Animal agency in wildlife conservation and management

Wildlife conservation and management (WCM) practices have been historically drawn from a wide variety of academic fields, yet practitioners have been slow to engage with emerging conversations about animals as complex beings, whose individuality and sociality influence their relationships with humans. We propose an explicit acknowledgement of wild, nonhuman animals as active participants in WCM. We examined 190 studies of WCM interventions and outcomes to highlight 3 common assumptions that underpin many present approaches to WCM: animal behaviors are rigid and homogeneous; wildlife exhibit idealized wild behavior and prefer pristine habitats; and human–wildlife relationships are of marginal or secondary importance relative to nonhuman interactions. We found that these management interventions insufficiently considered animal learning, decision-making, individuality, sociality, and relationships with humans and led to unanticipated detrimental outcomes. To address these shortcomings, we synthesized theoretical advances in animal behavioral sciences, animal geographies, and animal legal theory that may help conservation professionals reconceptualize animals and their relationships with humans. Based on advances in these fields, we constructed the concept of animal agency, which we define as the ability of animals to actively influence conservation and management outcomes through their adaptive, context-specific, and complex behaviors that are predicated on their sentience, individuality, lived experiences, cognition, sociality, and cultures in ways that shape and reshape shared human–wildlife cultures, spaces, and histories. Conservation practices, such as compassionate conservation, convivial conservation, and ecological justice, incorporate facets of animal agency. Animal agency can be incorporated in conservation problem-solving by assessing the ways in which agency contributes to species’ survival and by encouraging more adaptive and collaborative decision-making among human and nonhuman stakeholders.     

Wildlife impacts and vulnerable livelihoods in a transfrontier conservation landscape

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.     

The role of psychology in determining human–predator conflict across southern Kenya

Conflict between people and carnivores can lead to the widespread killing of predators in retaliation for livestock loss and is a major threat to predator populations. In Kenya, a large, rural, pastoralist population comes into regular conflict with predators, which persist across southern Kenya. We explored the social and psychological backdrop to livestock management practices in this area in a process designed to be easy to use and suitable for use across large areas for the study of conflict and transboundary implementation of wildlife conflict reduction measures, focusing on community involvement and needs. We carried out fully structured interviews of livestock managers with a survey tool that examined how social and psychological factors may influence livestock management behavior. We compared survey responses on 3 sites across the study area, resulting in 723 usable responses. Efficacy of individuals’ livestock management varied between and within communities. This variation was partially explained by normative and control beliefs regarding livestock management. Individual livestock managers’ self-reported management issues were often an accurate reflection of their practical management difficulties. Psychological norms, control beliefs, and attitudes differed among sites, and these differences partially explained patterns associated with conflict (i.e., variation in livestock management behavior). Thus, we conclude that a one-size-fits-all approach to improving livestock management and reducing human–predator conflict is not suitable.     

A framework to measure the wildness of managed large vertebrate populations

As landscapes continue to fall under human influence through habitat loss and fragmentation, fencing is increasingly being used to mitigate anthropogenic threats and enhance the commercial value of wildlife. Subsequent intensification of management potentially erodes wildness by disembodying populations from landscape-level processes, thereby disconnecting species from natural selection. Tools are needed to measure the degree to which populations of large vertebrate species in formally protected and privately owned wildlife areas are self-sustaining and free to adapt. We devised a framework to measure such wildness based on 6 attributes relating to the evolutionary and ecological dynamics of vertebrates (space, disease and parasite resistance, exposure to predation, exposure to limitations and fluctuations of food and water supply, and reproduction). For each attribute, we set empirical, species-specific thresholds between 5 wildness states based on quantifiable management interventions. We analysed data from 205 private wildlife properties with management objectives spanning ecotourism to consumptive utilization to test the framework on 6 herbivore species representing a range of conservation statuses and commercial values. Wildness scores among species differed significantly, and the proportion of populations identified as wild ranged from 12% to 84%, which indicates the tool detected site-scale differences both among populations of different species and populations of the same species under different management regimes. By quantifying wildness, this framework provides practitioners with standardized measurement units that link biodiversity with the sustainable use of wildlife. Applications include informing species management plans at local scales; standardizing the inclusion of managed populations in red-list assessments; and providing a platform for certification and regulation of wildlife-based economies. Applying this framework may help embed wildness as a normative value in policy and mitigate the shifting baseline of what it means to truly conserve a species.     

A mixed methodology for evaluating use of evidence in conservation planning

Conservation practitioners widely recognize the importance of making decisions based on the best available evidence. However, the effectiveness of evidence use in conservation planning is rarely assessed, which limits opportunities to improve evidence-based practice. We devised a mixed methodology for empirically evaluating use of evidence that applies social science tools to systematically appraise what kinds of evidence are used in conservation planning, to what effect, and under what limitations. We applied our approach in a case study of the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC), a leading land conservation organization. We conducted qualitative and quantitative analyses of 65 NCC planning documents (n = 13 in-depth) to identify patterns in evidence use, and surveyed 35 conservation planners to examine experiences of and barriers to using evidence. Although claims in plans contained a wide range of evidence types, 26% of claims were not referenced or associated with an identifiable source. Lack of evidence use was particularly apparent in claims associated with direct threats, particularly those identified as low (71% coded as insufficient or lacking evidence) or medium (45%) threats. Survey participants described relying heavily on practitioner experience and highlighted capacity limitations and disciplinary gaps in expertise among planning teams as barriers to using evidence effectively. We found that although time-intensive, this approach yielded actionable recommendations for improving evidence use in NCC conservation plans. Similar mixed-method assessments may streamline the process by including interviews and refining the document analysis frames to target issues or sections of concern. We suggest our method provides an accessible and robust point of departure for conservation practitioners to evaluate whether the use of conservation planning reflects in-house standards and more broadly recognized best practices.