Predicting the legitimacy of wolf recovery

Serenari, Christopher; Taub, Michelle

doi:10.2981/wlb.00454

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 73 publications

(85 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…ESA, local land ethic, anti-wolf resolutions, Serenari et al, 2018), and built (e.g., roads, technology, buildings), social (e.g. social networks, poor relations between governing agencies, Serenari et al, 2018) (Serenari, forthcoming), prevented a range of legitimacy deficits (Serenari & Taub, 2019) or encouraged development of a prepared and resilient recovery program that could better withstand negative trends and threats over time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…social networks, poor relations between governing agencies, Serenari et al., 2018) and human infrastructures (e.g. illegitimate governance, political discourse, Serenari & Lute, 2020; Serenari & Taub, 2019) interacted to create, modify and destroy infrastructure and distributions of metabolisms between human, natural and wildlife systems. A focus on the built environment highlights, for example, an undervaluing of the spirit and utility of captive breeding programs occurring in zoos and elsewhere, misjudging the social unpalatability of an essential but multi‐infrastructure‐consuming conservation reliance approach in the rural landscape of northeast North Carolina, as well as a dogmatic emphasis on wilderness ideals to perpetuate red wolves on private lands.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, viewing the built environment as a blending of system elements, flows and properties over time and across space may have helped foresee its influence on a hardwired, omnipresent and destructive politics of red wolf recovery and its negative impact on human and non‐human lifeworlds. This foresight may have, for instance, prevented the production of damaging harmful discourse about the artificiality of wolf recovery (Serenari & Lute, 2020), cultivated an appreciation for the conservation reliance designation as a policy instrument (Serenari, forthcoming), prevented a range of legitimacy deficits (Serenari & Taub, 2019) or encouraged development of a prepared and resilient recovery program that could better withstand negative trends and threats over time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reconsidering the role of the built environment in human–wildlife interactions

Serenari

2020

People and Nature

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In facing our greatest challenges, researchers have questioned where the ‘wild things’ will reside in the future, and large carnivores have been a primary focal area. The built environment plays a critical role in the propagation of countless species including carnivores; however, contemporary conceptualizations of human–nature relations do not satisfactorily attend to where the built environment should be placed within existing human–nature relation frameworks or how it impacts our ability to find space for carnivores. This paper fills this information gap by investigating the role of the built environment in social–ecological systems (SES), specifically wildlife and carnivore conservation. The paper unfolds in four stages: The first reviews empirical efforts to capture the relationship between human–natural–wildlife systems and the built environment. Second, using insights from the built environment literature, I argue that moving away from a common pool resource focus, decoupling wildlife and natural systems, investigating all infrastructure types and their interactions across systems, and considering the notion of hybrid systems offer pathways forward. Third, an explanation of the built environment's linkages to human and carnivore systems is undertaken to illustrate how the built environment facilitates the material and symbolic interactions through a blending of properties from human, wildlife and natural systems. Lastly, the argument is made that attending to the role of the built environment in human–wildlife relations can stimulate new research that reveals unhelpful habitual behaviour, feedbacks and barriers, and may also help explain unintended or unexplained consequences impacting human–carnivore relations not fully considered under existing frameworks. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reconsidering the role of the built environment in human–wildlife interactions

Serenari

2020

People and Nature

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Long-term sustainable large carnivore policy will likely require better ways to equitably distribute risks and resources across the spectrum of stakeholders. Additionally, an important aspect of Carter and Linnell (2016;p575) definition of coexistence is that it be "governed by legitimate institutions, " which was beyond the scope of this analysis but is addressed in other studies (Serenari et al, 2018;Serenari and Taub, 2019).…”

Section: Conclusion and Management Implicationsmentioning

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

“…Inspired by Ratamäki (2008), most statements were contextualized (Table 1). This study employs data from seven survey items used by Serenari and Taub (2019) to study policy legitimacy. For this study, we addressed missing data using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) and items assigned to beliefs, intention to coexist, and support variables.…”

Section: Operationalizing the Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation reliance and its influence on support for carnivore recovery

Serenari

2021

Conservat Sci and Prac

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of species reliant on consistent human intervention is rising.These species are labeled conservation-reliant, which affords them unique resources to propagate them. A conservation reliance designation has important implications for recovery of large carnivores, particularly where private lands encompass historical ranges. As a policy tool, a conservation reliance designation may be used in conjunction with other popular instruments such as financial incentives or co-governance to promote coexistence between carnivores and key cohorts such as landowners and hunters, who are often vocal dissidents of carnivore recovery, especially wolf recovery projects. Yet, the nascent literature on conservation reliance has yet to address the influence of conservation reliance on landowner or hunter support for carnivore conservation. This paper fills this gap with an analysis of responses from 639 landowners to explore the influence of a conservation reliance designation on intention to coexist with wild red wolves (Canis rufus) in northeast North Carolina. Findings suggest that respondents living in the red wolf recovery zone generally oppose a conservation reliance designation, a critical means to red wolf recovery. Hence, a conservation reliance designation may actually erode the value of some species they intend to preserve. Disapproval of conservation reliance poses new confronts to restoration politics and its diversity of strands, which must be woven into new ways of thinking about the ethical and political aspects of carnivore policy and management.

show abstract

Predicting the legitimacy of wolf recovery

Abstract: BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Cited by 10 publications

References 73 publications

Reconsidering the role of the built environment in human–wildlife interactions

Reconsidering the role of the built environment in human–wildlife interactions

Are We Coexisting With Carnivores in the American West?

Conservation reliance and its influence on support for carnivore recovery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About