Understanding public perceptions of risk regarding outdoor pet cats to inform conservation action

Free‐ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) incur and impose risks on ecosystems and represent a complex issue of critical importance to biodiversity conservation and cat and human health globally. Prior social science research on this topic is limited and has emphasized feral cats even though owned cats often comprise a large proportion of the outdoor cat population, particularly in urban areas. To address this gap, we examined public risk perceptions and attitudes toward outdoor pet cats across varying levels of urbanization, including along the wildland–urban interface, in Colorado (U.S.A.), through a mail survey of 1397 residents. Residents did not view all types of risks uniformly. They viewed risks of cat predation on wildlife and carnivore predation on cats as more likely than disease‐related risks. Additionally, risk perceptions were related to attitudes, prior experiences with cats and cat–wildlife interactions, and cat‐owner behavior. Our findings suggest that changes in risk perceptions may result in behavior change. Therefore, knowledge of cat‐related risk perceptions and attitudes could be used to develop communication programs aimed at promoting risk‐aversive behaviors among cat owners and cat‐management strategies that are acceptable to the public and that directly advance the conservation of native species.     

Desires and Management Preferences of Stakeholders Regarding Feral Cats in the Hawaiian Islands

Feral cats are abundant in many parts of the world and a source of conservation conflict. Our goal was to clarify the beliefs and desires held by stakeholders regarding feral cat abundance and management. We measured people's desired abundance of feral cats in the Hawaiian Islands and identified an order of preference for 7 feral cat management techniques. In 2011 we disseminated a survey to 5407 Hawaii residents. Approximately 46% of preidentified stakeholders and 20% of random residents responded to the survey (1510 surveys returned). Results from the potential for conflict index revealed a high level of consensus (86.9% of respondents) that feral cat abundance should be decreased. The 3 most common explanatory variables for respondents’ stated desires were enjoyment from seeing feral cats (84%), intrinsic value of feral cats (12%), and threat to native fauna (73%). The frequency with which respondents saw cats and change in the perceived abundance of cats also affected respondent's desired abundance of cats; 41.3% of respondents stated that they saw feral cats daily and 44.7% stated that the cat population had increased in recent years. Other potential environmental impacts of feral cats had little affect on desired abundance. The majority of respondents (78%) supported removing feral cats from the natural environment permanently. Consensus convergence models with data from 1388 respondents who completed the relevant questions showed live capture and lethal injection was the most preferred technique and trap‐neuter‐release was the least preferred technique for managing feral cats. However, the acceptability of each technique varied among stakeholders. Our results suggest that the majority of Hawaii's residents would like to see effective management that reduces the abundance of feral or free‐roaming cats. Deseos y Preferencias de Manejo de las Partes Interesadas con Respecto a los Gatos Ferales en las Islas Hawaianas.     

Costs and Benefits of Trap‐Neuter‐Release and Euthanasia for Removal of Urban Cats in Oahu,Hawaii

Our goal was to determine whether it is more cost‐effective to control feral cat abundance with trap‐neuter‐release programs or trap and euthanize programs. Using STELLA 7, systems modeling software, we modeled changes over 30 years in abundance of cats in a feral colony in response to each management method and the costs and benefits associated with each method . We included costs associated with providing food, veterinary care, and microchips to the colony cats and the cost of euthanasia, wages, and trapping equipment in the model. Due to a lack of data on predation rates and disease transmission by feral cats the only benefits incorporated into the analyses were reduced predation on Wedge‐tailed Shearwaters (Puffinus pacificus). When no additional domestic cats were abandoned by owners and the trap and euthanize program removed 30,000 cats in the first year, the colony was extirpated in at least 75% of model simulations within the second year. It took 30 years for trap‐neuter‐release to extirpate the colony. When the cat population was supplemented with 10% of the initial population size per year, the colony returned to carrying capacity within 6 years and the trap and euthanize program had to be repeated, whereas trap‐neuter‐release never reduced the number of cats to near zero within the 30‐year time frame of the model. The abandonment of domestic cats reduced the cost effectiveness of both trap‐neuter‐release and trap and euthanize. Trap‐neuter‐release was approximately twice as expensive to implement as a trap and euthanize program. Results of sensitivity analyses suggested trap‐neuter‐release programs that employ volunteers are still less cost‐effective than trap and euthanize programs that employ paid professionals and that trap‐neuter‐release was only effective when the total number of colony cats in an area was below 1000. Reducing the rate of abandonment of domestic cats appears to be a more effective solution for reducing the abundance of feral cats. Costos y Beneficios de Captura‐Esterilización‐Liberación y Eutanasia para la Remoción de Gatos Urbanos en Oahu, Hawaii     

A moral panic over cats

Some conservationists believe that free-ranging cats pose an enormous risk to biodiversity and public health and therefore should be eliminated from the landscape by any means necessary. They further claim that those who question the science or ethics behind their arguments are science deniers (merchants of doubt) seeking to mislead the public. As much as we share a commitment to conservation of biodiversity and wild nature, we believe these ideas are wrong and fuel an unwarranted moral panic over cats. Those who question the ecological or epidemiological status of cats are not science deniers, and it is a false analogy to compare them with corporate and right-wing special interests that perpetrate disinformation campaigns over issues, such as smoking and climate change. There are good conservation and public-health reasons and evidence to be skeptical that free-ranging cats constitute a disaster for biodiversity and human health in all circumstances. Further, there are significant and largely unaddressed ethical and policy issues (e.g., the ethics and efficacy of lethal management) relative to how people ought to value and coexist with cats and native wildlife. Society is better served by a collaborative approach to produce better scientific and ethical knowledge about free-ranging cats.     

Wildlife Association with Human-Altered Water Sources in Semiarid Vegetation Communities

Based on common use in wildlife management, we hypothesized that human-constructed water sources influence faunal communities detectably compared to similar habitats that lack water. We examined 20 wildlife water units and 20 paired comparison sites without water from April to August 1992 in semiarid southern New Mexico to assess animal species associations. We sampled sites by using small-mammal live traps, herpetofaunal and invertebrate pitfall arrays, and 30-minute time-area counts. We compared animal species richness and species concordance among water units (rain catchments, earthen tanks, and windmills) and comparison sites in three vegetation communities (mixed scrub, grassland, and pinyon-juniper). We detected 134 animal taxa during field sampling. Animal species richness did not differ between water units and comparison sites among vegetation communities. Amphibians were found only at water units but occur far from units during seasonal wet periods. Greater numbers of individual small mammals and herpetofauna at water units versus comparison sites likely related to debris and disturbed soil present near water units. Taxa detected at water units and comparison sites were 65% concordant overall; discordant taxa were those rarely detected. Our data implied that definitive effects of artificial water sources on native wildlife species were not detectable. Providing water sources may be a strategic management tool but must be viewed critically regarding effect on distribution of native, feral, and exotic animals. Water units should be developed only when and where clear objectives have been stated, natural water sources have been quantified, commitment exists to ensure continued function, and feral and exotic animals will not benefit to the detriment of native species.     

Understanding determinants of home range behaviour of feral cats as introduced apex predators in insular ecosystems: a spatial approach

The introduced feral cat (Felis catus) is a widespread generalist with flexible social behaviour and an apex predator without major interspecific competitors in insular ecosystems that evolved in the absence of predators. Mechanistic definitions consider an animal’s home range to be the spatial expression of a cognitive map that is kept up-to-date with the status of critical resources that contribute to animal fitness. We assumed there are two major determinants structuring the home range of cats as apex predators in insular ecosystems: the distribution of critical food resources and conspecific distribution. We hypothesized that cats structure their home ranges by optimizing the use of staple critical food resources and that as a consequence of the presence of rich resources cats tend to socialise, aggregate and share space. We carried out spatial analyses using location data for feral cats tracked using lightweight GPS collars in conjunction with the suitability value of rabbit patches and their associated ownership costs for cats within a New Zealand braided-river environment. Cat home ranges and spatial distribution, especially for females, were related to the inclusion of rabbit patches within home ranges with higher mean value than the average of neighbourhood patches in the landscape. Cats showed solitary behaviour but tolerance to conspecific presence by sharing high-use areas and high-value rabbit patches, mostly at different times, resulting in occasional encounters among males and females. Home range size and patterns of spatial overlap were dependant on sex and season. Solitary spacing patterns as consequence of innate preferences together with resource constraints may regulate feral cat population densities.     

Defining the Impact of Non‐Native Species

Non‐native species cause changes in the ecosystems to which they are introduced. These changes, or some of them, are usually termed impacts; they can be manifold and potentially damaging to ecosystems and biodiversity. However, the impacts of most non‐native species are poorly understood, and a synthesis of available information is being hindered because authors often do not clearly define impact. We argue that explicitly defining the impact of non‐native species will promote progress toward a better understanding of the implications of changes to biodiversity and ecosystems caused by non‐native species; help disentangle which aspects of scientific debates about non‐native species are due to disparate definitions and which represent true scientific discord; and improve communication between scientists from different research disciplines and between scientists, managers, and policy makers. For these reasons and based on examples from the literature, we devised seven key questions that fall into 4 categories: directionality, classification and measurement, ecological or socio‐economic changes, and scale. These questions should help in formulating clear and practical definitions of impact to suit specific scientific, stakeholder, or legislative contexts. Definiendo el Impacto de las Especies No‐Nativas     

Exploring the internal and external wildlife gradients created by conservation fences

Spillover effects are an expansion of conservation benefits beyond protected areas through dispersal of species that reside within. They have been well documented in marine but not terrestrial systems. To understand the effects on wildlife created by conservation fences, we explored the internal and external gradients of activity in mammal, reptile, and bird species at a conservation reserve in arid Australia that is fenced to exclude invasive rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), cats (Felis catus), and foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Two methods were used: counts of animal tracks along transects on sand dunes and captures at pitfall-trapping sites. In both cases, sites were spaced at different distances from the reserve fenceline inside and outside the reserve. We recorded a range of spillover, source-sink, step, and barrier effects that combined to create a zone within and around the reserve with fence-induced species-specific wildlife gradients. Two endemic rodents but none of the 4 mammal species reintroduced to the reserve showed positive spillover effects. Barrier effects, where activity was highest close to the fence, were recorded for the feral cat and native bettong (Bettongia lesueur), species that could not breach the fence. In comparison, some reptiles and native mammal species that could permeate the fence displayed source-sink effects; that is, their activity levels were reduced close to the fence likely due to constant emigration to the side with lower density. Activity of some reptiles was lowest at sites inside the reserve and gradually increased at outside sites with distance from the fence, a gradient likely related to trophic cascades triggered by predator exclusion. Our result shows that fenced reserves can create overlapping layers of species-specific gradients related to each species’ ability to permeate the fence and its varying susceptibility to threats. Managers should be aware that these gradients may extend for several kilometers either side of the fence and that not all contained species will increase in abundance. Creating wider conservation benefits may require increased fence permeability and threat reduction outside the fence.     

The perils of flawed science in wildlife trade literature

Despite broad scientific consensus that sustainable use of wildlife can enhance conservation efforts, ethical concerns have led some community groups to oppose use of wild animals. Voicing those concerns is legitimate, but underlying philosophical bias should not influence science-based analysis and interpretation. We argue that philosophical biases are common in the scientific literature on trade in wildlife. The critically important case of bias surrounding the use of reptile leathers for luxury fashion illustrates the problem. Based on analysis of official seizures of fashion products made from wildlife, a recent study inferred that criminal activity (as inferred by noncompliance with regulations) was common and increasing and, hence, that authorities needed to adopt more stringent restrictions on the trade. In fact, the conclusions of that study are artifacts of pseudoreplication (e.g., multiple counts of single violations) and biased sampling (e.g., focus on companies with high rates of error) and run directly opposite to actual patterns in the data. As a proportion of overall trade, rates of noncompliance are exceptionally low (<0.4%), are declining, and result primarily from paper-work errors rather than criminal intent (e.g., such errors are more frequent for goods shipped by government authorities than by the commercial fashion industry). The recommendation by the study authors to prohibit the international trade in wildlife-based fashion products is imperiling a sustainable trade that can benefit biodiversity and people's livelihoods by providing financial incentives for conservation of species and habitats. This example offers a warning of the dangers of basing research on the wildlife trade on ethical or philosophical positions rather than objective evaluations of evidence.     

A comparison of cat‐related risk perceptions and tolerance for outdoor cats in Florida and Hawaii

Risk perceptions and attitudes toward animals often explain tolerance for wildlife and management preferences. However, little is understood about how these relationships vary across different geographic regions and stakeholder groups. To address this gap in knowledge, we compared differences in acceptance capacity, risk perceptions, perceived enjoyment from outdoor cats, and experiences with outdoor cats among 3 groups (general public, conservation community, and animal‐welfare community) in Hawaii and Florida, two states with large conservation challenges. We combined independently collected data from Florida and Hawaii, to determine how perception of the risks presented by outdoor cats, group membership, and state of residence influenced people's tolerance for outdoor cats. Florida respondents were significantly more tolerant of outdoor cats and less concerned about cat‐related risks than Hawaii respondents (p < 0.05). In both states, animal‐welfare group members reported greater enjoyment seeing cats and perceived a smaller increase in the cat population and lower levels of risk than other groups (p < 0.05). All groups exhibited similar relationships between acceptance capacity and enjoyment and the perceived increase in the cat population. Our results suggest public tolerance for cats varied due to the influence of local or geographical concerns, but that strongly held beliefs, risk perceptions, and feelings about cats explained more of the variance in stakeholder tolerance.     

Managing the Koala Problem: Interdisciplinary Perspectives

Abstract: There is a complex scientific, ethical, and cultural debate in Australia about how best to conserve koalas and their habitat. Despite the diverse array of management and research options promoted by scientists, wildlife agency staff, and koala advocates, there remains a gap in our acknowledgment of the social factors influencing decision making about koala conservation. Koala management research has generated valuable scientific knowledge about koala biology and ecology but has been weak about organizational and policy processes and about the cultures within which we produce, disseminate, and legitimize this kind of knowledge. We suggest that more effective koala conservation will result from making the political and cultural influences on decision making regarding the koala more explicit in research, management, and policy-making forums. Research must be conducted in the context of the cultural significance of the koala. The koala's survival depends on preserving the valuable lands that these creatures (and many others) inhabit. Ultimately, the koala symbolizes conflicting land-use values and illustrates the need for greater collaboration, cooperation, and trust among social and natural scientists in the conduct of koala conservation research, management, and policy.     

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.     

Public views about editing genes in wildlife for conservation

Developments in CRISPR-based gene-editing technologies have generated a growing number of proposals to edit genes in wildlife to meet conservation goals. As these proposals have attracted greater attention, controversies have emerged among scientists and stakeholder groups over potential consequences and ethical implications of gene editing. Responsible governance cannot occur without consulting broader publics, yet little effort has been made to systematically assess public understandings and beliefs in relation to this new area of applied genetic engineering. We analyzed data from a survey of U.S. adults (n = 1600), collected by YouGov, and that examined respondents’ concerns about gene editing in animal and plant wildlife and how those concerns are shaped by cultural dispositions toward science and beliefs about the appropriateness of intervening in nature at the genetic level. On average, respondents perceived more risk than benefit in using these tools. Over 70% agreed that gene editing in wildlife could be “easily used for the wrong purposes.” When evaluating the moral acceptability of gene editing in wildlife, respondents evaluated applications to improve survival in endangered wildlife as more morally acceptable than applications to decrease abundance in a population or eliminate a population. Belief in the authority of scientific knowledge was positively related to favorable views of the benefits, risks, and moral acceptability of editing genes in wildlife. The belief that editing genes in wildlife inappropriately intervenes in nature predicted relatively more concern about risks and moral acceptability and skepticism about benefits. Given high levels of concern and skepticism about gene editing in wildlife for conservation among the U.S. public, a take-it-slow approach to making decisions about when or whether to use these tools is advisable. Early opinions, including those uncovered in this study, are likely to be provisional. Thus, consulting the public should be an ongoing process.     

Wildlife collection for scientific purposes

Illegal transfer of wildlife has 2 main purposes: trade and scientific research. Trade is the most common, whereas scientific research is much less common and unprofitable, yet still important. Biopiracy in science is often neglected despite that many researchers encounter it during their careers. The use of illegally acquired specimens is detected in different research fields, from scientists bioprospecting for new pharmacological substances, to taxonomists working on natural history collections, to researchers working in zoos, aquariums, and botanical gardens. The practice can be due to a lack of knowledge about the permit requirements in different countries or, probably most often, to the generally high level of bureaucracy associated with rule compliance. Significant regulatory filters to avoid biopiracy can be provided by different stakeholders. Natural history collection hosts should adopt strict codes of conduct; editors of scientific publications should require authors to declare that all studied specimens were acquired legally and to cite museum catalog numbers as guarantee of best practices. Scientific societies should actively encourage publication in peer-reviewed journals of work in which specimens collected from the wild were used. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature could require newly designated types based on recently collected specimens to be accompanied by statements of deposition in recognized scientific or educational institutions. We also propose the creation of an online platform that gathers information about environmental regulations and permits required for scientific activities in different countries and respective responsible governmental agencies and the simplification of the bureaucracy related to regulating scientific activities. This would make regulations more agile and easier to comply with. The global biodiversity crisis means data need to be collected ever faster, but biopiracy is not the answer and undermines the credibility of science and researchers. It is critical to find a modus vivendi that promotes compliance with regulations and scientific progress.     

Exploring nationality and social identity to explain attitudes toward conservation actions in the United States and Australia

Understanding human attitudes toward wildlife management is critical to implementing effective conservation action and policy. Understanding the factors that shape public attitudes toward different wildlife management actions is limited, however, which can result in unpredictable public responses to interventions. We drew on comparisons between residents of 2 countries on separate continents to explore differences in attitudes toward wildlife management and determine factors important in shaping these attitudes. We surveyed representative publics via market research panels in Australia (n = 881 respondents) and the United States (n = 1287). We applied a social-identity approach and demography to identify factors that explained variance between responses about wildlife management. We compared responses between countries overall and within subgroups of respondents who strongly identified as environmentalists, animal rights activists, wildlife conservation advocates, and farmers. We created aggregate scores for the management-related response items per respondent and used regression analyses to identify the relative importance of country, identity, age, and gender in explaining variance between responses. These factors accounted for 15.3% of variance among responses. Australians overall were generally more accepting of lethal wildlife management actions than U.S. respondents. Differences in national attitudes reflected differences between United States and Australian wildlife management and policy, highlighting the importance of understanding social attitudes in shaping conservation policy. Identifying as a farmer followed by identifying as an animal rights activist most shaped attitudes toward wildlife management. Identity-related conflicts could be initiated or exacerbated by conservation interventions that fail to consider identity-related processes.     

The place of nature in conservation conflicts

Conservation conflicts are gaining importance in contemporary conservation scholarship such that conservation may have entered a conflict hype. We attempted to uncover and deconstruct the normative assumptions behind such studies by raising several questions: what are conservation conflicts, what justifies the attention they receive, do conservation-conflict studies limit wildlife conservation, is scientific knowledge stacked against wildlife in conservation conflicts, do conservation-conflict studies adopt a specific view of democracy, can laws be used to force conservation outcomes, why is flexibility needed in managing conservation conflicts, can conservation conflicts be managed by promoting tolerance, and who needs to compromise in conservation conflicts? We suggest that many of the intellectual premises in the field may defang conservation and prevent it from truly addressing the current conservation crisis as it accelerates. By framing conservation conflicts as conflicts between people about wildlife or nature, the field insidiously transfers guilt, whereby human activities are no longer blamed for causing species decline and extinctions but conservation is instead blamed for causing social conflicts. When the focus is on mitigating social conflicts without limiting in any powerful way human activities damaging to nature, conservation-conflict studies risk keeping conservation within the limits of human activities, instead of keeping human activities within the limits of nature. For conservation to successfully stop the biodiversity crisis, we suggest the alternative goal of recognizing nature's right to existence to maintenance of ecological functions and evolutionary processes. Nature being a rights bearer or legal person would imply its needs must be explicitly taken into account in conflict adjudication. If, even in conservation, nature's interests come second to human interests, it may be no surprise that conservation cannot succeed.     

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.     

Participatory Planning of Interventions to Mitigate Human–Wildlife Conflicts

Abstract: Conservation of wildlife is especially challenging when the targeted species damage crops or livestock, attack humans, or take fish or game. Affected communities may retaliate and destroy wildlife or their habitats. We summarize recommendations from the literature for 13 distinct types of interventions to mitigate these human–wildlife conflicts. We classified eight types as direct (reducing the severity or frequency of encounters with wildlife) and five as indirect (raising human tolerance for encounters with wildlife) interventions. We analyzed general cause‐and‐effect relationships underlying human–wildlife conflicts to clarify the focal point of intervention for each type. To organize the recommendations on interventions we used three standard criteria for feasibility: cost‐effective design, wildlife specificity and selectivity, and sociopolitical acceptability. The literature review and the feasibility criteria were integrated as decision support tools in three multistakeholder workshops. The workshops validated and refined our criteria and helped the participants select interventions. Our approach to planning interventions is systematic, uses standard criteria, and optimizes the participation of experts, policy makers, and affected communities. We argue that conservation action generally will be more effective if the relative merits of alternative interventions are evaluated in an explicit, systematic, and participatory manner.     

Inter-colonial selection for the maintenance of cooperative breeding in the ant Pristomyrmex pungens: a laboratory experiment

The queenless ant Pristomyrmex pungens has an unusual social structure, in which all workers reproduce parthenogenetically and help others. Laboratory experiments manipulating the proportion of post-reproductive foragers in the colony at various rates suggested that colonies with 5–10% forager ratios had the maximum efficiency per-worker. This result suggests that the cooperative colonies may be maintained by colony-level natural selection. Non-cooperative mutants that oviposit but do not forage should increase in relative frequency in the colony in the short term. However, decreased colony productivity and the resulting competition among colonies might eliminate colonies dominated by such mutants in the long term. P. pungens has a viscous population without migration between colonies, which may facilitate this process.     

Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world

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.