Search Results

For communities living around the Serengeti, wildlife is often regarded as a burden causing significant losses of crops and livestock at the household level, large opportunity costs of lost grazing and farmland held in protected areas and immediate dangers to human life and wellbeing. As agricultural land becomes more scarce and local sources of income and employment hard to access, community members are often unwilling and economically unable to bear the costs associated with conserving wildlife on and around their lands. Approaches to wildlife management imposed over the course of the last century have exacerbated, rather than improved this situation, with local communities’ rights to natural resources expropriated by protected areas. The Serengeti situation mirrors that of many other parts of Africa, where communities living within the vicinity of protected areas that earn a large proportion of national wildlife tourism revenue, receive very little (as little as one percent) of foreign exchange earnings derived from this source.

As our planet continues to urbanise, an increasing abundance and diversity of wildlife find ways to persist within cities and towns. I summarise general patterns of urban wildlife and also describe common interactions between people and wildlife in cities. Some of these encounters are very harmful, including property damage, transmission of disease, or attacks against humans or their pets. However, urban wildlife also have positive impacts on cities and urban residents, by providing ecosystem services such as pest control, and by inspiring a feeling of connection with nature. I discuss the implications of human attitudes for long-term coexistence between people and animals in cities, and point to areas for future research. As the biodiversity crisis continues to worsen, and as the planet continues to be modified by humans at an unprecedented rate, it is imperative that we make a place for wildlife within and near to our cities.

Social conflict and complexity in the marine environment present continual challenges to effective conservation. The physical, quantifiable, obvious expressions of human–wildlife and other conservation conflicts in marine ecosystems are often embedded in less obvious, more complex social conflicts between people and groups. Established efforts to understand these social complexities (and design appropriate decision-making processes) are advancing; but many prevalent stakeholder engagement processes fail to investigate and reconcile the deeper social conflicts that operate as wellsprings for protracted conflict in marine conservation. Conservation conflict transformation offers new tools for deeper analysis of the social drivers of conflict—a “do no harm” first step to help conservation efforts avoid escalating tensions, unintentionally reducing social receptivity to conservation, or deepening entrenched positions that polarize stakeholders—and principles, processes, skills, and strategies for preventing and reconciling conflict in conservation. The Human–Wildlife Conflict Collaboration (HWCC) has demonstrated the value of this approach across a diverse array of conservation contexts through conflict assessments and strategically designed and facilitated conflict interventions. HWCC’s capacity building is transforming how many practitioners in the conservation field address conflict. The chapter addresses current limitations in conservation capacity and practice, defines conservation conflict transformation, summarizes a model for analysis to orient the reader to the multiple levels of conflict, explores the sources of conflict commonly experienced in marine-based conservation, and offers clues to successful intervention.

An appreciation of religious perspectives when dealing with marine-based human–wildlife conflict acknowledges the fact that worldviews, and the place of the oceans within them, have been heavily influenced by the narratives people use to explain the world. According to conflict transformation theory, conflict that can be interpreted as an attack against a people, culture, or religion is an identity-level conflict. This level of conflict is often rooted in perceptions of power, historical dynamics, the needs of a group/individual, local beliefs, potential prejudices, and desires regarding dignity, respect, autonomy, and recognition. Identity often dictates how a conflict plays out, while also causing people/groups to feel the need to protect their sense of self. The role that religion can play in marine-based human–wildlife conflict is examined through two cases studies. These explore how investigating religious communities’ interpretations of human–wildlife conflict may allow for closer collaborations in the future and at broader management levels. By fostering an understanding of religious narratives—including traditional ecological knowledge (often referred to as TEK), sacred natural sites, and sacred species—it may be possible to create new frames within which to situate marine conservation and may allow for marine conservationists to have a much broader engagement with stakeholders, educators, planners, consumers, and the general public. The resulting solutions would not only address multiple perspectives but would be more effective in garnering just outcomes, leading to a better ability to protect the seas.

This chapter explores how the labels, names, and stories humans attach to wildlife can both influence the perception of human–wildlife conflict and guide efforts to reduce conflict and aid conservation efforts. How people talk about marine conservation, specific species, and human–wildlife conflict is not only a reflection of how they see the world but also influences attitudes toward conservation in others. This chapter will use a case study of the Hawaiian monk seal (Neomonachus schauinslandi) and the theory of social constructionism to explore these concepts and suggest ways that conservation professionals might use language and stories about animals to positively impact conservation efforts and reduce conflict. The Hawaiian monk seal is a highly endangered species endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and has been the object of intense conservation efforts. However, a recent increase in the seal’s population in the main Hawaiian Islands has resulted in increased conflict with and over the seals, especially between some native Hawaiians and local communities, the federal government, and other stakeholders. The narratives and stories about seals help to further drive conflict between those who want to protect the main Hawaiian Islands seal population and those who see it as a threat to their way of life.

In this chapter, patterns of interactions are reviewed, from benign to mutually harmful, that characterize people–primate relationships, and the main social and ecological factors shaping people–primate coexistence are summarized. The reasons why certain primate species are better able to share landscapes with their human neighbours are examined, along with factors that influence people’s perceptions of, and attitudes, towards them. The chapter stresses how, at a local level, variations in socio-economic and cultural norms and values often underlie negative interactions between humans and primates. Lessons learned from studies to reduce negative interactions between people and primates are discussed, and broader scale landscape approaches that could facilitate effective primate conservation and human livelihood objectives examined. Finally, it is emphasized that understanding people–primate interactions requires a multifaceted approach, combining detailed understanding of the context, and needs of the different stakeholders, human and animal, and drivers of changing patterns of coexistence.

Many of the encounters between farming and wildlife, especially vertebrates, involve human–wildlife conflict for some parties at some scale. This is not surprising considering that the farmscape is put to multiple uses by diverse categories of people with widely different goals, but it is problematic insofar as conflict expresses disadvantage to both the wildlife and the people involved. The sources of the problems, and ultimately of the threats to conservation, can be characterized as ‘seven deadly risk factors. Remedies and mitigations are varied, and variously difficult to achieve, but all benefit from the principles of evidence-based, inter-disciplinary policy. This chapter introduces the themes and case studies that comprise the chapters of this book.

This chapter discusses the human dimensions of dog-wildlife interactions. These human dimensions often constitute human-wildlife conflicts. The chapter presents an overview of the research in the field of the human dimensions of dog-wildlife interactions and the possible solutions for the issues raised by the research.

This chapter examines the three challenges faced by reintroduction practitioners in dealing with public perceptions of, and engagement with, species restorations. These are: (1) a biased focus on large-bodied charismatic species; (2) potential human–wildlife conflict in the restoration of keystone species; and (3) the need to acknowledge and adapt restoration targets to a human-modified world.

Managing wildlife humanely with learned food aversions describes experiments investigating the potential of learned food aversions for managing human–wildlife conflict without culling. First the chapter demonstrates that Conditioned Taste Aversion (CTA) using a colour cue can manipulate food preferences for untreated eggs among captive magpies and crows. However, captivity may influence animals’ motivation to feed, so, having demonstrated the principle, the chapter examines with free-ranging badgers protection of untreated maize cobs, this time using CTA and an odour cue. Despite promising findings, there are numerous practical difficulties with extrapolating CTA to full-scale applications, including identification of an aversive agent that is suitable for use in the environment. Finally, the chapter describes using a bitter taste to develop Generalised Aversions (GA) among foxes towards untreated food. While GA might avoid the difficulties of identifying a CTA agent, GAs are likely to provide only short-term protection of untreated foods. Learned food aversions merit further investigation.

Musteloids encounter, or cause, a diversity of potential problems, both perceived and real, when they interact with people. Only one of the musteloids (the wolverine) qualifies as a ‘large carnivore’ but all are powerful predators for their size, and many are small and adaptable enough to live amongst humans in agricultural landscapes and urban environments. Musteloids prey on small domesticated, stocked and game animals (terrestrial and aquatic), and are otherwise considered a nuisance due to the damage they can cause to crops, buildings or cars, for which they are commonly managed, and often persecuted. Musteloids are also exploited by people for their pelts, sometimes legally and sustainably, sometimes illegally and with serious impacts on threatened species. Even for non-threatened species, management techniques and exploitation practices raise issues associated with sustainability, adequacy of monitoring, welfare and ethics that warrant greater consideration.

Depredation, which often occurs wherever livestock and large carnivores with an appropriate body size ratio occur together, can represent significant losses for some producers, become a welfare problem for livestock, and fuel wider conflicts between humans and carnivores. There are many potential ways to reduce depredation on livestock, and an integrated approach that involves actions focused on both the carnivores and on the livestock, as well as economic instruments, is usually needed. The most successful husbandry approaches involve traditional herding systems (shepherds, guarding dogs, and night-time enclosures) or electric fences. It is crucial to consider the management of depredation within the context of the diverse socioeconomic objectives that livestock herding can have, including meat, milk, and wool production; rural policy; tradition; and maintenance of grazing-dependent habitats, with their associated biodiversity and aesthetic values.

Foxhunting in the UK illustrates many of the social complexities surrounding attitudes to pest species and to hunting. The acceptability of foxhunting and other control methods depends on foxes’ economic impact and on other aspects of their value, including hunting for sport. Attitudes differ markedly between rural and urban people: in cities people are less tolerant of killing foxes, particularly if the motivation is sport. The economics of fox control suggest that its rationality from a purely monetary perspective depends on the type of landholding. Mounted hunting, of the form illegal since 2005, continues to provoke heated debate, which centres on the ethics of the legitimate use of mammals. The interdisciplinarity necessary for understanding arguments about foxhunting, and the incommensurable quality of the different elements that must be considered, have instructive parallels with human–predator conflicts worldwide.

This chapter discusses some of the underlying theoretical and practical issues of managing threatened species in multifunctional landscapes, including the as yet unanswered question over whether conservation resources should be concentrated in a few well-protected areas or spread more thinly across broader landscapes, that is, the ‘new conservation’ debate. The chapter clarifies that, if positive progress is sought in conservation practice, theoretical notions in conservation biology need to be carefully weighed against their practical feasibility. This feasibility is often determined by how different strategies benefit different stakeholders. Conservation in multifunctional landscapes therefore involves assessment of tradeoffs among multiple objectives (e.g. environmental, social, economic benefits), and finding optimal solutions requires a clear understanding of why certain strategies are implemented, for whom or what, and what outcomes are sought.

Early settlers, pastoralists and hunters, demonstrated an extensive ecological knowledge of the local landscape as of animal behaviour. India rulers used hunts and captive wild animals in the court to underline their bravery, military prowess and valour. The local fascination with shikar (hunting) rubbed off onto British elite, who participated in gruesome farces of urban ‘hunts’, against large wild cats imported in cages from the forests surrounding Bengaluru. Uncaged wildlife were perceived as vermin, leading to an intensive period of targeted kills in the 19^th century. These histories influence our framing of the wild beast as the ‘other’: a being to be valorized in battle, conquered in a hunt, trapped in a cage, butchered for trophies, and exoticized in print, but not capable of co-existing with humans. Solutions are unclear, and would be simplistic to propose. But the need to foster a new ethic of urban conservation appears clear.

Of thirteen extant species of true badger, eleven have a distribution in Asia, as do the more loosely affiliated stink- and honey-badgers. Even though these badgers show superficial similarities, they exhibit very different societies, even within same species under different circumstances, and provide an informative model to advance understanding of socio-ecology. They illustrate how group-living is promoted by natal philopatry, and food security; enabled by omnivory and hibernation in cold-winter regions. Conversely predatory, carnivorous species, and those competing for food security within a broader trophic guild, tend to be more solitary. This socio-ecological diversity poses conservation challenges, with Asian badgers vulnerable to habitat loss, urban and road development, direct conflict with people, culling to manage zoonotic disease transmission, and hunting pressure – often for traditional medicine. These threats are ever-more prevalent in expanding Asian economies, where cultural and attitudinal changes are urgently needed to safeguard biodiversity for the future.

This chapter offers a perspective on the biodiversity crisis and agriculture’s part in it, before focusing on lowland farms in England, to reveal insights and seek solutions. The text takes a journey in an imaginary hot-air balloon as the reader is able explore the views from 40,000 feet and those very much closer to the ground which are complementary within agri-environment policy, discussing how both food and a biodiverse, aesthetic, and culturally rich landscape might be delivered. This chapter highlights the interdisciplinarity that is needed for effective wildlife conservation on farmland: approaches that wed the natural and social sciences and the environmental and human dimensions of the countryside. The text set the scene for the chapters that follow, tackling questions at scales varying from within-fields to between landscapes, and drawing on examples from more than 30 years research by our team, the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU).