The production of human-wildlife conflict: A political animal geography of encounter

Margulies, Jared D.; Karanth, Krithi K.

doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.06.011

Cited by 93 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 94 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Slovenia, however, the key factor in predicting the attitude towards bears was the perception of how harmful the bears are [25], not their real damage and its regional differences. It is possible that differences in LC acceptance are of economic background-related to the GDP of the countries [1] or changes in the rural economy [15].…”

Section: Country-related Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Acceptance of damage-causing species by local people is usually related to multiple factors, including psychological ones [10,11]. For instance, shifts in landscape structure due to agriculture [12,13] and land abandonment, as well as changes in societies and culture may affect the equilibrium of human-carnivore cohabitation [14,15]. It has been shown that teenagers' acceptance might be more crucial than the adult acceptance for the future of wildlife conservation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The distribution of age between countries was not uniform (Kruskal-Wallis, H = 294.6, p < 0.001). The average (±SD) respondent's age in Bulgaria was 12.65 ± 1.41 (range 11-18) years, in Turkey 12.89 ± 1.12 (10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15), in Latvia 13.87 ± 1.06 (11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16) and in Lithuania 14.28 ± 1.87 (11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17) years. Marginal frequencies on both sides of the range were small: 98.3% of respondents were 11-16 years old ( Figure A1).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Love Off, Fear On? Brown Bear Acceptance by Teenagers in European Countries with Differing Population Statuses

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The acceptance of large carnivores is one of the key issues for their conservation. We analyzed the level acceptance of brown bears (Ursus arctos Linnaeus, 1758) amongst 10-18 year old school students in four European countries using anonymous questionnaires. Our aim was to characterize the drivers of species acceptance, described as a rural-urban cline, as well as fear levels and the respondents' familiarity with bears. We found lower levels of acceptance of bears were related to fear of bears and that bear acceptance was not higher in the bear-inhabited countries, but urban inhabitants tended to better accept the species. Factor analysis revealed the importance of country-related aspects, familiarity with bears, experiences in human-wildlife conflict, gender-age differences, respondent's relationship to nature and the origin of their knowledge of the species. We consider that bear-related education and mass media in Latvia and Lithuania could reduce fear of these animals and sustain their acceptance, while human-wildlife conflict management measures in Bulgaria and Turkey are recommended to boost the appreciation of the species.Sustainability 2020, 12, 2397 2 of 15 between the ages of 10 and 13 years, these consolidated at around 16 years of age. Therefore, early age positive attitudes can be developed into more nature friendly views and may foster wildlife conservation in the future [9]. In this study, we focus on brown bear (BB) acceptance by teenagers, as this is indicative of the future of conservation of the BB and other large carnivores. Teenagers are also important in the light of the current trend of scientific ignorance in society and the rapid decrease of interest in biology among schoolchildren [16]. Gender differences in the aforementioned issues are well expressed, as well as a decreasing interest towards animals in older children [17].Teenager attitudes toward LC species depend on several factors, one of which is the presence of a LC species. In Lithuania wolf (Canis lupus) acceptance has been found to be directly related to their presence in the region [18]. In Norway, where the wolf population is minimal, wolf was rated as the most dangerous animal by children and adolescents (9-15 years) regardless of respondents' age, with girls expressing more negatively [19]. The rural-urban cline is also very important in the planning of the future of LC conservation [12]. Removed from the direct arena of human-carnivore conflict, young people living in urban areas are able to more rapidly change their attitudes towards nature and conservation, developing a positive LC acceptance [20]. However, urbanization cannot be seen as a solution to human-wildlife conflicts because the actual conflict may not, in reality, concern the wildlife. All conservation or damage-related conflicts are ultimately between humans with different interests, views and values [21], e.g., urban vs. rural inhabitants.Differences in species acceptance between even neighboring countries may be unexpectedly high: in three Baltic countries ...

show abstract

Section: Country-related Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Love Off, Fear On? Brown Bear Acceptance by Teenagers in European Countries with Differing Population Statuses

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Wolves remain targets of political ire and violence throughout the West, as perhaps the quintessential instance of human-wildlife conflict. Bringing insights from critical environmental history and cultural landscape studies together with more recent work in more-than-human geographies can complicate ideas of restoration as always partial, always political claims to (and productions of) space (Cronon, 1992(Cronon, , 1995Whatmore, 2002;Margulies and Karanth, 2018). We might better understand both wolf conflict and broader tensions of multiple use through the metaphor of landscape as palimpsest (Meinig, 1979, 6), in which historical patterns and claims are layered but never fully erased.…”

Section: Contested Belonging and The Wolf Questionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revisiting and revitalizing political ecology in the American West

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Political ecology, initially conceived to better understand the power relations implicit in management and distribution of natural resources in the developing world, came "home" to the American West in the 1990s and 2000s. This groundswell of research did much to problematize socio-environmental conflicts in the region, long typified by tensions over land and resources, identity and belonging, autonomy and authority. Since first touching down in the West, however, the "big tent" of political ecology has only grown bigger, incorporating new perspectives, epistemologies, and ontologies. At the same time, the nexus of environment and society is perhaps even more salient today, amid a regional conjuncture of populist revolt, climate change, and rapid political economic transformation. Here we reflect on three longstanding regional concerns-energy development, wolf reintroduction, and participatory governance-leveraging the pluralism of contemporary political ecology to better understand their contemporary incarnations. In so doing, we highlight the need to bring together insights from both "traditional" approaches and newer directions to better understand and engage contemporary challenges, with their heightened stakes and complexity. Such an approach demonstrates what we might learn about global processes in this place, as well as what insights regional praxis (often woefully provincial) might gain from elsewhere-new ways of seeing and doing political ecology. Our goal is to generate discussion among and between political ecologists and regional critical scholars, initiating new collaborative engagements that might serve the next wave of political ecology in the 21st century American West.

show abstract

“…Human-primate interactions are influenced by diverse cultural, social, ecological, and other components that may be unique to geographical regions and are fundamental to the continued existence of remaining primate populations (Dore 2017;Hill and Webber 2010;Lee and Priston 2005;Parathian et al 2018;Waters et al 2018a). Many negative human-primate interactions are underpinned by social or political conflicts where, for example, marginalized people consider wildlife to be the state's responsibility and hold it responsible for the losses they incur to their livelihoods (Anand et al 2018;Margulies and Karanth 2018). This perception is particularly common among people living around protected areas or where the state excludes local people from forest or wildlife management.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpreting People’s Behavior Toward Primates Using Qualitative Data: a Case Study from North Morocco

Waters

Harrad²,

Bell

et al. 2019

Int J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People's perceptions of primates vary across and within cultures and may not be consistent with their behavior toward the primates themselves. We used qualitative data from semistructured and unstructured interviews with shepherds from 10 villages around Bouhachem oak forest in Morocco to describe and discuss shepherds' behavior when they encounter Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus). When macaques enter agricultural fields to feed on crops, mature men trap, attach a marker to them (a hat or a rattle), and release them. In contrast, young men and boys working as shepherds hunt and kill macaques when they encounter them in the forest. We interpret these findings in the context of the historical, social, and cultural factors that underlie these crossspecies encounters. We suggest the different ways men behave toward macaques over their lives are related to their age and social status. Understanding that men's behavior varies, and changes over the life course, we continued to engage positively with shepherds of all ages, sharing general information about the macaques and conducting community projects benefiting villagers' health. This strategy led shepherds from six villages to stop hunting macaques, with the behavior of young men and boys changing to reflect that of older men. We suggest that gaining a deep, contextualized understanding of the human-primate interface and fostering intrinsic values for a species are effective in gaining communities' support and fundamental to facilitating changes in people's behavior in favor of conservation.Author Contributions SW developed methodology, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript; SW and AEH conducted fieldwork; SB and JMS provided editorial input.Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

show abstract

The production of human-wildlife conflict: A political animal geography of encounter

Cited by 93 publications

References 94 publications

Love Off, Fear On? Brown Bear Acceptance by Teenagers in European Countries with Differing Population Statuses

Love Off, Fear On? Brown Bear Acceptance by Teenagers in European Countries with Differing Population Statuses

Revisiting and revitalizing political ecology in the American West

Interpreting People’s Behavior Toward Primates Using Qualitative Data: a Case Study from North Morocco

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About