HWC) are complex conservation challenges that impair both wildlife populations and human livelihood. Research on HWC, however, has traditionally approached ecological and human components separately, hampering a broader understanding of connections between ecological drivers and human dimensions of conflicts. We developed a model that integrates ecological and human components of HWC to investigate how the amount of remaining native forest (forest cover, a key ecological variable known to influence species occurrence and abundance) affects human experiences with wildlife (contact with species and attacks on livestock) and how such experiences influence tolerance via beliefs, emotions, and attitudes. We tested the model with piecewise structural equation modeling and data on human interactions with 3 mammals with different rarity and body size: opossum (Didelphis aurita), crab‐eating fox (Cerdocyon thous), and puma (Puma concolor). Data were obtained by interviewing 114 landowners across 13 Atlantic Forest landscapes (10–50% forest cover). Forest cover was associated with high chance of attacks on livestock, and thus with low tolerance, only in the case of the puma. Effects of distinct experiences with wildlife on beliefs and emotions varied across species. Beliefs and emotions toward wildlife influenced tolerance toward all species, but negative emotions affected tolerance toward only with the puma. Conflicts with large carnivores, such as pumas, can then be understood as disservices provided by forests, indicating the relevance of framing HWC more broadly to consider trade‐offs with ecosystems services. For some species, positive experiences with wildlife may counteract the negative effects of attacks on livestock in shaping tolerance. Models such as ours—that link ecological and human dimensions—can help identify more effective leverage points to improve HWC mitigation.

Emotions and Cultural Importance Predict the Acceptance of Large Carnivore Management Strategies by Maasai Pastoralists

“…Specifically to the Maasai, we have underpinned the importance of different carnivores to their culture and their acceptance of different strategies, forming a basis for coexistence based on various factors. Because the effects of the factors may be direct and indirect (Teixeira et al, 2020), investigating these relationships may disentangle effects and help understand the complex processes associated with tolerance of wildlife and how human cognitions interact with ecological dimensions. In particular, it would be important to understand the interplay between the different factors in order to detect any mediating effects between predictors and their relationship with the acceptance of management strategies.…”

Ranchers' Perspectives on Participating in Non-lethal Wolf-Livestock Coexistence Strategies

“…By implication, as wildlife recovers and is restored in ecosystems, wildlife managers should make effort to maintain or restore social relations and trust through forging new collaborations across agencies and encouraging locally formed and led coexistence groups. Whereas, we focused on gray wolves, our results can be applied to other regional carnivore-human interactions, as well as those that occur nationally and internationally (van Eeden et al, 2018;Teixeira et al, 2020). Our findings are relevant more generally in Washington, for example, because ranchers repeatedly mentioned other predators when responding to questions about their perspectives on non-lethal mitigation strategies to co-exist with wolves.…”

Joining forces toward proactive elephant and rhinoceros conservation

“…Conservation efforts need to consider the people coexisting with animals not only as an afterthought, but actively listen and integrate their opinions in each step of the management and policy development and implementation (Cassidy & Salerno 2020;McMurdo Hamilton et al 2020) and gradually towards a more active, transformative and empowering participation (Cornwall 2008). Research needs to link ecological and human dimensions (Teixeira et al 2020), include perspectives of people coexisting with species (McMurdo Hamilton et al 2020) and involve transdisciplinary and science-policy-management collaborations (König et al 2020). This includes taking the complexity of human wildlife coexistence beyond tangible costs and benefits (König et al 2020) and acknowledging and addressing the inequality in the distribution of costs and benefits of coexisting with wildlife; these aspects need to be at the center of management and policy plans and implementation (Jordan et al 2020).…”