An official website of the United States government
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
Coexisting With Different Human-Wildlife Coexistence Perspectives
Over the last decade, there has been a remarkable increase in scientific literature addressing human–wildlife interactions (HWI) and associated concepts, such as coexistence, tolerance, and acceptance. Despite increased attention, these terms are rarely defined or consistently applied across publications. Indeed, the meaning of these concepts, especially coexistence, is frequently assumed and left for the reader to interpret, making it hard to compare studies, test metrics, and build upon previous HWI research. To work toward a better understanding of these terms, we conducted two World Café sessions at international conferences in Namibia, Africa and Ontario, Canada. Here, we present the array of perspectives revealed in the workshops and build upon these results to describe the meaning of coexistence as currently applied by conservation scientists and practitioners. Although we focus on coexistence, it is imperative to understand the term in relation to tolerance and acceptance, as in many cases these latter terms are used to express, measure, or define coexistence. Drawing on these findings, we discuss whether a common definition of these terms is possible and how the conservation field might move toward clarifying and operationalizing the concept of human-wildlife coexistence.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1757351
- PAR ID:
- 10329064
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Frontiers in Conservation Science
- Volume:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 2673-611X
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
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
-
Abstract Wildlife conservation depends on supportive social as well as biophysical conditions. Social identities such as hunter and nonhunter are often associated with different attitudes toward wildlife. However, it is unknown whether dynamics within and among these identity groups explain how attitudes form and why they differ. To investigate how social identities help shape wildlife‐related attitudes and the implications for wildlife policy and conservation, we built a structural equation model with survey data from Montana (USA) residents (n = 1758) that tested how social identities affect the relationship between experiences with grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) and attitudes toward the species. Model results (r2 = 0.51) demonstrated that the hunter identity magnified the negative effect of vicarious property damage on attitudes toward grizzly bears (β = −0.381, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.584 to −0.178,p < 0.001), which in turn strongly influenced acceptance (β = −0.571, 95% CI: −0.611 to −0.531,p < 0.001). Our findings suggested that hunters’ attitudes toward grizzly bears likely become more negative primarily because of in‐group social interactions about negative experiences, and similar group dynamics may lead nonhunters to disregard the negative experiences that out‐group members have with grizzly bears. Given the profound influence of social identity on human cognitions and behaviors in myriad contexts, the patterns we observed are likely important in a variety of wildlife conservation situations. To foster positive conservation outcomes and minimize polarization, management strategies should account for these identity‐driven perceptions while prioritizing conflict prevention and promoting positive wildlife narratives within and among identity groups. This study illustrates the utility of social identity theory for explaining and influencing human–wildlife interactions.more » « less
-
IntroductionHuman-wildlife coexistence in cities depends on how residents perceive and interact with wildlife in their neighborhoods. An individual’s attitudes toward and responses to wildlife are primarily shaped by their subjective cognitive judgments, including multi-faceted environmental values and perceptions of risks or safety. However, experiences with wildlife could also positively or negatively affect an individual’s environmental attitudes, including their comfort living near wildlife. Previous work on human-wildlife coexistence has commonly focused on rural environments and on conflicts with individual problem species, while positive interactions with diverse wildlife communities have been understudied. MethodsGiven this research gap, we surveyed wildlife attitudes of residents across twelve neighborhoods in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, AZ to ask: how do the environments in which residents live, as well as their values, identities, and personal characteristics, explain the degree to which they are comfortable living near different wildlife groups (coyotes, foxes, and rabbits)? ResultsWe found that residents who were more comfortable living near wildlife commonly held pro-wildlife value orientations, reflecting the expectation that attitudes toward wildlife are primarily driven be an individual’s value-based judgements. However, attitudes were further influenced by sociodemographic factors (e.g., pet ownership, gender identity), as well as environmental factors that influence the presence of and familiarity with wildlife. Specifically, residents living closer to desert parks and preserves were more likely to have positive attitudes toward both coyotes and foxes, species generally regarded by residents as riskier to humans and domestic animals. DiscussionBy improving understanding of people’s attitudes toward urban wildlife, these results can help managers effectively evaluate the potential for human-wildlife coexistence through strategies to mitigate risk and facilitate stewardship.more » « less
-
Abstract Glucocorticoids (corticosterone/cortisol; cort) are frequently used in conservation as biomarkers of disturbance in wild populations. However, the context‐dependent nature of cort means that it may not always accurately reflect disturbance. For example, there is growing evidence that wildlife populations can evolve or acclimate to human‐induced environmental change (i.e. contaminants) by expressing higher levels of tolerance. Mechanisms that allow for populations to achieve higher contaminant tolerance can be related to cort and thereby impact the reliability of cort as an indicator of disturbance. This study asks: (1) do wildlife populations that differ in tolerance to contaminants differentially express baseline and stress‐induced cort and (2) is cort a viable indicator of disturbance across populations that differ in tolerance to contaminants? Toward this goal, we identified three wood frogRana sylvaticapopulations with relatively high NaCl tolerance and three populations with relatively low NaCl tolerance. Tadpoles from these populations were reared to metamorphosis in either an environmentally relevant concentration of NaCl (0.5 g L−1NaCl) or a control (0 g L−1NaCl). At metamorphosis we used a non‐invasive waterborne assay to measure baseline and stress‐induced cort release rates and measured fitness‐related metrics. We found that contaminant tolerance influences cort levels. More tolerant populations had lower baseline cort and higher fitness compared to less tolerant populations. However, despite variation in cort across populations with different levels of tolerance, cort still represents a viable indicator of condition as our results show a consistent negative relationship between cort and fitness. Lastly, we found that levels of cort were consistent regardless of whether amphibians were reared in NaCl contaminated or non‐contaminated environments. Overall, we emphasize the importance of recognizing population‐level variation in cort due to contaminant tolerance when using cort as a biomarker for conservation purposes.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.3389/fcosc.2021.703174
