Local knowledge about a newly reintroduced, rapidly spreading species (Eurasian beaver) and perception of its impact on ecosystem services.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
22
10
2019
accepted:
06
05
2020
entrez:
22
5
2020
pubmed:
22
5
2020
medline:
13
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Conflicts caused by reintroduced native species are increasing; however, there is a knowledge gap concerning ecological knowledge and perception of local community members regarding the impact of these species on local ecosystem services and livelihoods. We studied local knowledge about beavers and the perception of their impact on ecosystem services and local livelihoods, and the perception of their general harmfulness and usefulness in Hungary and Romania in three ecologically distinct, diverse rural landscapes. Structured interviews were carried out with 45 knowledgeable and 45 randomly selected local informants. We found that locals were knowledgeable about legal status, biology and behavior of beavers and their diverse impact on nature and ecosystem services. Perceptions included mostly negative impacts on provisioning services, while both negative and positive impacts on regulating and cultural services were perceived, including some contradictory impacts of the species. In spite of the actual and anticipated potential future harms caused by beavers, most people appreciated its precise building mastery and 'cute' nature. We argue that communication between nature conservationists and locals should reflect this complexity of perceptions, while reciprocal learning could help to moderate local conflicts and develop adaptive management strategies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32437396
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233506
pii: PONE-D-19-29136
pmc: PMC7241770
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0233506Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Sociol Methodol. 2011 Aug 1;41(1):355-366
pubmed: 22228916
Oecologia. 2002 Jun;132(1):96-101
pubmed: 28547281
Environ Manage. 1999 Jan;23(1):95-101
pubmed: 9817774
Conserv Biol. 2017 Apr;31(2):343-352
pubmed: 27406400
Sci Total Environ. 2018 Feb 15;615:1048-1060
pubmed: 29751408
Sci Total Environ. 2017 Jan 15;576:430-443
pubmed: 27792958
PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e38970
pubmed: 22720006
Sci Total Environ. 2017 Dec 15;605-606:1021-1030
pubmed: 28693107
Ecol Lett. 2005 May;8(5):468-79
pubmed: 21352450