More Like this

1. Human–Wildlife Interactions and Coexistence in an Urban Desert Environment

   https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043307  

   Larson, Kelli L. ; Rosales Chavez, Jose-Benito ; Brown, Jeffrey A. ; Morales-Guerrero, Jorge ; Avilez, Dayanara ( February 2023 , Sustainability)

   Negative interactions between people and wildlife pose a significant challenge to their coexistence. Past research on human–wildlife interactions has largely focused on conflicts involving carnivores in rural areas. Additional research is needed in urban areas to examine the full array of negative and positive interactions between people and wildlife. In this study, we have conducted interviews in the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona (USA), to explore residents’ everyday interactions with wildlife where they live. Our multifaceted approach examines interactions involving physical contact and observational experiences, as well as associated attitudinal and behavioral responses and actions toward wildlife. Overall, the qualitative analysis of residents’ narratives identified two distinct groups: people who are indifferent toward wildlife where they live, and those who appreciate and steward wildlife. Instead of revealing conflicts and negative interactions toward wildlife, our findings underscore the positive interactions that can foster human wellbeing in urban areas. The holistic approach presented herein can advance knowledge and the management of coexistence, which involves not only managing conflicts but also tolerance, acceptance, and stewardship. Understanding diverse human–wildlife interactions and managing coexistence can advance both wildlife conservation and human wellbeing in cities.

    

   more » « less
2. Sharing the World With Bears: Conflict and Coexistence in the Siberian Taiga

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-022-00364-y  

   Wiget, Andrew ; Balalaeva, Olga ( December 2022 , Human Ecology)

   Abstract Conservation regimes and governmental relations with Indigenous peoples both vary widely. Successfully resolving conflicts arising from human-wildlife interactions (HWI) is complicated by the existence of multiple ontologies not only among various publics but within historically-marginalized and fragmented Indigenous communities. Current models of HWI are being reevaluated in order to better understand how humans and animals, including large carnivores, have learned to coexist. This article uses field interviews and Indigenous songs texts to describe the uniquely moral character of human-bear interactions among the elder generation of Siberian Khanty of Siberia. We outline the potential of such an ethos for developing more inclusive and just management policies and practices focused on tolerance and coexistence, while also identifying some limitations on developing such policies that emerge from acculturative stresses. 

   more » « less
3. Using pastoral ideology to understand human–wildlife coexistence in arid agricultural landscapes

   https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.35  

   Laverty, Theresa M. ; Teel, Tara L. ; Thomas, Rebecca E. W. ; Gawusab, A. Archie ; Berger, Joel ( April 2019 , Conservation Science and Practice)

   Integrating social and ecological knowledge is requisite for solutions to global conservation problems, including human–wildlife conflict, but gathering sufficient data to facilitate integration has proved difficult. Social–ecological systems models have also traditionally overlooked individual human thought and behavior that can affect the success of management interventions. In response to these challenges, we drew upon psychological theory and long‐term ecological data on wildlife populations and conflict occurrence to inform qualitative research on pastoralists' values toward wildlife in the northern Namib Desert. We explored how values and ecological conditions shaped individuals': (a) interactions with and tolerance of species; and (b) perceptions of challenges and potential solutions to living with wildlife. Semi‐structured interview data revealed a prevailing domination value orientation toward wildlife, reflected in concerns for human and livestock wellbeing. Despite these concerns and high rates of reported conflicts, pastoralists were generally tolerant of wildlife, including predators, and indicated this in their proposed management solutions. In addition to its practical implications for informing human–wildlife coexistence strategies in the Namibian context, our approach advances knowledge about wildlife values globally, offers insights on the utility of qualitative assessments for cross‐cultural social–ecological systems research, and furthers understanding of conservation challenges and opportunities in extreme arid environments.

    

   more » « less
4. Human dimensions of grizzly bear conservation: The social factors underlying satisfaction and coexistence beliefs in Montana, USA

   https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.12885  

   Nesbitt, Holly K. ; Metcalf, Alexander L. ; Metcalf, Elizabeth Covelli ; Costello, Cecily M. ; Roberts, Lori L. ; Lewis, Mike S. ; Gude, Justin A. ( February 2023 , Conservation Science and Practice)

   Coexistence between large carnivores and humans is a global conservation concern. Montana (USA) is home to recovering grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) populations and increasing human–grizzly interactions. In 2019, we administered a survey of Montanans to investigate factors influencing normative beliefs about grizzly bear population sizes and quantify the relationship between these beliefs and satisfaction with grizzly management in the state. Using a linear regression (r² = .61), we found that residents with positive attitudes and emotional dispositions toward grizzlies or who trusted the agency were more likely to believe grizzly populations were too low. Residents who believed hunting should be used to manage conflict, were themselves hunters, had vicarious wildlife experience with property damage, believed grizzly populations were expanding, or were older were more likely to believe populations were too high. We found a negative quadratic relationship between normative grizzly bear population size beliefs and satisfaction with management, suggesting an optimal “Goldilocks” zone where coexistence is most possible. In practice, if observed Goldilocks zones are incompatible with population numbers required to meet conservation goals, considering factors influencing these beliefs may help bolster acceptance of larger population sizes.

    

   more » « less
5. Wildlife impacts and vulnerable livelihoods in a transfrontier conservation landscape

   https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13480  

   Salerno, Jonathan ; Bailey, Karen ; Gaughan, Andrea E. ; Stevens, Forrest R. ; Hilton, Tom ; Cassidy, Lin ; Drake, Michael D. ; Pricope, Narcisa G. ; Hartter, Joel ( May 2020 , Conservation Biology)

   Interactions between humans and wildlife resulting in negative impacts are among the most pressing conservation challenges globally. In regions of smallholder livestock and crop production, interactions with wildlife can compromise human well‐being and motivate negative sentiment and retaliation toward wildlife, undermining conservation goals. Although impacts may be unavoidable when human and wildlife land use overlap, scant large‐scale human data exist quantifying the direct costs of wildlife to livelihoods. In a landscape of global importance for wildlife conservation in southern Africa, we quantified costs for people living with wildlife through a fundamental measure of human well‐being, food security, and we tested whether existing livelihood strategies buffer certain households against crop depredation by wildlife, predominantly elephants. To do this, we estimated Bayesian multilevel statistical models based on multicounty household data (n= 711) and interpreted model results in the context of spatial data from participatory land‐use mapping. Reported crop depredation by wildlife was widespread. Over half of the sample households were affected and household food security was reduced significantly (odds ratio 0.37 [0.22, 0.63]). The most food insecure households relied on gathered food sources and welfare programs. In the event of crop depredation by wildlife, these 2 livelihood sources buffered or reduced harmful effects of depredation. The presence of buffering strategies suggests a targeted compensation strategy could benefit the region's most vulnerable people. Such strategies should be combined with dynamic and spatially explicit land‐use planning that may reduce the frequency of negative human–wildlife impacts. Quantifying and mitigating the human costs from wildlife are necessary steps in working toward human–wildlife coexistence.

    

   more » « less