Wildlife impacts and vulnerable livelihoods in a transfrontier conservation landscape.

人类-野生动物系统 Africa African elephants Loxodonta africana adaptive livelihoods community-based conservation conservación basada en la comunidad conservación transfronteriza elefante africano human-wildlife impacts human-wildlife systems impacto humano - fauna mapeo participativo medios de subsistencia adaptativos participatory mapping sistema humano - fauna transboundary conservation África 人类-野生动物冲突 参与性绘图 基于社区的保护 跨境保护 适应性生计 非洲 非洲象 (Loxodonta africana)

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
Historique:
received: 15 01 2019
revised: 06 09 2019
accepted: 06 12 2019
pubmed: 15 5 2020
medline: 27 10 2020
entrez: 15 5 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Interactions between humans and wildlife resulting in negative impacts are among the most pressing conservation challenges globally. In regions of smallholder livestock and crop production, interactions with wildlife can compromise human well-being and motivate negative sentiment and retaliation toward wildlife, undermining conservation goals. Although impacts may be unavoidable when human and wildlife land use overlap, scant large-scale human data exist quantifying the direct costs of wildlife to livelihoods. In a landscape of global importance for wildlife conservation in southern Africa, we quantified costs for people living with wildlife through a fundamental measure of human well-being, food security, and we tested whether existing livelihood strategies buffer certain households against crop depredation by wildlife, predominantly elephants. To do this, we estimated Bayesian multilevel statistical models based on multicounty household data (n = 711) and interpreted model results in the context of spatial data from participatory land-use mapping. Reported crop depredation by wildlife was widespread. Over half of the sample households were affected and household food security was reduced significantly (odds ratio 0.37 [0.22, 0.63]). The most food insecure households relied on gathered food sources and welfare programs. In the event of crop depredation by wildlife, these 2 livelihood sources buffered or reduced harmful effects of depredation. The presence of buffering strategies suggests a targeted compensation strategy could benefit the region's most vulnerable people. Such strategies should be combined with dynamic and spatially explicit land-use planning that may reduce the frequency of negative human-wildlife impacts. Quantifying and mitigating the human costs from wildlife are necessary steps in working toward human-wildlife coexistence. Impactos de la Fauna y Medios de Subsistencia Vulnerables en unkl Paisaje de Conservación Transfronteriza Resumen Las interacciones entre los humanos y la fauna que resultan en impactos negativos se encuentran entre los desafíos más apremiantes para la conservación a nivel mundial. En las regiones de ganaderos y agricultores minifundistas, las interacciones con la fauna pueden poner en peligro el bienestar humano y motivar sentimientos negativos y represalias hacia la fauna, lo que debilita los objetivos de conservación. Aunque los impactos pueden evitarse cuando el uso de suelo por humanos y fauna se traslapa, existen pocos datos humanos a gran escala que cuantifiquen el costo directo de la fauna para los medios de subsistencia. Cuantificamos el costo para las personas que conviven con animales silvestres en un paisaje de importancia global para la conservación de fauna en el sur de África. La cuantificación fue realizada por medio de una medida fundamental de bienestar humano y seguridad alimentaria, y probamos si las estrategias existentes de subsistencia amortiguan a ciertos hogares ante la depredación de cultivos realizada por animales silvestres, predominantemente los elefantes. Para realizar esto, estimamos algunos modelos estadísticos bayesianos de niveles múltiples basados en los datos de hogares ubicados en múltiples condados (n = 711) e interpretamos los resultados de los modelos en el contexto de los datos espaciales a partir de un mapeo participativo de uso de suelo. La depredación de cultivos por animales silvestres fue reportada de manera generalizada. Más de la mitad de los hogares en la muestra estuvieron afectados y la seguridad alimenticia de los hogares se redujo significativamente (proporción de probabilidades 0.37 [0.22, 0.63]). Los hogares con la menor seguridad alimentaria dependían de fuentes de recolección de alimentos y programas de bienestar. En el evento de la depredación por fauna de los cultivos, estas dos fuentes de subsistencia amortiguaron o redujeron los efectos dañinos de la depredación. La presencia de las estrategias de amortiguamiento sugiere que una estrategia de compensación enfocada podría beneficiar a las personas más vulnerables de la región. Dichas estrategias deberían estar combinadas con la planeación del uso de suelo dinámica y espacialmente explícita, la cual podría reducir la frecuencia de los impactos negativos entre los humanos y la fauna. La cuantificación y mitificación del costo humano a partir de la fauna son pasos necesarios en el camino hacia la coexistencia entre los humanos y la fauna. 人类与野生动物之间相互作用造成的负面影响是全球最紧迫的保护挑战之一。在小农畜牧和作物种植地区, 与野生动物的相互作用可能损害人类福祉, 并引发人类对野生动物的负面情绪和报复行为, 进而破坏保护目标。人类和野生动物在土地利用重叠时难免产生相应影响, 但在量化野生动物对人类生计的直接影响成本时仍缺乏大尺度的人类数据。我们在南非一个具有全球重要意义的野生动物保护的景观中, 利用人类福祉和粮食安全的基本指标定量分析了人类与野生动物一起生活的成本, 我们还分析了现有生计策略在防止野生动物 (主要是大象) 掠夺农作物中是否能对一些家庭起到缓冲作用。我们基于多个国家的家庭数据 (n = 711) 进行了贝叶斯多层统计模型估计, 并结合参与式土地利用绘图的空间数据对模型结果做出解释。结果发现, 野生动物对农作物的破坏非常普遍, 样本中一半以上的家庭都受到了影响, 这导致粮食安全显著下降 (优势比为 0.37 [0.22, 0.63]) 。而最缺乏粮食安全保障的家庭主要依赖于收集的食物和福利计划维持生计。当作物遭到野生动物的破坏时, 这两种生计来源可以缓冲或减少破坏的有害影响。缓冲策略的存在表明, 有针对性的补偿策略可以帮助该地区最弱势的群体。而这些策略应与动态及空间显式土地利用规划相结合, 以减少人类-野生动物负面影响发生的频率。因此, 量化和减少野生动物对人类造成的损失是努力实现人类与野生动物共存的必要步骤。【翻译: 胡怡思; 审校: 聂永刚】.

Autres résumés

Type: Publisher (spa)
Impactos de la Fauna y Medios de Subsistencia Vulnerables en unkl Paisaje de Conservación Transfronteriza Resumen Las interacciones entre los humanos y la fauna que resultan en impactos negativos se encuentran entre los desafíos más apremiantes para la conservación a nivel mundial. En las regiones de ganaderos y agricultores minifundistas, las interacciones con la fauna pueden poner en peligro el bienestar humano y motivar sentimientos negativos y represalias hacia la fauna, lo que debilita los objetivos de conservación. Aunque los impactos pueden evitarse cuando el uso de suelo por humanos y fauna se traslapa, existen pocos datos humanos a gran escala que cuantifiquen el costo directo de la fauna para los medios de subsistencia. Cuantificamos el costo para las personas que conviven con animales silvestres en un paisaje de importancia global para la conservación de fauna en el sur de África. La cuantificación fue realizada por medio de una medida fundamental de bienestar humano y seguridad alimentaria, y probamos si las estrategias existentes de subsistencia amortiguan a ciertos hogares ante la depredación de cultivos realizada por animales silvestres, predominantemente los elefantes. Para realizar esto, estimamos algunos modelos estadísticos bayesianos de niveles múltiples basados en los datos de hogares ubicados en múltiples condados (n = 711) e interpretamos los resultados de los modelos en el contexto de los datos espaciales a partir de un mapeo participativo de uso de suelo. La depredación de cultivos por animales silvestres fue reportada de manera generalizada. Más de la mitad de los hogares en la muestra estuvieron afectados y la seguridad alimenticia de los hogares se redujo significativamente (proporción de probabilidades 0.37 [0.22, 0.63]). Los hogares con la menor seguridad alimentaria dependían de fuentes de recolección de alimentos y programas de bienestar. En el evento de la depredación por fauna de los cultivos, estas dos fuentes de subsistencia amortiguaron o redujeron los efectos dañinos de la depredación. La presencia de las estrategias de amortiguamiento sugiere que una estrategia de compensación enfocada podría beneficiar a las personas más vulnerables de la región. Dichas estrategias deberían estar combinadas con la planeación del uso de suelo dinámica y espacialmente explícita, la cual podría reducir la frecuencia de los impactos negativos entre los humanos y la fauna. La cuantificación y mitificación del costo humano a partir de la fauna son pasos necesarios en el camino hacia la coexistencia entre los humanos y la fauna.
Type: Publisher (chi)
人类与野生动物之间相互作用造成的负面影响是全球最紧迫的保护挑战之一。在小农畜牧和作物种植地区, 与野生动物的相互作用可能损害人类福祉, 并引发人类对野生动物的负面情绪和报复行为, 进而破坏保护目标。人类和野生动物在土地利用重叠时难免产生相应影响, 但在量化野生动物对人类生计的直接影响成本时仍缺乏大尺度的人类数据。我们在南非一个具有全球重要意义的野生动物保护的景观中, 利用人类福祉和粮食安全的基本指标定量分析了人类与野生动物一起生活的成本, 我们还分析了现有生计策略在防止野生动物 (主要是大象) 掠夺农作物中是否能对一些家庭起到缓冲作用。我们基于多个国家的家庭数据 (n = 711) 进行了贝叶斯多层统计模型估计, 并结合参与式土地利用绘图的空间数据对模型结果做出解释。结果发现, 野生动物对农作物的破坏非常普遍, 样本中一半以上的家庭都受到了影响, 这导致粮食安全显著下降 (优势比为 0.37 [0.22, 0.63]) 。而最缺乏粮食安全保障的家庭主要依赖于收集的食物和福利计划维持生计。当作物遭到野生动物的破坏时, 这两种生计来源可以缓冲或减少破坏的有害影响。缓冲策略的存在表明, 有针对性的补偿策略可以帮助该地区最弱势的群体。而这些策略应与动态及空间显式土地利用规划相结合, 以减少人类-野生动物负面影响发生的频率。因此, 量化和减少野生动物对人类造成的损失是努力实现人类与野生动物共存的必要步骤。【翻译: 胡怡思; 审校: 聂永刚】.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32406981
doi: 10.1111/cobi.13480
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

891-902

Informations de copyright

© 2020 Society for Conservation Biology.

Références

Adger WN. 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16:268-281.
Adhikari B. 2005. Poverty, property rights and collective action: understanding the distributive aspects of common property resource management. Environment and Development Economics 10:7-31.
Amwata DA, Mganga KZ.2014. The African elephant and food security in Africa: experiences from Baringo District, Kenya. Pachyderm 55:22.
Angelsen A, Jagger P, Babigumira R, Belcher B, Hogarth NJ, Bauch S, Börner J, Smith-Hall C, Wunder S. 2014. environmental income and rural livelihoods: a global-comparative analysis. Forests, Livelihoods, and Conservation 64:S12-S28.
Balmford A, Moore JL, Brooks T, Burgess N, Hansen LA, Williams P, Rahbek C. 2001. Conservation conflicts across Africa. Science 291:2616-2619.
Barua M, Bhagwat SA, Jadhav S. 2013. The hidden dimensions of human-wildlife conflict: Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biological Conservation 157:309-316.
Biggs D, Cooney R, Roe D, Dublin HT, Allan JR, Challender DWS, Skinner D. 2016. Developing a theory of change for a community-based response to illegal wildlife trade. Conservation Biology 31:5-12.
Black RE, Allen LH, Bhutta ZA, Caulfield LE, deOnis M, Ezzati M, Mathers C, Rivera J. 2008. Maternal and child undernutrition: global and regional exposures and health consequences. The Lancet 371:243-260.
Cassidy, L. 2020. Power dynamics and new directions in the recent evolution of CBNRM in Botswana. Conservation Science and Practice, e205 https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/csp2.205.
Cassidy, L & Salerno, J. 2020. The need for a more inclusive science of elephant conservation. Conservation Letters, https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/conl.12717.
Chase MJ, etal. 2016. Continent-wide survey reveals massive decline in African savannah elephants.PeerJ 4:e2354.
Coates J, Swindale A, Bilinsky P. 2007. Household food insecurity access scale (HFIAS) for measurement of food access: indicator guide. food and nutrition technical assistance. U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C.
DeMotts R, Hoon P.2012. Whose elephants? Conserving, compensating, and competing in northern Botswana. Society & Natural Resources 25:837-851.
Dickman AJ. 2010. Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation 13:458-466.
Doss C, McPeak J, Barrett C.B. 2008. Interpersonal, intertemporal and spatial variation in risk perceptions: evidence from East Africa. World Development 36:1453-1468.
Douglas-Hamilton I, Krink T, Vollrath F. 2005. Movements and corridors of African elephants in relation to protected areas. Naturwissenschaften 92:158-163.
Ellis F, Mdoe N.2003. Livelihoods and rural poverty reduction in Tanzania. World Development 31:1367-1384.
Galvin KA, Beeton TA, Luizza MW. 2018. African community-based conservation: a systematic review of social and ecological outcomes. Ecology and Society 23:https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss3/art39/.
Gaughan, AE, Stevens, FR, Pricope, NG, Hartter, J, Cassidy, L & Salerno, J. 2019. Operationalizing Vulnerability: Land System Dynamics in a Transfrontier Conservation Area. Land, 8https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/8/7/111.
Gifi A. 1990. Nonlinear multivariate analysis. Wiley, Chichester, United Kingdom.
Gupta AC. 2013. Elephants, safety nets and agrarian culture: understanding human-wildlife conflict and rural livelihoods around Chobe National Park, Botswana. Journal of Political Ecology 20:238-254.
Haller T, Chabwela HN.2009. Managing common pool resources in the Kafue Flats, Zambia: from common property to open access and privatisation. Development Southern Africa 26:555-567.
Hill CM. 2004. Farmers’ perspectives of conflict at the wildlife-agriculture boundary. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9:279-286.
Hoare R. 2012. Lessons from 15 years of human-elephant conflict mitigation: management considerations involving biological, physical and governance issues in Africa. Pachyderm 51:60-74.
KAZA-TFCA (Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area). 2014. Master integrated development plan, 2015-2020. KAZA TFCA Secratariat.
Kissui BM. 2008. Livestock depredation by lions, leopards, spotted hyenas, and their vulnerability to retaliatory killing in the Maasai steppe, Tanzania. Animal Conservation 11:422-432.
Knueppel D, Demment M, Kaiser L. 2010. Validation of the household food insecurity access scale in rural Tanzania. Public Health Nutrition 13:360-367.
Lawson DW, James S, Ngadaya E, Ngowi B, Mfinanga SGM, Borgerhoff Mulder M. 2015. No evidence that polygynous marriage is a harmful cultural practice in northern Tanzania. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112:13827.
McElreath R. 2015. Statistical rethinking: a Bayesian Course with examples in R and Stan. Chapman & Hall and CRC Press, Orlando, Florida.
Metcalfe S, Kepe T.2008. “Your elephant on our land”: the struggle to manage wildlife mobility on Zambian Communal Land in the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area. The Journal of Environment & Development 17:99-117.
Naidoo R, Weaver LC, De Longcamp M, Du Plesssis P. 2011. Namibia's community-based natural resource management programme: an unrecognized payments for ecosystem services scheme. Environmental Conservation 38:445-453.
Naidoo R, Kilian JW, Du Preez P, Beytell P, Aschenborn O, Taylor RD, Stuart-Hill G. 2018. Evaluating the effectiveness of local- and regional-scale wildlife corridors using quantitative metrics of functional connectivity. Biological Conservation 217:96-103.
Naughton L. 1998. Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Conservation Biology 12:156-168.
Naughton-Treves L, Treves A, Rose R. 2000. The social dimensions of HEC in Africa: a literature review and case studies from Cameroon and Uganda. International Union for Conservation of Nature African Elephant Specialist Group, Nairobi.
Nelson F. 2010. Community rights, conservation and contested land: The politics of natural resource governance in africa. Earthscan, London.
Newmark WD. 2008. Isolation of African protected areas. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6:321-328.
Nkemelang T, New M, Zaroug M. 2018. Temperature and precipitation extremes under current, 1.5 °C and 2.0°C global warming above pre-industrial levels over Botswana, and implications for climate change vulnerability. Environmental Research Letters 13:065016.
Nyhus PJ. 2016. Human-wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41:143-171.
Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL, Brooks TM. 1995. The future of biodiversity. Science 269:347.
Pozo RA, Cusack JJ, McCulloch G, Stronza A, Songhurst A, Coulson T. 2018. Elephant space-use is not a good predictor of crop-damage. Biological Conservation 228:241-251.
R Core Team. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
Ravenelle J, Nyhus PJ.2017. Global patterns and trends in human-wildlife conflict compensation. Conservation Biology 31:1247-1256.
Redpath SM, etal. 2013. Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28:100-109.
Rubin LP. 2015. Maternal and pediatric health and disease: integrating biopsychosocial models and epigenetics. Pediatric Research 79:127.
Salerno J, Borgerhoff Mulder M, Grote MN, Ghiselli M, Packer C. 2016. Household livelihoods and conflict with wildlife in community-based conservation areas across northern Tanzania. Oryx 50:702-712.
Salerno J, Cassidy L, Drake M, Hartter J. 2018. Living in an elephant landscape. American Scientist 106:34-41.
Shaffer LJ, Khadka KK, Van Den Hoek J, Naithani KJ. 2019. Human-elephant conflict: a review of current management strategies and future directions. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 6:235.
Sitati NW, Walpole MJ, Leaader-Williams N. 2005. Factors affecting susceptibility of farms to crop depredation by African elephants: using a predictive model to mitigate conflict. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:1175-1182.
Songhurst A, McCulloch G, Coulson T. 2016. Finding pathways to human-elephant coexistence: a risky business. Oryx 50:713-720.
Stan Development Team. 2018. RStan: the R interface to Stan. R package version 2.16.2. Available from http://mc-stan.org/.
Suich H. 2013. The effectiveness of economic incentives for sustaining community based natural resource management. Land Use Policy 31:441-449.
Thirgood S, Woodroffe R, Rabinowitz A. 2005. The impact of human-wildlife conflict on human lives and livelihoods. Pages 13-26 in R.Woodrofe, S.Thirgood, A.Rabinowitz, editor. People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Treves A, Wallace RB, Naughton-Treves L, Morales A. 2006. Co-managing human-wildlife conflicts: a review. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 11:383-396.
Tshipa A, Valls-Fox H, Fritz H, Collins K, Sebele L, Mundy P, Chamaillé-Jammes S. 2017. Partial migration links local surface-water management to large-scale elephant conservation in the world's largest transfrontier conservation area. Biological Conservation 215:46-50.
Woodroffe R, Ginsberg JR. 1998. Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science 280:2126.
Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A. 2005. The impact of human-wildlife conflict on natural systems. Pages 1-12 in A.Rabinowitz, R.Woodroffe, and S.Thirgood, editors. People and wildlife, conflict or co-existence?Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Young JC, Marzano M, White RM, McCracken DI, Redpath SM, Carss DN, Quine CP, Watt AD. 2010. The emergence of biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: characteristics and management strategies. Biodiversity and Conservation 19:3973-3990.

Auteurs

Jonathan Salerno (J)

Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, 1480 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, U.S.A.

Karen Bailey (K)

Environmental Studies Program, University of Colorado, Sustainability, Energy and Environment Community, 4001 Discovery Drive, Boulder, CO, 80309, U.S.A.

Andrea E Gaughan (AE)

Department of Geography and Geosciences, University of Louisville, Lutz Hall, Louisville, KY, 40292, U.S.A.

Forrest R Stevens (FR)

Department of Geography and Geosciences, University of Louisville, Lutz Hall, Louisville, KY, 40292, U.S.A.

Tom Hilton (T)

Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, 1480 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, U.S.A.

Lin Cassidy (L)

Okavango Research Institute, University of Botswana, Box 233, Maun, Botswana.

Michael D Drake (MD)

Environmental Studies Program, University of Colorado, Sustainability, Energy and Environment Community, 4001 Discovery Drive, Boulder, CO, 80309, U.S.A.

Narcisa G Pricope (NG)

Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 S College Road., Wilmington, NC, 28403, U.S.A.

Joel Hartter (J)

Environmental Studies Program, University of Colorado, Sustainability, Energy and Environment Community, 4001 Discovery Drive, Boulder, CO, 80309, U.S.A.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH