Public Demand for Information and Assistance at the Human–Wildlife Interface

Lindsey, Kieran J.; Adams, Clark E.

doi:10.1080/10871200600803135

Cited by 19 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…feeding wild fish for tourism; Patroni et al, 2018b) or a region (e.g. wildlife tourism in China; Cong et al, 2017) or examine only one side of the storyfor example, Bateman and Fleming (2017) synthesize the empirical studies on wildlife responses to nature-based tourism activities, while Lindsey and Adams (2006) summarize the literature on the public demand and transfer of information regarding human-wildlife interface. Cong et al (2012) contribute an inclusive analysis of wildlife tourism research through a review of 55 academic journal articles.…”

Section: A Review On Human-wildlife Interaction 529mentioning

confidence: 99%

Human-wildlife interactions for tourism: a systematic review

Dou

Day

2020

JHTI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper aims to synthesize the key findings of prior research on the topic of human-wildlife interactions (HWI) in natural places for tourism.Design/methodology/approachThe methodology of systematic review was used to search for, appraise and analyze the relevant research evidence. A total of 47 English-language academic journal articles, published between 2003 and 2018, with free online access to full texts in the database of Hospitality and Tourism Complete have been reviewed. Thematic analysis was adopted to synthesize the textual data.FindingsThe reviewed articles cover a wide geographical spread, diverse wildlife species and interaction types, and various research focuses including ecological impacts, human dimensions and management issues of wildlife tourism. The interactions between wildlife and human systems in the context of tourism constitute a complicated social-ecological system, in which both the humans and animals can be affected positively and negatively. Management and scientific research provide the nexus between the ecological and human dimensions of wildlife tourism. While opportunities for sustainable development abound, challenges are not to be neglected.Originality/valueDue to the complexity of wildlife encounters for tourist purposes, the extant literature indicates a diverse and fragmented view from which integrated implications are difficult to obtain. This paper presents the first overarching review in English of the literature on human-wildlife interactions for tourism and provides a big picture understanding of what has been and what is needed to be done in terms of both wildlife tourism research and practices.

show abstract

Section: A Review On Human-wildlife Interaction 529mentioning

confidence: 99%

Human-wildlife interactions for tourism: a systematic review

Dou

Day

2020

JHTI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lindsey and Adams [ 43 ] (p. 279) conclude that most urbanites operate in an “intellectual and experiential vacuum” with regard to encounters with wild animals. Inside that vacuum it is important to understand how people perceive risk, given that such perception is likely to drive behavior [ 44 , 45 ].…”

Section: The Social Environment For Urban Wildlifementioning

confidence: 99%

Wildlife in U.S. Cities: Managing Unwanted Animals

Hadidian¹

2015

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simple SummaryWild animals are increasingly adapting to living in urbanizing environments, even as urban living has become the dominant human life style. This leads to greater opportunities to experience and enjoy wildlife, but also to increases in the kind and frequency of human-wildlife conflicts. Conflicts occur not only with species deemed to be perennial pests or nuisances, but situationally and episodically with others that are valued and esteemed. Regardless of how we view wild animals with whom we have conflicts, all deserve moral consideration and humane treatment. Issues in coexisting with urban wildlife are reviewed here.AbstractConflicts between people and wild animals in cities are undoubtedly as old as urban living itself. In the United States it is only of late, however, that many of the species now found in cities have come to live there. The increasing kind and number of human-wildlife conflicts in urbanizing environments makes it a priority that effective and humane means of conflict resolution be found. The urban public wants conflicts with wildlife resolved humanely, but needs to know what the alternative management approaches are, and what ethical standards should guide their use. This paper examines contemporary urban wildlife control in the United States with a focus on the moral concerns this raises. Much of the future for urban wildlife will depend on reform in governance, but much as well will depend on cultural changes that promote greater respect and understanding for wild animals and the biotic communities of which they and we are both a part.

show abstract

“…Humans and wildlife have interacted by sharing natural resources for thousands of years. If competition occurs both in terms of food and space [1][2][3][4], the resultant negative impacts [5][6] would often threaten the survival of the wildlife [1][2][3][4]. This issue becomes worse if the species are considered dangerous and feared, since people's perceptions of feared species enhance their killings, as found in the studies on wolves by Browne-Nuñez and Taylor [7] in America and Álvares 2004 in [8] in Portugal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of culture in the emotional response towards komodo dragon in Komodo and Rinca Islands of Komodo National Park

Sunkar

Kusrini

Ramadhani³

2020

BIO Web Conf.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human emotions towards wildlife were seldom considered in wildlife conservation. This study seeks to identify, explore and understand the local communities perceptions and interactions with Komodo dragons. Data were collected from February to April 2018 in Komodo Village and Rinca Village of Komodo National Park, using close and semi-open questionnaires, three-scale Likert statements and interviews with 60 respondents. Although 98.5% considered Komodo as a dangerous species, in total, 60.6% of Komodo villagers had positive perceptions of their interactions with Komodo, while 47.6% of Rinca’s had moderate perceptions. Komodo attacks were less reported in Komodo Village despite the more frequent direct encounters. Komodo villagers have learnt how to adjust to the dangers, with 13% showed no actions during an encounter with the dragon, 77% pelt the dragon with rocks and 10% pulled it by the tail. On the contrary, 50% of Rinca Villagers, although showed no actions, but reported the sightings, 20% pelt it with rocks, 27% herd it with sticks and 3% hit it with wood. The different responses correlated with the different cultural beliefs and values towards Komodo. All Rinca villagers were migrants with no cultural attachments to the reptile, while for Komodo villagers, the dragons were perceived to be cousins, hence should not be harmed. Such perceptions have resulted in the approximately 83% of Komodo villagers believed they could co-exist with the dragons, and showed higher supports for its conservation (81.5%) than Rinca villagers (65.3%). This study confirms the importance of integrating local cultural values in building supports for conservation.

show abstract

Public Demand for Information and Assistance at the Human–Wildlife Interface

Cited by 19 publications

References 9 publications

Human-wildlife interactions for tourism: a systematic review

Human-wildlife interactions for tourism: a systematic review

Wildlife in U.S. Cities: Managing Unwanted Animals

Role of culture in the emotional response towards komodo dragon in Komodo and Rinca Islands of Komodo National Park

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About