A multispecies assessment of wildlife impacts on local community livelihoods

Conflicts between the interests of agriculture and wildlife conservation are a major threat to biodiversity and human well-being globally. Addressing such conflicts requires a thorough understanding of the impacts associated with living alongside protected wildlife. Despite this, most studies reporting on human–wildlife impacts and the strategies used to mitigate them focus on a single species, thus oversimplifying often complex systems of human–wildlife interactions. We sought to characterize the spatiotemporal patterns of impacts by multiple co-occurring species on agricultural livelihoods in the eastern Okavango Delta Panhandle in northern Botswana through the use of a database of 3264 wildlife-incident reports recorded from 2009 to 2015 by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks. Eight species (African elephants [Loxodonta africana], hippopotamuses [Hippopotamus amphibious], lions [Panthera leo], cheetah [Acinonyx jubatus], African wild dogs [Lycaon pictus], hyenas [Crocuta crocuta], leopards [Panthera pardus], and crocodiles [Crocodylus niloticus]) appeared on incident reports, of which 56.5% were attributed to elephants. Most species were associated with only 1 type of damage (i.e., either crop damage or livestock loss). Carnivores were primarily implicated in incident reports related to livestock loss, particularly toward the end of the dry season (May–October). In contrast, herbivores were associated with crop-loss incidents during the wet season (November–April). Our results illustrate how local communities can face distinct livelihood challenges from different species at different times of the year. Such a multispecies assessment has important implications for the design of conservation interventions aimed at addressing the costs of living with wildlife and thereby mitigation of the underlying conservation conflict. Our spatiotemporal, multispecies approach is widely applicable to other regions where sustainable and long-term solutions to conservation conflicts are needed for local communities and biodiversity.     

Rethinking the study of human–wildlife coexistence

Although coexistence with wildlife is a key goal of conservation, little is known about it or how to study it. By coexistence we mean a sustainable though dynamic state in which humans and wildlife coadapt to sharing landscapes, where human interactions with wildlife are effectively governed to ensure wildlife populations persist in socially legitimate ways that ensure tolerable risk levels. Problems that arise from current conflict-oriented framing of human–wildlife interactions include reinforcing a human–nature dichotomy as fundamentally oppositional, suggesting coexistence requires the absence of conflict, and skewing research and management toward direct negative impacts over indirect impacts and positive aspects of living with wildlife. Human behavior toward wildlife is framed as rational calculus of costs and benefits, sidelining emotional and cultural dimensions of these interactions. Coexistence is less studied due to unfamiliarity with relevant methodologies, including qualitative methods, self-reflexivity and ethical rigor, and constraints on funding and time. These challenges are illustrated with examples from fieldwork in India and Africa. We recommend a basic approach to case studies aimed at expanding the scope of inquiries into human–wildlife relations beyond studies of rational behavior and quantification of costs and benefits of wildlife to humans.     

An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations

In a world of shrinking habitats and increasing competition for natural resources, potentially dangerous predators bring the challenges of coexisting with wildlife sharply into focus. Through interdisciplinary collaboration among authors trained in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, we reviewed current approaches to mitigating adverse human–predator encounters and devised a vision for future approaches to understanding and mitigating such encounters. Limitations to current approaches to mitigation include too much focus on negative impacts; oversimplified equating of levels of damage with levels of conflict; and unsuccessful technical fixes resulting from failure to engage locals, address hidden costs, or understand cultural (nonscientific) explanations of the causality of attacks. An emerging interdisciplinary literature suggests that to better frame and successfully mitigate negative human–predator relations conservation professionals need to consider dispensing with conflict as the dominant framework for thinking about human–predator encounters; work out what conflicts are really about (they may be human–human conflicts); unravel the historical contexts of particular conflicts; and explore different cultural ways of thinking about animals. The idea of cosmopolitan natures may help conservation professionals think more clearly about human–predator relations in both local and global context. These new perspectives for future research practice include a recommendation for focused interdisciplinary research and the use of new approaches, including human‐animal geography, multispecies ethnography, and approaches from the environmental humanities notably environmental history. Managers should think carefully about how they engage with local cultural beliefs about wildlife, work with all parties to agree on what constitutes good evidence, develop processes and methods to mitigate conflicts, and decide how to monitor and evaluate these. Demand for immediate solutions that benefit both conservation and development favors dispute resolution and technical fixes, which obscures important underlying drivers of conflicts. If these drivers are not considered, well‐intentioned efforts focused on human–wildlife conflicts will fail.     

Evaluating whether nature's intrinsic value is an axiom of or anathema to conservation

That at least some aspects of nature possess intrinsic value is considered by some an axiom of conservation. Others consider nature's intrinsic value superfluous or anathema. This range of views among mainstream conservation professionals potentially threatens the foundation of conservation. One challenge in resolving this disparity is that disparaging portrayals of nature's intrinsic value appear rooted in misconceptions and unfounded presumptions about what it means to acknowledge nature's intrinsic value. That acknowledgment has been characterized as vacuous, misanthropic, of little practical consequence to conservation, adequately accommodated by economic valuation, and not widely accepted in society. We reviewed the philosophical basis for nature's intrinsic value and the implications for acknowledging that value. Our analysis is rooted to the notion that when something possesses intrinsic value it deserves to be treated with respect for what it is, with concern for its welfare or in a just manner. From this basis, one can only conclude that nature's intrinsic value is not a vacuous concept or adequately accommodated by economic valuation. Acknowledging nature's intrinsic value is not misanthropic because concern for nature's welfare (aside from its influence on human welfare) does not in any way preclude also being concerned for human welfare. The practical import of acknowledging nature's intrinsic value rises from recognizing all the objects of conservation concern (e.g., many endangered species) that offer little benefit to human welfare. Sociological and cultural evidence indicates the belief that at least some elements of nature possess intrinsic value is widespread in society. Our reasoning suggests the appropriateness of rejecting the assertion that nature's intrinsic value is anathema to conservation and accepting its role as an axiom. Evaluar si el Valor Intrínseco de la Naturaleza es un Axioma o un Anatema para la Conservación     

Understanding conflicting cultural models of outdoor cats to overcome conservation impasse

Many conservation conflicts are scientifically complex yet are rooted in value conflicts, which result in an impasse. Additional biological information alone is insufficient to resolve this type of conflict. Conceptual models that articulate the material aspects of a system are increasingly used to identify areas where parties disagree. Yet, modeling processes typically follow the conveners’ rules for discussing and assessing the topic, which can exacerbate conflict. Researchers have identified a need for processes that require participants to reflect on the limits of their own philosophical assumptions and acknowledge other perspectives. Cultural models are a promising tool for this purpose because they include nonmaterial beliefs, morals, and values that guide people's understanding of how to interact with an issue, sometimes subconsciously. We explored how cultural models used with conceptual models can improve understanding of value conflicts and used outdoor cat management as a case study. We conducted interviews and focus group discussions with wildlife conservation and cat welfare professionals involved in outdoor cat policy discussions in Hawaii and Washington, D.C. From these conversations, we developed a conceptual model of the outdoor cat management system and cultural models that led stakeholders to weigh elements of the conceptual model differently. Although wildlife conservation professionals generally spoke about outdoor cats as invasive species, cat welfare professionals spoke about them as homeless pets. These conflicting conceptualizations of what an outdoor cat is may help explain the root of many long-standing disagreements. Examining how and when stakeholders invoke different cultural models allowed us to identify management actions that work with, rather than challenge, those models. Dialogue that embraces conflicting cultural models can be difficult and uncomfortable, but has great potential to overcome conservation impasse and achieve lasting conservation results.     

Social values and biodiversity conservation in a dynamic world

Understanding what shape values (which ultimately shape human behavior) will help improve the effectiveness of conservation solutions that depend on public support. To contribute to this understanding, we investigated the influence of societal‐level changes, such as modernization, on values in a multilevel framework. We collected survey responses (n = 4183) to questionnaires mailed to a random selection of households within each county in Washington (U.S.A.) (response rate 32%). We used multilevel modeling to determine the relationship between modernization (e.g., county‐level urbanization, wealth, and education) and wildlife value orientations (values that shape thought about wildlife) while controlling for individual‐level sociodemographics. We then explored how values influence conservation support at different levels (e.g., individual and county) and how values explain conservation support in a case study of public responses to wolf (Canis lupis) recovery. We found positive associations between county‐level examples of modernization and mutualism (a wildlife value orientation that prioritizes the perceived needs of wildlife) independent of a respondent's sociodemographics, and negative associations between modernization and domination (a wildlife value orientation that prioritizes human needs). Our results suggest that context has an additive impact on one's values; certain locations exhibited domination values, whereas others exhibited a mix of value types. This finding is important because actions that restrict human interests to promote biodiversity were negatively associated with domination and positively associated with mutualism. In the wolf case study, mutualism was strongly correlated with less social conflict over wolf recovery in many, but not all, counties (e.g., Pearson's r correlation = 0.59 in one county and a nonsignificant correlation in another). Our findings suggest that modernization operates on values within a state with implications for biodiversity, but other factors in addition to values must be investigated to fully understand what leads to proconservation behavior.     

Community Conservation and the Future of Africa's Wildlife

Abstract: The term community-based conservation (CBC) refers to wildlife conservation efforts that involve rural people as an integral part of a wildlife conservation policy. The key elements of such programs are that local communities participate in resource planning and management and that they gain economically from wildlife utilization. In part, CBC is seen as an alternative to the more exclusionary protectionist policies of the past, which often alienated rural people from conservation efforts. The new approach acts to make rural people a constituency for wildlife and therefore active backers of wildlife protection. Africans, however, are struggling with severe social and economic problems such as poverty, long-standing economic stagnation, rapid population growth, and environmental deterioration. Because of the pressures that Africans face in making a living, the application of CBC may not occur as readily or as successfully as its advocates would hope. It may also be that the approach is being oversold. I use brief case studies from Madagascar, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, and Swaziland to highlight the possible conflicts between rural people's economic needs and the implementation of community conservation. In addition, the CBC literature treats the role of protection vaguely, as it does the question of what might happen if CBC fails to achieve wildlife conservation goals. Community-based conservation is an obvious advance over past practices because of its inclusive philosophy, but if rural people accept CBC because of its economic benefits, they may reject it at some point in the future if a better economic alternative is presented. Thus, CBC programs can work to produce a better relationship between wildlife and people, but only a vast improvement in the lives of rural Africans will ultimately produce a more secure future for the continent's wildlife.     

Embracing diverse worldviews to share planet Earth

Leading societies toward a more sustainable, equitably shared, and environmentally just future requires elevating and strengthening conversations on the nonmaterial and perhaps unquantifiable values of nonhuman nature to humanity. Debates among conservationists relating to the appropriateness of valuing ecosystems in terms of their human utility have eclipsed the more important and impactful task of expressing conservation concerns in terms that are meaningful to diverse stakeholders. We considered the wide global diversity of perspectives on the biosocial complex—the relationships and interactions between all living species on Earth—and argue that humanity's best chance for effective conservation is to take a pluralistic approach that engages seriously with the worldviews of all stakeholders. Many worldviews—particularly those in indigenous cultures—place a higher value on the spiritual and nonmaterial aspects than what is often represented by the discourse surrounding Western conservation policy. Alternative framings of the biosocial complex that recognize nature's intrinsic value can be powerful motivators for social change and for local-scale conservation efforts. At a national and international level, changing ethical framings of human relationships with nature have started influencing conceptions of human rights relating to the environment and of the rights of nature itself. This change has led to an increased role of the judiciary in promoting environmental sustainability and promoting justice for groups who are most often affected by environmental harms. We hope our essay will motivate the scientific community to change its own perception of what a sound and sustainable relationship between humanity and other species should be and will help citizens become active environmental subjects, connected to the ecosystems around them.     

Mechanistic understanding of human–wildlife conflict through a novel application of dynamic occupancy models

Crop and livestock depredation by wildlife is a primary driver of human–wildlife conflict, a problem that threatens the coexistence of people and wildlife globally. Understanding mechanisms that underlie depredation patterns holds the key to mitigating conflicts across time and space. However, most studies do not consider imperfect detection and reporting of conflicts, which may lead to incorrect inference regarding its spatiotemporal drivers. We applied dynamic occupancy models to elephant crop depredation data from India between 2005 and 2011 to estimate crop depredation occurrence and model its underlying dynamics as a function of spatiotemporal covariates while accounting for imperfect detection of conflicts. The probability of detecting conflicts was consistently <1.0 and was negatively influenced by distance to roads and elevation gradient, averaging 0.08–0.56 across primary periods (distinct agricultural seasons within each year). The probability of crop depredation occurrence ranged from 0.29 (SE 0.09) to 0.96 (SE 0.04). The probability that sites raided by elephants in primary period t would not be raided in primary period t + 1 varied with elevation gradient in different seasons and was influenced negatively by mean rainfall and village density and positively by distance to forests. Negative effects of rainfall variation and distance to forests best explained variation in the probability that sites not raided by elephants in primary period t would be raided in primary period t + 1. With our novel application of occupancy models, we teased apart the spatiotemporal drivers of conflicts from factors that influence how they are observed, thereby allowing more reliable inference on mechanisms underlying observed conflict patterns. We found that factors associated with increased crop accessibility and availability (e.g., distance to forests and rainfall patterns) were key drivers of elephant crop depredation dynamics. Such an understanding is essential for rigorous prediction of future conflicts, a critical requirement for effective conflict management in the context of increasing human–wildlife interactions.     

Understanding the Diversity of Public Interests in Wildlife Conservation

Abstract:  North American state wildlife agencies are increasingly faced with the challenge of effectively representing a diverse public. With increasing social conflict over wildlife issues, the future of wildlife conservation hinges on preparedness of the profession to respond to this challenge. In the interest of finding ways to improve response, 19 agencies in the western U.S. joined forces to initiate an investigation that would provide a better understanding of the diversity of wildlife-related interests in the region. Specific objectives, accomplished through use of a mail survey administered in 2004, were to categorize people on the basis of their value orientations toward wildlife and explore how different groups were distributed across states and to examine differences on sociodemographic characteristics and attitudes toward wildlife-related topics among groups. The focus was on two orientations: domination (view of wildlife that prioritizes human well-being over wildlife and treats wildlife in utilitarian terms); and mutualism (view of wildlife as capable of relationships of trust with humans and defined by a desire for companionship with wildlife). Four types of people were identified on the basis of these orientations. Types differed in their geographic distribution and wildlife-related attitudes and behaviors, revealing how value orientations can form the foundation for conflict on wildlife issues. Our characterizations of stakeholder groups offer a framework that can be applied over time and across geographic scales to improve conservation planning efforts and inform broader thinking about the social aspects of wildlife conservation .     

Myths and assumptions about human-wildlife conflict and coexistence

Recent extinctions often resulted from humans retaliating against wildlife that threatened people's interests or were perceived to threaten current or future interests. Today's subfield of human-wildlife conflict and coexistence (HWCC) grew out of an original anthropocentric concern with such real or perceived threats and then, starting in the mid-1990s, with protecting valued species from people. Recent work in ethics and law has shifted priorities toward coexistence between people and wild animals. To spur scientific progress and more effective practice, we examined 4 widespread assumptions about HWCC that need to be tested rigorously: scientists are neutral and objective about HWCC; current participatory, consensus-based decisions provide just and fair means to overcome challenges in HWCC; wildlife threats to human interests are getting worse; and wildlife damage to human interests is additive to other sources of damage. The first 2 assumptions are clearly testable, but if they are entangled can become a wicked problem and may need debunking as myths if they cannot be disentangled. Some assumptions have seldom or never been tested and those that have been tested appear dubious, yet the use of the assumptions continues in the practice and scholarship of HWCC. We call for tests of assumptions and debunking of myths in the scholarship of HWCC. Adherence to the principles of scientific integrity and application of standards of evidence can help advance our call. We also call for practitioners and interest groups to improve the constitutive process prior to decision making about wildlife. We predict these steps will hasten scientific progress toward evidence-based interventions and improve the fairness, ethics, and legality of coexistence strategies.     

Systematic Conservation Planning and the Cost of Tackling Conservation Conflicts with Large Carnivores in Italy

Abstract:  Conservation in Europe (including the establishment of protected areas) is undertaken mainly through legislation and on densely populated private land. Consequently, conflicts of interest arise between human economic activities and biodiversity conservation. We used a systematic approach to conservation planning to explore different conservation scenarios for the Apennine populations of wolves (Canis lupus) and bears (Ursus arctos marsicanus) in Italy. The conservation measures we considered were electrified fences and guard dogs to prevent wolves and bears from preying on sheep. We used habitat suitability models of the two species as an estimate of their distributions. Across the study area, we estimated the potential intensity of conflict caused by predation on sheep and the cost of the antipredator measures. We examined scenarios for the conservation of wolves and bears that identified systems of sites where antipredator measures should be applied to either minimize the economic cost of the plan or tackle a predetermined amount of conflict. The overall cost of the conservation plans ranged between €1,486,000 and €16,876,000, depending on the scenario and on the size of the conservation target. Because potential conflict intensity (i.e., potential predation) and cost of conflict resolution were correlated, the scenarios that minimized cost also minimized the amount of conflict that was addressed. Conserving these two species by addressing their predation on sheep was up to 4.36 times more expensive than conserving them by providing suitable habitat in areas of low conflict. Yet avoiding conflicts is not always desirable because it can drastically reduce the options for conservation. Choosing a conservation plan requires consideration of the level of threat to the target species and their sensitivity to conflicts.     

Stakeholder perspectives on land-use conflicts in the South African section of the Greater Mapungubwe Transfrontier Conservation Area

ABSTRACT

Land-use conflict has become a topical issue due to an increase in the number of stakeholders having incompatible interests related to particular land uses. Competing land-uses include those for conservation, irrigation, game and livestock farming, settlements and mining. These groupings of land-uses have different interests and objectives. This study aims to investigate the basis for the land-use conflict, and to get insights into how various stakeholders perceive and interpret existing conflicts. Empirical results were drawn from observation, interviews and documents collected between 2011 and 2018. The interviews were held with various stakeholders involved in land-use decisions. Qualitative data were analysed through thematic content analysis, and observations assisted with the corroboration of information collected through interviews. The study recorded four central land-use conflicts: irrigation farming with conservation; game farming with conservation; settlements/livestock farming with conservation; and mining with conservation/game farming/irrigation farming. The study also explains how local stakeholders understand these conflicts.     

Understanding the Role of Representations of Human–Leopard Conflict in Mumbai through Media‐Content Analysis

Attempts to minimize the effects of human–wildlife conflict (HWC) on conservation goals require an understanding of the mechanisms by which such conflicts are caused and sustained. This necessitates looking beyond the natural sciences to the human dimensions of wildlife management. Public dissemination of information regarding HWC occurs largely through the mass media. We conducted a content analysis of print media articles on human–leopard conflict in Mumbai, India. We sought to understand the framing of HWC and the changes in media coverage over a 10‐year period (2001–2011) during which a large number of attacks on people prior to 2005 were followed by a program of trapping and relocation. After 2005, when there was a decrease in the level of conflict, the tone of English‐language media reports changed. The perpetrator framing was over 5 times more likely before 2005, whereas a neutral framing was twice as likely after 2005. English‐language and non‐English‐language print media differed significantly in their framing of HWC and in the kinds of solutions advocated. Our results also suggest the print mass media in Mumbai could be an influential conduit for content that diminishes HWC. These media outlets seem attentive to human–leopard conflict, capable of correcting erroneous perceptions and facilitating mitigation and effective management. We believe better contact and mutual understanding between conservation professionals and the mass media could be an important component of managing HWC. We further suggest that in such interactions conservation professionals need to be aware of cultural and linguistic differences in reporting within the country. Entendiendo el Papel de las Representaciones del Conflicto Humano–Leopardo en Mumbai A Través del Análisis de Contenido de Medios     

Moral dimensions of human–wildlife conflict

Despite increasing support for conservation globally, controversy over specific conservation policies persists among diverse stakeholders. Investigating the links between morals in relation to conservation can help increase understanding about why humans support or oppose policy, especially related to human–wildlife conflict or human conflict over wildlife. Yet the moral dimension of human–wildlife conflict has mostly gone unconsidered and unmeasured; thus, policy and programmatic efforts to reduce controversy may be missing a key part of the equation. We conducted a web‐based survey (n = 1239 respondents) in Michigan (U.S.A.) to investigate cognitive and emotional influences on the value–behavior relationship. Respondents were identified by their interest and involvement in Michigan wolf management. The survey consisted of questions about values, emotions, cognitions, and behaviors relative to wolves in Michigan. We used path analysis to explore whether emotions and cognitions mediated the relationship between value and behavior. Most respondents attributed intrinsic value to wolves (n = 734) and all life (n = 773) and engaged in behaviors that benefited wolf populations and ecosystems regardless of stakeholder group (e.g., environmentalist, farmer). Attributing intrinsic value to wolves was positively related to favorable emotions toward wolves and cognitive assessments that hunting and trapping of wolves is unacceptable. Despite similarities in attribution of intrinsic value, groups differed in emotions and cognitions about wolf hunting. These differences provide a useful way to predict stakeholder behavior. Our findings may inform interventions aimed at increasing support for wolf management policies and positive interactions among stakeholders and wildlife. Leveraging agreement over intrinsic value may foster cooperation among stakeholders and garner support for controversial conservation policy.     

The contribution of derelict mineral and industrial sites to the conservation of rare plants in the United Kingdom

The contribution of derelict industrial sites to the conservation of rare plants in the British Isles is reviewed. Many sites have acquired considerable biological interest and have been designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest or nature reserves. In most cases the development of wildlife interest has in the past been fortuitous rather than planned. There is, however, increasing evidence that the deliberate re-development of specific areas of derelict land for wildlife conservation is technical feasible. Whilst the forward planning of new mineral developments must continue to take account of existing wildlife values to minimise potential conflict and losses, nature conservation may, in certain circumstances, be considered as viable an endopoint as the more commonplace objectives of landscape rehabilitation. Further development of this policy could provide a means of compensating for the inevitable losses that will occur in the future, and greater attention must be paid to the potential of derelict industrial sites in this context.     

The importance of tangible and intangible factors in human–carnivore coexistence

Conflict with humans is one of the major threats facing the world's remaining large carnivore populations, and understanding human attitudes is key to improving coexistence. We surveyed people living near Hwange National Park about their attitudes toward coexisting with lions. We used ordinal regression models with the results of the survey to investigate the importance of a range of tangible and intangible factors on attitudes. The variables investigated included the costs and benefits of wildlife presence, emotion, culture, religion, vulnerability, risk perception, notions of responsibility, and personal value orientations. This was for the purpose of effectively tailoring conservation efforts but also for ethical policy making. Intangible factors (e.g., fear and ecocentric values) were as important as, if not more important than, tangible factors (such as livestock losses) for understanding attitudes, based on the effect sizes of these variables. The degree to which participants’ fear of lions interfered with their daily activities was the most influential variable. The degree to which benefits accrue to households from the nearby protected area was also highly influential, as was number of livestock lost, number of dependents, ecocentric value orientation, and participation in conflict mitigation programs. Contrary to what is often assumed, metrics of livestock loss did not dominate attitudes to coexistence with lions. Furthermore, we found that socioeconomic variables may appear important when studied in isolation, but their effect may disappear when controlling for variables related to beliefs, perceptions, and past experiences. This raises questions about the widespread reliance on socioeconomic variables in the field of human–wildlife conflict and coexistence. To facilitate coexistence with large carnivores, we recommend measures that reduce fear (through education and through protective measures that reduce the need to be fearful), reduction of livestock losses, and ensuring local communities benefit from conservation. Ecocentric values also emerged as influential, highlighting the need to develop conservation initiatives tailored to local values.     

A strategy for wildlife management in depopulating rural areas of Japan

Former ranges of wild animals have been reestablished in many developed countries. However, this reestablishment has led to increasing human–wildlife conflict in agroforest ecosystems. In Japan, human–wildlife conflict, such as crop raiding by and ecological impacts of wild ungulates and primates, is a serious problem in depopulated rural areas due to these animal range expansions and increased abundances. Japan's human population is predicted to decline by 24% by 2050, and approximately 20% of agricultural settlements will become completely depopulated. In this scenario, anthropogenic pressures on wildlife (e.g., hunting and habitat alteration) will continue to decrease and human–wildlife conflict will increase due to increasing wildlife recovery. Japan's local governments plan to slow range recovery, prevent species reestablishment, or remove recolonizing large mammals through lethal control. This strategy, however, is not cost-effective, and workforce shortages in depopulated communities make it infeasible. Moreover, the suppression of wildlife prevents the recovery of ecological functions and thus would degrade regional biodiversity. The declining pressure on wildlife that accompanies human depopulation will prevent the restoration of any past states of human–wildlife interaction. We suggest human-used areas in rural landscapes be aggregated in compact cities and that in transition zones between human settlements and depopulated lands that land-sharing approaches be applied. Concentrating management efforts in compact cities may effectively decrease human–wildlife conflict, rather than intensifying human pressures. Reforestation of depopulated lands may lead to recovery of wildlife habitats, their ecosystem functions, and regional biodiversity due to minimization of negative anthropogenic effects (land-sparing approach). Balancing resolution of human–wildlife conflict and ecological rewilding could become a new, challenging task for regional wildlife managers.     

An ecological framework for contextualizing carnivore–livestock conflict

Carnivore predation on livestock is a complex management and policy challenge, yet it is also intrinsically an ecological interaction between predators and prey. Human–wildlife interactions occur in socioecological systems in which human and environmental processes are closely linked. However, underlying human–wildlife conflict and key to unpacking its complexity are concrete and identifiable ecological mechanisms that lead to predation events. To better understand how ecological theory accords with interactions between wild predators and domestic prey, we developed a framework to describe ecological drivers of predation on livestock. We based this framework on foundational ecological theory and current research on interactions between predators and domestic prey. We used this framework to examine ecological mechanisms (e.g., density-mediated effects, behaviorally mediated effects, and optimal foraging theory) through which specific management interventions operate, and we analyzed the ecological determinants of failure and success of management interventions in 3 case studies: snow leopards (Panthera uncia), wolves (Canis lupus), and cougars (Puma concolor). The varied, context-dependent successes and failures of the management interventions in these case studies demonstrated the utility of using an ecological framework to ground research and management of carnivore–livestock conflict. Mitigation of human–wildlife conflict appears to require an understanding of how fundamental ecological theories work within domestic predator–prey systems.