Human-wildlife coexistence in a changing world.
agricultural landscapes
conceptual framework
fauna, marco de trabajo conceptual, métodos y herramientas para la investigación humano
fauna, paisaje agrícola, retos transfronterizos
human-wildlife interaction
methods and tools for human-wildlife research
protected areas
transboundary challenges
áreas protegidas, interacción humano
人与野生动物相互作用
人与野生动物研究的方法和工具
保护地
农业景观
概念框架
跨境挑战
Journal
Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology
ISSN: 1523-1739
Titre abrégé: Conserv Biol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9882301
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
received:
01
03
2020
revised:
28
03
2020
accepted:
03
04
2020
pubmed:
15
5
2020
medline:
27
10
2020
entrez:
15
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is a key topic in conservation and agricultural research. Decision makers need evidence-based information to design sustainable management plans and policy instruments. However, providing objective decision support can be challenging because realities and perceptions of human-wildlife interactions vary widely between and within rural, urban, and peri-urban areas. Land users who incur costs through wildlife argue that wildlife-related losses should be compensated and that prevention should be subsidized. Supporters of human-wildlife coexistence policies, such as urban-dwelling people, may not face threats to their livelihoods from wildlife. Such spatial heterogeneity in the cost and benefits of living with wildlife is germane in most contemporary societies. This Special Section features contributions on wildlife-induced damages that range from human perspectives (land use, psychology, governance, local attitudes and perceptions, costs and benefits, and HWC and coexistence theory) to ecological perspectives (animal behavior). Building on current literature and articles in this section, we developed a conceptual model to help frame HWC and coexistence dimensions. The framework can be used to determine damage prevention implementation levels and approaches to HWC resolution. Our synthesis revealed that inter- and transdisciplinary approaches and multilevel governance approaches can help stakeholders and institutions implement sustainable management strategies that promote human-wildlife coexistence. Coexistencia Humano - Vida Silvstre en un Mundo Cambiante Resumen El conflicto humano - vida silvestre (HWC) es un tema muy importante para la investigación agrícola y de la conservación. Los tomadores de decisiones necesitan información basada en evidencias para diseñar planes de manejo sustentable e instrumentos políticos. Sin embargo, proporcionar un apoyo objetivo para las decisiones puede ser un reto ya que las realidades y percepciones de las interacciones humano - vida silvestre varían enormemente entre y dentro de las áreas rurales, urbanas y peri-urbanas. Los usuarios de terrenos que incurren en costos debido a la vida silvestre argumentan que las pérdidas relacionadas a la vida silvestre deberían ser compensadas y que la prevención debería estar subsidiada. Es probable que quienes apoyan las políticas de coexistencia entre humanos y vida silvestre, como los habitantes de zonas urbanas, no enfrenten una amenaza a su medio de subsistencia debido a la vida silvestre. Dicha heterogeneidad espacial en el costo y beneficio de cohabitar con la vida silvestre es relevante en la mayoría de las sociedades contemporáneas. Esta Sección Especial presenta contribuciones sobre daños inducidos por vida silvestre que van desde las perspectivas humanas (uso de suelo, psicología, gobierno, actitudes y percepciones locales, costo y beneficio y la teoría del conflicto y la coexistencia humano-vida silvestre) hasta las perspectivas ecológicas (comportamiento animal). A partir de los artículos y la literatura actuales en esta sección desarrollamos un modelo conceptual para ayudar a estructurar los alcances del HWC y de la coexistencia. El marco de trabajo puede usarse para determinar los niveles y estrategias de implementación de la prevención del daño a la solución del conflicto humano - fauna. Nuestra síntesis reveló que las estrategias inter- y transdisciplinarias y las estrategias de gobierno multiniveles pueden ayudar a que los actores y las instituciones implementen estrategias de manejo sustentable para promover la coexistencia entre los humanos y la vida silvestre. 人类与野生动物的冲突是保护研究和农业研究的一个重要问题。决策者需要基于证据的信息来设计可持续的管理计划和政策工具。然而, 由于农村、城市和城郊之内或之间的人类与野生动物相互作用的现实情况和观念存在很大差异, 因此提供客观的决策支持也面临着挑战。因野生动物而遭受损失的土地使用者认为, 与野生动物相关的损失应该得到补偿, 且实施保护措施也应得到补贴。人与野生动物共存政策的支持者, 如城市居民, 则可能不会面临野生动物对生计的威胁。这种与野生动物共存的成本和收益的空间异质性普遍存在于多数当代社会。本专题包含介绍野生动物所造成破坏的系列文章, 研究的角度从人类视角 (土地利用、心理、管理、当地态度和观念、成本和收益、人类与野生动物的冲突和共存理论) 到生态视角 (动物行为) 。基于已有文献和本专题的文章, 我们设计了一个概念模型来为人类与野生动物共存及共存的维度制定框架。该框架可用于确定预防野生动物造成破坏的实施水平及解决人类与野生动物冲突的方法。我们的综合分析表明, 跨学科和多级管理方法可以帮助利益相关者和机构实施可持续管理策略, 促进人类与野生动物的共存。 【翻译: 胡怡思; 审校: 聂永刚】.
Autres résumés
Type: Publisher
(spa)
Coexistencia Humano - Vida Silvstre en un Mundo Cambiante Resumen El conflicto humano - vida silvestre (HWC) es un tema muy importante para la investigación agrícola y de la conservación. Los tomadores de decisiones necesitan información basada en evidencias para diseñar planes de manejo sustentable e instrumentos políticos. Sin embargo, proporcionar un apoyo objetivo para las decisiones puede ser un reto ya que las realidades y percepciones de las interacciones humano - vida silvestre varían enormemente entre y dentro de las áreas rurales, urbanas y peri-urbanas. Los usuarios de terrenos que incurren en costos debido a la vida silvestre argumentan que las pérdidas relacionadas a la vida silvestre deberían ser compensadas y que la prevención debería estar subsidiada. Es probable que quienes apoyan las políticas de coexistencia entre humanos y vida silvestre, como los habitantes de zonas urbanas, no enfrenten una amenaza a su medio de subsistencia debido a la vida silvestre. Dicha heterogeneidad espacial en el costo y beneficio de cohabitar con la vida silvestre es relevante en la mayoría de las sociedades contemporáneas. Esta Sección Especial presenta contribuciones sobre daños inducidos por vida silvestre que van desde las perspectivas humanas (uso de suelo, psicología, gobierno, actitudes y percepciones locales, costo y beneficio y la teoría del conflicto y la coexistencia humano-vida silvestre) hasta las perspectivas ecológicas (comportamiento animal). A partir de los artículos y la literatura actuales en esta sección desarrollamos un modelo conceptual para ayudar a estructurar los alcances del HWC y de la coexistencia. El marco de trabajo puede usarse para determinar los niveles y estrategias de implementación de la prevención del daño a la solución del conflicto humano - fauna. Nuestra síntesis reveló que las estrategias inter- y transdisciplinarias y las estrategias de gobierno multiniveles pueden ayudar a que los actores y las instituciones implementen estrategias de manejo sustentable para promover la coexistencia entre los humanos y la vida silvestre.
Type: Publisher
(chi)
人类与野生动物的冲突是保护研究和农业研究的一个重要问题。决策者需要基于证据的信息来设计可持续的管理计划和政策工具。然而, 由于农村、城市和城郊之内或之间的人类与野生动物相互作用的现实情况和观念存在很大差异, 因此提供客观的决策支持也面临着挑战。因野生动物而遭受损失的土地使用者认为, 与野生动物相关的损失应该得到补偿, 且实施保护措施也应得到补贴。人与野生动物共存政策的支持者, 如城市居民, 则可能不会面临野生动物对生计的威胁。这种与野生动物共存的成本和收益的空间异质性普遍存在于多数当代社会。本专题包含介绍野生动物所造成破坏的系列文章, 研究的角度从人类视角 (土地利用、心理、管理、当地态度和观念、成本和收益、人类与野生动物的冲突和共存理论) 到生态视角 (动物行为) 。基于已有文献和本专题的文章, 我们设计了一个概念模型来为人类与野生动物共存及共存的维度制定框架。该框架可用于确定预防野生动物造成破坏的实施水平及解决人类与野生动物冲突的方法。我们的综合分析表明, 跨学科和多级管理方法可以帮助利益相关者和机构实施可持续管理策略, 促进人类与野生动物的共存。 【翻译: 胡怡思; 审校: 聂永刚】.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
786-794Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.
Références
Bennett NJ, Roth R. 2019. Realizing the transformative potential of conservation through the social sciences, arts and humanities. Biological Conservation 229:A6-A8.
Bergstrom BJ. 2017. Carnivore conservation: shifting the paradigm from control to coexistence. Journal of Mammalogy 98:1-6.
Blair AG, Meredith TC. 2018. Community perception of the real impacts of human-wildlife conflict in Laikipia, Kenya: capturing the relative significance of high-frequency, low-severity events. Oryx 52:497-507.
Boman M, Bostedt G. 1999. Valuing the wolf in Sweden: are benefits contingent on the supply? Pages 157-174 in Boman M, Brännlund R, Kriström B, editors. Topics in environmental economics. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Brandenburg M. 2019. Wolfs management plan Brandenburg 2019. Available from https://mluk.brandenburg.de/sixcms/media.php/9/Wolfsmanagementplan_Brandenburg_2019.pdf (accessed April 15, 2020).
Brashares JS. 2010. Filtering wildlife. Science 329:402-403.
Broekhuis F, Kaelo M, Sakat DK, Elliot NB. 2018. Human-wildlife coexistence: attitudes and behavioural intentions towards predators in the Maasai Mara, Kenya. Oryx. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605318000091.
Bundestag D. 2019. Bundestag regelt den Abschuss von Wölfen neu. Available from https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2019/kw51-de-bundesnaturschutzgesetz-673952. (accessed April 15, 2020).
Carter NH, Baeza A, Magliocca NR. 2020. Emergent conservation outcomes of shared risk perception in human-wildlife systems. Conservation Biology 34:903-914.
Carter NH, Linnell JDC. 2016. Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 31:575-578.
Chapron G, et al. 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe's modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346:1517-1519.
Chapron G, López-Bao JV. 2020. The place of nature in conservation conflicts. Conservation Biology 34:795-802.
Denninger Snyder K, Rentsch D. 2020. Rethinking assessment of success of mitigation strategies for elephant-induced crop damage. Conservation Biology 34:829-8842.
Dorresteijn I, Milcu AI, Leventon J, Hanspach J, Fischer J. 2016. Social factors mediating human-carnivore coexistence: understanding thematic strands influencing coexistence in Central Romania. Ambio 45:490-500.
Eklund A, López-Bao JV, Tourani M, Chapron G, Frank J. 2018. Limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce livestock predation by large carnivores. Scientific Reports 8:5770.
Foley JA, et al. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570-574.
Fortin D, Beyer HL, Boyce MS, Smith DW, Duchesne T, Mao JS. 2005. Wolves influence elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park. Ecology 86:1320-1330.
Frank B, Glikman JA, Marchini S. 2019. Human-wildlife interactions: turning conflict into coexistence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, Pretty J, Robinson S, Thomas SM, Toulmin C. 2010. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327:812-818.
Herrero S. 1970. Human injury inflicted by grizzly bears. Science 170:593-598.
Hill CM, Webber AD, Priston NEC. 2017. Understanding conflicts about wildlife: a biosocial approach. Berghahn Books, New York.
Jordan NR, Smith BP, Appleby RG, van Eeden L, Webster HS. 2020. Inequality and intolerance: overcoming key barriers to human-wildlife coexistence. Conservation Biology.
Kahler JS, Roloff GJ, Gore ML. 2013. Poaching risks in community-based natural resource management. Conservation Biology 27:177-186.
Kansky R, Kidd M, Knight AT. 2016. A wildlife tolerance model and case study for understanding human wildlife conflicts. Biological Conservation 201:137-145.
Kiffner C, Chapron G, König HJ. 2019. Germany's wolves in the crosshairs. Science 365:1089.
Koerner SE, et al. 2014. Plant community response to loss of large herbivores differs between North American and South African savanna grasslands. Ecology 95:808-816.
Kuemmerle T, Levers C, Bleyhl B, Olech W, Perzanowski K, Reusch C, Kramer-Schadt S. 2018. One size does not fit all: European bison habitat selection across herds and spatial scales. Landscape Ecology 33:1559-1572.
Liberg O, Chapron G, Wabakken P, Pedersen HC, Thompson Hobbs N, Sand H. 2012. Shoot, shovel and shut up: cryptic poaching slows restoration of a large carnivore in Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279:910-915.
Madden F. 2004. Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to address human-wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9:247-257.
Marchini S, Ferraz KMPMB, Zimmermann A, Guimarães-Luiz T, Morato R, Correa PLP, Macdonald DW. 2019. Planning for coexistence in a complex human-dominated world. Pages 414-438 in Frank B, Glikman JA, Marchini S, editors. Human-wildlife interactions: turning conflict into coexistence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Martin JL, Chamaillé-Jammes S, Waller DM. 2020. Deer, wolves, and people: costs, benefits and challenges of living together. Biological Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12587.
Martínez-Jauregui M, Delibes-Mateos M, Arroyo B, Soliño M. 2020. Addressing social attitudes toward lethal control of wildlife in national parks. Conservation Biology 34:868-878.
McRae BH, Schumaker NH, McKane RB, Busing RT, Solomon AM, Burdick CA. 2008. A multi-model framework for simulating wildlife population response to land-use and climate change. Ecological Modelling 219:77-91.
Morehouse AT, Hughes C, Manners N, Bectell J, Bruder T. 2020. Carnivores and communities: a case study of human-carnivore conflict mitigation in southwestern Alberta. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 8:2.
Morehouse AT, Tigner J, Boyce MS. 2018. Coexistence with large carnivores supported by a predator-compensation program. Environmental Management 61:719-731.
Morzillo AT, de Beurs KM, Martin-Mikle CJ. 2014. A conceptual framework to evaluate human-wildlife interactions within coupled human and natural systems. Ecology and Society 19:44.
Mukul SA, Huq S, Herbohn J, Nishat A, Atiq Rahman A, Amin R, Ahmed FU. 2019. Rohingya refugees and the environment. Science 364:138.
Nilsson L, Bunnefeld N, Persson J, Mansson J. 2016. Large grazing birds and agriculture-predicting field use of common cranes and implications for crop damage prevention. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 219:163-170.
Nyhus PJ. 2016. Human-wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41:143-171.
Pereira HM, Navarro LM. 2015. Rewilding European landscapes. Springer International Publishing, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Perino A, et al. 2019. Rewilding complex ecosystems. Science 364:eaav5570.
Perry LR, Moorhouse TP, Loveridge AJ, Macdonald DW. 2020. The role of psychology in determining human-predator conflict across southern Kenya. Conservation Biology 34:879-890.
Redpath SM, Bhatia S, Young J. 2015. Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human-wildlife conflict. Oryx 49:222-225.
Reed MS. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141:2417-2431.
Rees MW, Carwardine J, Reeson A, Firn J. 2020. Rapidly assessing co-benefits to advance threat management alliances. Conservation Biology 34:843-853.
Reinhardt I, Rauer G, Kluth G, Kaczensky P, Knauer F, Wotschikowsky U. 2012. Livestock protection methods applicable for Germany-a country newly recolonized by wolves. Hystrix, the Italian Journal of Mammalogy 23:62-72.
Ripple WJ, et al. 2014. Status and ecological effects of the world's largest carnivores. Science 343:1241484.
Sala OE, et al. 2000. Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. Science 287:1770-1774.
Salerno J, Bailey K, Gaughan AE, Stevens FR, Hilton T, Cassidy L, Drake MD, Pricope NG, Hartter J. 2020. Wildlife impacts and vulnerable livelihoods in a transfrontier conservation landscape. Conservation Biology 34:891-902.
Schoon M. 2013. Governance in transboundary conservation: how institutional structure and path dependence matter. Conservation and Society 11:420-428.
Schultz L, Duit A, Folke C. 2011. Participation, adaptive co-management, and management performance in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. World Development 39:662-671.
Seijger, C, et al. 2017. An analytical framework for strategic delta planning: negotiating consent for long-term sustainable delta development. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 60:1485-1509.
Soulsbury CD, White PCL. 2015. Human-wildlife interactions in urban areas: a review of conflicts, benefits and opportunities. Wildlife Research 42:541-553.
Steenweg R, Hebblewhite M, Gummer D, Low B, Hunt B. 2016. Assessing potential habitat and carrying capacity for reintroduction of plains bison (Bison bison bison) in Banff National Park. PLOS ONE 11:e0150065.
Svenning JC, et al. 2016. Science for a wilder Anthropocene: synthesis and future directions for trophic rewilding research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113:898-906.
Treves A, Chapron G, López-Bao JV, Shoemaker C, Goeckner AR, Bruskotter JT. 2017. Predators and the public trust. Biological Reviews 92:248-270.
Treves A, Karanth KU. 2003. Human-carnivore conflict: local solutions with global applications. Conservation Biology 17:1489-1490.
Treves A, Santiago-Ávila FJ. 2020. Myths and assumptions about human-wildlife conflict and coexistence. Conservation Biology 34:811-818.
Tsunoda H, Enari H. 2020. A perspective toward a new strategy of wildlife management in rural area adaptable to the depopulating society: Japan as an initial model. Conservation Biology.
Turner Ii BL, Lambin EF, Reenberg A. 2007. The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:20666-20671.
van Eeden LM, et al. 2018. Carnivore conservation needs evidence-based livestock protection. PLOS Biology 16:e2005577.
von Wehrden H, et al. 2019. Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: finding the common ground of multi-faceted concepts. Sustainability Science 14:875-888.
White PCL, Ward AI. 2010. Interdisciplinary approaches for the management of existing and emerging human-wildlife conflicts. Wildlife Research 37:623-629.
Wilkinson CE, et al. 2020. An ecological framework for contextualizing carnivore-livestock conflict. Conservation Biology 34:854-867.
Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A. 2005. People and wildlife, conflict or co-existence?Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.