Search

Habitat degradation and fragmentation have heightened the importance of understanding human tolerance towards wildlife, as the fate of wildlife in multi-use landscapes depends on people's capacity for coexistence. We applied the wildlife tolerance model to examine drivers of tolerance towards Asian elephants Elephas maximus in rural Bangladesh, interviewing local people in 17 villages. We used structural equation modelling to identify causal pathways in which elephant-related exposure, positive and negative interactions, costs and benefits (tangible and intangible) contributed to tolerance. Contrary to expectations, monetary costs were non-significant in shaping tolerance despite major impacts on livelihoods. Instead, intangible costs and intangible benefits were significant factors determining tolerance. Furthermore, reducing people's exposure to elephants would not necessarily affect tolerance, nor would increasing positive interactions. We discuss how the socio-economic and bio-cultural dynamics of local communities can explain these results, and demonstrate how our model can be used to incorporate such complexities into conservation decision-making. For instance, compensation schemes aim to recompense monetary losses and direct damages, to improve tolerance, whereas our results suggest a more effective approach would be to enhance resilience to non-monetary costs and improve perceived benefits. We conclude that future studies should pay increased attention to intangible costs and consider the less direct drivers of tolerance. Through repeated testing of universal models such as that presented here, broad trends may emerge that will facilitate the application of policies across contexts and landscapes.

Despite recent recovery of large carnivores throughout Europe such as the brown bear (Ursus arctos) and the gray wolf (Canis lupus), some of their populations are still threatened and their viability depends on human tolerance to share mixed landscapes. We investigated the drivers of landholders' tolerance in Abruzzo (Italy), a region with a long history of cohabitation, by applying the Wildlife Tolerance Model (WTM) (Kansky et al., 2016, Biological Conservation, 201, 137–145). Using structural equation modeling we assessed relationships between WTM variables. This framework hypothesizes that exposure to a species and experiences with a species drive perceptions of benefits and costs, and ultimately tolerance. We then sought to understand similarities and differences in tolerance drivers between the two species and across two areas that differed in the duration of human–carnivore cohabitation. Results showed both similarities and differences in drivers between species and areas, resulting in seven management proposals to foster tolerance. Increasing intangible benefits and positive experiences were two strategies that were similar for both species and areas, while five strategies differed across species and areas. Our methodological approach can be applied in other landscapes with other species to determine the extent to which multispecies management across landscapes is possible.

Living with wild mammals is a critical challenge globally, especially in mixed-use landscapes such as Transfrontier Conservation Areas that aim to conserve wildlife as well as implement programs to improve livelihoods. The success of such initiatives depends on local communities willingness to tolerate potential costs from wildlife. However, the drivers of tolerance in such landscapes are not well understood, especially the relative importance of non-monetary costs and benefits, which are often not measured in surveys. We conducted surveys based on the Wildlife Tolerance Model (WTM) to investigate the drivers of tolerance for 286 farmers from 78 villages living around Sioma-Ngewzi National Park in southern Zambia, a section of the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA), where monetary benefits from wildlife are not available. We found that non-monetary benefits were significant drivers of tolerance, meaning that in the absence of monetary benefits, non-monetary benefits can promote tolerance. Next, we compared drivers of tolerance across five large mammal species and found some similarities in drivers that will allow development of common strategies to promote tolerance for all five species in the landscape. These were increasing non-monetary benefits, reducing the non-monetary costs from all wildlife, increasing empathy towards wildlife, and improving relationships with Zambian Wildlife Authority.

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is a complex conservation issue and acknowledging the human dimensions of the problem is critical. Here we propose the Wildlife Tolerance Model (WTM), a novel theoretical framework to identify key drivers of tolerance to living with damage-causing wildlife. The WTM proposes an outer model, where the extent to which a person experiences a species determines perceptions of costs relative to benefits of living with a species. This in turn determines tolerance. A second component, the inner model predicts eleven variables that may further drive perceptions of costs and benefits. In the current paper we test the outer model while in a forthcoming publication we test the inner model using a case study of human-baboon conflict in Cape Town, South Africa. Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling we found support for the outer model. Experience explained 30% of variance in costs and benefits and 60% of tolerance was explained by perceptions of costs and benefits. Intangible costs and intangible benefits equally contributed to driving tolerance but tangible costs had no significant effect on tolerance. Separating two dimensions of experience, (i) exposure to a species explained costs more than benefits, and (ii) positive experiences explained intangible costs and benefits more than tangible costs while negative experiences equally explained costs and benefits. We discuss management implications of the findings and conclude that the WTM could be a useful diagnostic tool and theoretical framework to inform management interventions and policies to mitigate HWC.

Many populations of threatened mammals persist outside formally protected areas, and their survival depends on the willingness of communities to coexist with them. An understanding of the attitudes, and specifically the tolerance, of individuals and communities and the factors that determine these is therefore fundamental to designing strategies to alleviate human-wildlife conflict. We conducted a meta-analysis to identify factors that affected attitudes toward 4 groups of terrestrial mammals. Elephants (65%) elicited the most positive attitudes, followed by primates (55%), ungulates (53%), and carnivores (44%). Urban residents presented the most positive attitudes (80%), followed by commercial farmers (51%) and communal farmers (26%). A tolerance to damage index showed that human tolerance of ungulates and primates was proportional to the probability of experiencing damage while elephants elicited tolerance levels higher than anticipated and carnivores elicited tolerance levels lower than anticipated. Contrary to conventional wisdom, experiencing damage was not always the dominant factor determining attitudes. Communal farmers had a lower probability of being positive toward carnivores irrespective of probability of experiencing damage, while commercial farmers and urban residents were more likely to be positive toward carnivores irrespective of damage. Urban residents were more likely to be positive toward ungulates, elephants, and primates when probability of damage was low, but not when it was high. Commercial and communal farmers had a higher probability of being positive toward ungulates, primates, and elephants irrespective of probability of experiencing damage. Taxonomic bias may therefore be important. Identifying the distinct factors explaining these attitudes and the specific contexts in which they operate, inclusive of the species causing damage, will be essential for prioritizing conservation investments. Meta-Analisis de las Posturas hacia la Mamiferos Silvestres Causantes de Danos Resumen Muchas poblaciones de mamiferos amenazados persisten fuera de areas protegidas formales y su supervivencia depende de la buena voluntad de las comunidades que coexisten con ellos. Un entendimiento de las posturas, y especificamente de la tolerancia, de los individuos y las comunidades y los factores que los determinan es fundamental para disenar estrategias que alivien el conflicto humano – vida silvestre. Llevamos a cabo un meta-analisis para identificar los factores que afectaron las posturas hacia cuatro grupos de mamiferos terrestres. Los elefantes (65%) provocaron las posturas mas positivas. Los siguieron los primates (55%), los ungulados (53%) y los carnivoros (44%). Los residentes urbanos presentaron las posturas mas positivas (80%), seguidos por los granjeros comerciales (51%) y los granjeros comunales (26%). Un indice de tolerancia a los danos mostro que la tolerancia humana a los ungulados y primates fue proporcional a la probabilidad de experimentar danos mientras que los elefantes provocaron niveles de tolerancia mas altos de lo esperado y los carnivoros provocaron niveles de tolerancia mas bajos de lo esperado. Contrario a la sabiduria convencional, experimentar danos no fue siempre el factor dominante para determinar las posturas. Los granjeros comunales tuvieron una baja probabilidad de ser positivos hacia los carnivoros independientemente de la probabilidad de experimentar danos, mientras que los granjeros comerciales y los residentes urbanos tuvieron mayor probabilidad de ser positivos hacia los carnivoros independientemente de los danos. Los residentes urbanos tuvieron mayor probabilidad de ser positivos hacia los ungulados, los elefantes y los primates cuando la probabilidad de danos fue baja, pero no cuando fue alta. Los granjeros comerciales y comunales tuvieron una mayor probabilidad de ser positivos hacia los ungulados, los primates y los elefantes independientemente de la probabilidad de experimentar danos. El prejuicio taxonomico por eso puede ser importante. El identificar los distintos factores que explican estas posturas y los contextos especificos en los cuales operan, inclusivo de especies que causan danos, sera esencial para priorizar las inversiones en la conservacion.

Biodiversity conflicts, and human–wildlife conflicts (HWC) in particular, are predicted to increase. Understanding drivers of these conflicts is a prerequisite for developing strategies to achieve conservation goals. People are a part of all HWC problems meaning social research methods are essential for finding solutions. We conducted a meta-analysis of the variables predicted to drive attitudes of people living in areas with damage causing carnivores, ungulates, elephants and primates so as to determine if common patterns of variables are present across a wide range of contexts. We categorized variables reported in publications into main and sub-categories and developed three indexes to describe relative frequency of category use, relative significance of categories and degree of accuracy between use and significance. From 45 suitable publications, 16 main categories and 17 sub-categories were identified. The majority of publications measured variables with a low likelihood of explaining drivers of HWC, or did not quantify variables of generally high utility. For example, only four categories (25%) were applied in over 50% of publications, and two thirds were mostly not significant in explaining attitudes. Tangible costs and tangible benefits thought to be the main drivers of attitudes were respectively, two and three times more non-significant than significant. Intangible costs however were the most important category to explain attitudes but was under represented in publications. Intangible benefits were mostly not important in explaining attitudes. Costs were more significant than benefits suggesting negative perceptions more strongly determine attitudes. Other important categories were exposure and experience with a species, stakeholder types and legal status of land. Socio-demographic variables commonly used in published studies such as gender, education and wealth, poorly explained attitudes. We conclude that greater conceptual clarity is urgently required to guide future attitude studies so that research can reliably inform the development of species management plans and policies.