Search

Fostering human-wildlife coexistence requires transdisciplinary approaches that integrate multiple sectors, account for complexity and uncertainty, and ensure stakeholder participation. One such approach is participatory scenario planning, but to date, this approach has not been used in human-wildlife contexts. We devised a template for how participatory scenario planning can be applied to identify potential avenues for improving human-wildlife coexistence. We drew on 3 conceptual building blocks, namely the SEEDS framework, the notion of critical uncertainties, and the three-horizons technique. To illustrate the application of the proposed template, we conducted a case study in the Zambezi region of Namibia. We held 5 multistakeholder workshops that involved local people as well as numerous nongovernment and government stakeholders. We identified 14 important wildlife species that generated multiple services and disservices. The subsequent benefits and burdens, in turn, were inequitably distributed among stakeholders. Government actors played particularly influential roles in shaping social-ecological outcomes. We identified 2 critical uncertainties for the future: the nature of governance (fragmented vs. collaborative) and the type of wildlife economy (hunting vs. photography based). Considering these uncertainties resulted in 4 plausible scenarios describing future human-wildlife coexistence. Stakeholders did not agree on a single preferred scenario, but nevertheless agreed on several high-priority strategies. Bridging the remaining gaps among actors will require ongoing deliberation among stakeholders. Navigating the complex challenges posed by living with wildlife requires moving beyond disciplinary approaches. To that end, our template could prove useful in many landscapes around the world.Planeación de Escenarios Participativos para Facilitar la Coexistencia Humano-Fauna Resumen El fomento a la coexistencia humano-fauna requiere de estrategias transdisciplinarias que integren a múltiples sectores, consideren la complejidad y la incertidumbre y aseguren la participación de los actores. Una de estas estrategias es la planeación de escenarios de participación, pero hasta la fecha no se ha usado dentro de contextos humano-fauna. Diseñamos un modelo para poder aplicar la planeación de escenarios participativos para identificar vías potenciales para mejorar la coexistencia humano-fauna. Nos basamos en tres componentes conceptuales básicos, principalmente el marco de trabajo SEEDS, la noción de incertidumbres críticas y la técnica de los tres horizontes. Para ejemplificar la aplicación del modelo propuesto, realizamos un estudio de caso en la región del Zambeze en Namibia. Realizamos cinco talleres con múltiples actores, los cuales involucraron a los habitantes locales y a numerosos actores gubernamentales y no gubernamentales. Identificamos 14 especies de fauna importantes que generan múltiples servicios y perjuicios. Los beneficios y problemas subsecuentes, en cambio, estaban distribuidos injustamente entre los actores. Los actores gubernamentales tuvieron notablemente un papel de mucha influencia en la formación de los resultados socioecológicos. Identificamos dos incertidumbres importantes para el futuro: la naturaleza de la gestión (fragmentada versus colaborativa) y el tipo de economía faunística (basada en la cacería versus basada en la fotografía). Cuando consideramos estas incertidumbres, obtuvimos como resultado cuatro escenarios posibles descriptivos de la coexistencia humano-fauna en el futuro. Los actores no estuvieron de acuerdo sobre ningún escenario preferido; sin embargo, sí coincidieron en varias estrategias de prioridad alta. El cierre de las brechas restantes requerirá de una continua deliberación entre los actores. La navegación de los retos complejos generados por la convivencia con la fauna requiere ir más allá de las estrategias disciplinarias. Para este fin, nuestro modelo podría ser útil en muchos paisajes alrededor del mundo.

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.

The Kavango‐Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area supports large‐scale migrations of wildlife that occur in a mixed agri‐conservation landscape in five Southern African countries. Human–Wildlife Conflict is a key challenge and understanding the drivers of communities' willingness to coexist with wildlife is thus critical. Community based natural resource management (CBNRM) is a widely used economic approach to foster human‐wildlife coexistence with the assumption that monetary benefits can “buy” tolerance by offsetting the disservices of living with wildlife. We tested this assumption and hypothesized that Namibians would be more tolerant towards wildlife than Zambians because they received higher monetary benefits from wildlife. We used the Wildlife Tolerance Model (WTM) as the framework to define tolerance and identify tolerance drivers. We found Namibians tolerance was higher for lion, elephant and hyena but not for kudu and baboon. After controlling for confounding variables of the WTM that could potentially explain differences in tolerance, contrary to expectation, the monetary benefits did not account for higher Namibian tolerance. Instead, only nonmonetary benefits explained the higher tolerance. We used crowding theory to explain this finding, proposing that CBNRM in Namibia and the monetary benefits from the program “crowd in” intrinsic motivation to appreciate and tolerate wildlife.

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.

We conducted a systematic review of 502 articles, published between 2000 and 2016, to characterize the research on human-carnivore relations according to (i) temporal and geographical distribution, (ii) biology, (iii) relations between carnivores and humans, (iv) social actors, (v) drivers of change, (vi) management, and (vii) applied methods. We performed a detrended correspondence analysis and Kruskal-Wallis tests to identify and describe thematic clusters used in human-carnivore relations research. Our results show that research is deeply biased so far, and four important knowledge gaps were detected. First, we found more studies had been conducted in the Global North than in the Global South, although risks and benefits of living alongside carnivores exist in the Global South equally. Second, most research focused on large predators, while small and medium-sized carnivores are also source of damages and ecosystem services. Third, relations were often framed around conflicts, with little attention to possible ecosystem services. Fourth, most research was carried out using natural sciences methods, despite methods from the social sciences having much to offer in this context. Research fell into seven thematic clusters focusing on: (1) North-American bears, (2) African large carnivores, (3) social research in America, (4) meso-carnivores, (5) Asian felids, (6) conflicts with the grey wolf, and (7) damages to human property. These results highlight the need for more integrative, social-ecological research on human-carnivore relations. We discuss how addressing existing knowledge gaps could contribute to mitigating conflicts as well as fostering coexistence between humans and carnivore species., This study is part of the scientific project ‘Understanding human-carnivore relationships: from social conflicts to ecosystem services’ funded by Leuphana University of Lüneburg. AJC was supported by the NSF Idaho EPSCoR Program and by the National Science Foundation under award number IIA-1301792. MM and AFM were supported by Ramon y Cajal contracts (MEC, RYC-2015-19231 and MINECO, RYC-2016-21114, respectively). ACA was supported by a ‘Programa Viçent Mut’ contract (Government of Illes Balears, Spain; PD/039/2017).

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.

Measurement of reproductive skew in social groups is fundamental to understanding the evolution and maintenance of sociality, as it determines the immediate fitness benefits to helpers of staying and helping in a group. However, there is a lack of studies in natural populations that provide reliable measures of reproductive skew and the correlates of reproductive success, particularly in vertebrates. We present results of a study that uses a combination of field and genetic (microsatellite) data on a cooperatively breeding mongoose, the meerkat (Suricata suricatta). We sampled 458 individuals from 16 groups at two sites and analyzed parentage of pups in 110 litters with up to 12 microsatellites. We show that there is strong reproductive skew in favor of dominants, but that the extent of skew differs between the sexes and between different sites. Our data suggest that the reproductive skew arises from incest avoidance and reproductive suppression of the subordinates by the dominants. Copyright 2003.

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.