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     

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.     

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.     

Practical Recommendations to Help Students Bridge the Research–Implementation Gap and Promote Conservation

Seasoned conservation researchers often struggle to bridge the research–implementation gap and promote the translation of their work into meaningful conservation actions. Graduate students face the same problems and must contend with obstacles such as limited opportunities for relevant interdisciplinary training and a lack of institutional support for application of research results. However, students also have a crucial set of opportunities (e.g., access to academic resources outside their degree programs and opportunities to design research projects promoting collaboration with stakeholders) at their disposal to address these problems. On the basis of results of breakout discussions at a symposium on the human dimensions of the ocean, a review of the literature, and our own experiences, we devised recommendations on how graduate students can create resources within their academic institutions, institutionalize resources, and engage with stakeholders to promote real‐world conservation outcomes. Within their academic institutions, graduate students should foster links to practitioners and promote knowledge and skill sharing among students. To institutionalize resources, students should cultivate student leaders and faculty sponsors, systematically document their program activities, and engage in strategic planning to promote the sustainability of their efforts. While conducting research, students should create connections to and engage actively with stakeholders in their relevant study areas and disseminate research results both to stakeholders and the broader public. Our recommendations can serve as a template for graduate students wishing to bridge the research–implementation gap, both during their current studies and in their future careers as conservation researchers and practitioners. Recomendaciones Prácticas para Ayudar a Estudiantes a Vencer la Brecha entre Investigación e Implementación y Promover la Conservación     

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.     

Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation

Despite broad recognition of the value of social sciences and increasingly vocal calls for better engagement with the human element of conservation, the conservation social sciences remain misunderstood and underutilized in practice. The conservation social sciences can provide unique and important contributions to society's understanding of the relationships between humans and nature and to improving conservation practice and outcomes. There are 4 barriers—ideological, institutional, knowledge, and capacity—to meaningful integration of the social sciences into conservation. We provide practical guidance on overcoming these barriers to mainstream the social sciences in conservation science, practice, and policy. Broadly, we recommend fostering knowledge on the scope and contributions of the social sciences to conservation, including social scientists from the inception of interdisciplinary research projects, incorporating social science research and insights during all stages of conservation planning and implementation, building social science capacity at all scales in conservation organizations and agencies, and promoting engagement with the social sciences in and through global conservation policy‐influencing organizations. Conservation social scientists, too, need to be willing to engage with natural science knowledge and to communicate insights and recommendations clearly. We urge the conservation community to move beyond superficial engagement with the conservation social sciences. A more inclusive and integrative conservation science—one that includes the natural and social sciences—will enable more ecologically effective and socially just conservation. Better collaboration among social scientists, natural scientists, practitioners, and policy makers will facilitate a renewed and more robust conservation. Mainstreaming the conservation social sciences will facilitate the uptake of the full range of insights and contributions from these fields into conservation policy and practice.     

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.     

The Human Dimension in Conservation Biology Curricula in Developing Countries

The social sciences and humanities are essentially absent from most conservation biology or wildlife management courses in the developing world. This is a critical shortcoming because of human dependence on natural resources within protected areas and the escalating conflicts between humans and wildlife and between local communities and state agencies over access to resources. We call for increased input from the social sciences and the humanities in conservation biology and wildlife management curricula in the developing world. We suggest some materials and methods that should ideally be a part of such curricula.     

Transvalued Species in an African Forest

Abstract: We combined ethnographic investigations with repeated ecological transect surveys in the Dzanga‐Sangha Dense Forest Reserve (RDS), Central African Republic, to elucidate consequences of intensifying mixed use of forests. We devised a framework for transvaluation of wildlife species, which means the valuing of species on the basis of their ecological, economic, and symbolic roles in human lives. We measured responses to hunting, tourism, and conservation of two transvalued species in RDS: elephants (Loxodonta cyclotis) and gorillas (Gorilla gorilla). Our methods included collecting data on encounter rates and habitat use on line transects. We recorded cross‐cultural variation in ideas about and interactions with these species during participant observation of hunting and tourism encounters and ethnographic interviews with hunters, conservation staff, researchers, and tourists. Ecologically, gorillas used human‐modified landscapes successfully, and elephants were more vulnerable than gorillas to hunting. Economically, tourism and encounters with elephants and gorillas generated revenues and other benefits for local participants. Symbolically, transvaluation of species seemed to undergird competing institutions of forest management that could prove unsustainable. Nevertheless, transvaluation may also offer alternatives to existing social hierarchies, thereby integrating local and transnational support for conservation measures. The study of transvaluation requires attention to transnational flows of ideas and resources because they influence transspecies interactions. Cross‐disciplinary in nature, transvalution of species addresses the political and economic challenges to conservation because it recognizes the varied human communities that shape the survival of wildlife in a given site. Transvaluation of species could foster more socially inclusive management and monitoring approaches attuned to competing economic demands, specific species behaviors, and human practices at local scales.     

International consensus principles for ethical wildlife control

Human–wildlife conflicts are commonly addressed by excluding, relocating, or lethally controlling animals with the goal of preserving public health and safety, protecting property, or conserving other valued wildlife. However, declining wildlife populations, a lack of efficacy of control methods in achieving desired outcomes, and changes in how people value animals have triggered widespread acknowledgment of the need for ethical and evidence‐based approaches to managing such conflicts. We explored international perspectives on and experiences with human–wildlife conflicts to develop principles for ethical wildlife control. A diverse panel of 20 experts convened at a 2‐day workshop and developed the principles through a facilitated engagement process and discussion. They determined that efforts to control wildlife should begin wherever possible by altering the human practices that cause human–wildlife conflict and by developing a culture of coexistence; be justified by evidence that significant harms are being caused to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems, and/or other animals; have measurable outcome‐based objectives that are clear, achievable, monitored, and adaptive; predictably minimize animal welfare harms to the fewest number of animals; be informed by community values as well as scientific, technical, and practical information; be integrated into plans for systematic long‐term management; and be based on the specifics of the situation rather than negative labels (pest, overabundant) applied to the target species. We recommend that these principles guide development of international, national, and local standards and control decisions and implementation.     

Understanding complex drivers of wildlife crime to design effective conservation interventions

In conservation understanding the drivers of behavior and developing robust interventions to promote behavioral change is challenging and requires a multifaceted approach. This is particularly true for efforts to address illegal wildlife use, where pervasive—and sometimes simplistic—narratives often obscure complex realities. We used an indirect questioning approach, the unmatched count technique, to investigate the drivers and prevalence of wildlife crime in communities surrounding 2 national parks in Uganda and combined scenario interviews and a choice experiment to predict the performance of potential interventions designed to tackle these crimes. Although poverty is often assumed to be a key driver of wildlife crime, we found that better-off households and those subject to human–wildlife conflict and those that do not receive any benefits from the parks’ tourism revenue sharing were more likely to be involved in certain types of wildlife crime, especially illegal hunting. The interventions predicted to have the greatest impact on reducing local participation in wildlife crime were those that directly addressed the drivers including, mitigating damage caused by wildlife and generating financial benefits for park-adjacent households. Our triangulated approach provided insights into complex and hard-to-access behaviors and highlighted the importance of going beyond single-driver narratives.     

Efficacy of Two Lion Conservation Programs in Maasailand,Kenya

Lion (Panthera leo) populations are in decline throughout most of Africa. The problem is particularly acute in southern Kenya, where Maasai pastoralists have been spearing and poisoning lions at a rate that will ensure near term local extinction. We investigated 2 approaches for improving local tolerance of lions: compensation payments for livestock lost to predators and Lion Guardians, which draws on local cultural values and knowledge to mitigate livestock‐carnivore conflict and monitor carnivores. To gauge the overall influence of conservation intervention, we combined both programs into a single conservation treatment variable. Using 8 years of lion killing data, we applied Manski's partial identification approach with bounded assumptions to investigate the effect of conservation treatment on lion killing in 4 contiguous areas. In 3 of the areas, conservation treatment was positively associated with a reduction in lion killing. We then applied a generalized linear model to assess the relative efficacy of the 2 interventions. The model estimated that compensation resulted in an 87–91% drop in the number of lions killed, whereas Lion Guardians (operating in combination with compensation and alone) resulted in a 99% drop in lion killing. Eficacia de Dos Programas de Conservación de Leones en Maasailand, Kenia     

Global patterns and trends in human–wildlife conflict compensation

Human–wildlife conflict is a major conservation challenge, and compensation for wildlife damage is a widely used economic tool to mitigate this conflict. The effectiveness of this management tool is widely debated. The relative importance of factors associated with compensation success is unclear, and little is known about global geographic or taxonomic differences in the application of compensation programs. We reviewed research on wildlife‐damage compensation to determine geographic and taxonomic gaps, analyze patterns of positive and negative comments related to compensation, and assess the relative magnitude of global compensation payments. We analyzed 288 publications referencing wildlife compensation and identified 138 unique compensation programs. These publications reported US$222 million (adjusted for inflation) spent on compensation in 50 countries since 1980. Europeans published the most articles, and compensation funding was highest in Europe, where depredation by wolves and bears was the most frequently compensated damage. Authors of the publications we reviewed made twice as many negative comments as positive comments about compensation. Three‐quarters of the negative comments related to program administration. Conversely, three‐quarters of the positive comments related to program outcomes. The 3 most common suggestions to improve compensation programs included requiring claimants to employ damage‐prevention practices, such as improving livestock husbandry or fencing of crops to receive compensation (n = 25, 15%); modifying ex post compensation schemes to some form of outcome‐based performance payment (n = 21, 12%); and altering programs to make compensation payments more quickly (n = 14, 8%). We suggest that further understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of compensation as a conflict‐mitigation tool will require more systematic evaluation of the factors driving these opinions and that differentiating process and outcomes and understanding linkages between them will result in more fruitful analyses and ultimately more effective conflict mitigation.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Use of an Action‐Selection Framework for Human‐Carnivore Conflict in the Bangladesh Sundarbans

Abstract: Human–carnivore conflict is manifested in the death of humans, livestock, and carnivores. The resulting negative local attitudes and retribution killings imperil the future of many endangered carnivores. We tailored existing management tools to create a framework to facilitate the selection of actions to alleviate human–carnivore conflict and applied the framework to the human–tiger conflict in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. We identified potential actions that consider previous management efforts, local knowledge, cost‐effectiveness, fieldwork experience of authors and project staff, previous research on tiger ecology by the authors, and recommendations from human–carnivore conflict studies in other countries. Our framework includes creation of a profile to improve understanding of the nature of the conflict and its underlying causality. Identified actions include deterrents, education, direct tiger management, and response teams. We ranked actions by their potential to reduce conflict and the monetary cost of their implementation. We ranked tiger‐response teams and monitoring problem tigers as the two best actions because both had relatively high impact and cost‐effectiveness. We believe this framework could be used under a wide range of human–wildlife conflict situations because it provides a structured approach to selection of mitigating actions.     

Generation of Priority Research Questions to Inform Conservation Policy and Management at a National Level

Abstract: Integrating knowledge from across the natural and social sciences is necessary to effectively address societal tradeoffs between human use of biological diversity and its preservation. Collaborative processes can change the ways decision makers think about scientific evidence, enhance levels of mutual trust and credibility, and advance the conservation policy discourse. Canada has responsibility for a large fraction of some major ecosystems, such as boreal forests, Arctic tundra, wetlands, and temperate and Arctic oceans. Stressors to biological diversity within these ecosystems arise from activities of the country's resource‐based economy, as well as external drivers of environmental change. Effective management is complicated by incongruence between ecological and political boundaries and conflicting perspectives on social and economic goals. Many knowledge gaps about stressors and their management might be reduced through targeted, timely research. We identify 40 questions that, if addressed or answered, would advance research that has a high probability of supporting development of effective policies and management strategies for species, ecosystems, and ecological processes in Canada. A total of 396 candidate questions drawn from natural and social science disciplines were contributed by individuals with diverse organizational affiliations. These were collaboratively winnowed to 40 by our team of collaborators. The questions emphasize understanding ecosystems, the effects and mitigation of climate change, coordinating governance and management efforts across multiple jurisdictions, and examining relations between conservation policy and the social and economic well‐being of Aboriginal peoples. The questions we identified provide potential links between evidence from the conservation sciences and formulation of policies for conservation and resource management. Our collaborative process of communication and engagement between scientists and decision makers for generating and prioritizing research questions at a national level could be a model for similar efforts beyond Canada.     

Modeling outcomes of approaches to sustained human and snow leopard coexistence

The snow leopard (Uncia uncia) is in danger of extinction. Killing to protect livestock is among the primary causes of its decline. Efforts to mitigate this threat have focused on balancing the need to conserve the snow leopard with the needs of local people in snow leopard habitat, many of whom rely on raising livestock for their livelihoods. Conservation of the snow leopard has the characteristics of a public good, and outside funding is required to support conservation efforts. There are 5 commonly discussed approaches to resolving this issue: (1) direct payments for conservation, (2) investments in protection from predation, (3) damage compensation payments, (4) investments in better livestock husbandry, and (5) leases of pastureland for wild prey. After a review of these 5 conservation strategies, an economic–ecologic model, which includes the interactions between the snow leopard, its wild prey, and livestock, is used to evaluate the 2 most promising conservation strategies. The model reveals that investments in protection from predation and leases of pastureland for wild prey are effective but only in delaying the eventual extinction of the snow leopard. To preserve the snow leopard, these approaches must be applied more aggressively and new ones explored.     

Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock

Large carnivores are persecuted globally because they threaten human industries and livelihoods. How this conflict is managed has consequences for the conservation of large carnivores and biodiversity more broadly. Mitigating human–predator conflict should be evidence‐based and accommodate people's values while protecting carnivores. Despite much research into human and large‐carnivore coexistence strategies, there have been few attempts to document the success of conflict‐mitigation strategies on a global scale. We conducted a meta‐analysis of global research on conflict mitigation related to large carnivores and humans. We focused on conflicts that arise from the threat large carnivores pose to livestock. We first used structured and unstructured searching to identify replicated studies that used before–after or control–impact design to measure change in livestock loss as a result of implementing a management intervention. We then extracted relevant data from these studies to calculate an overall effect size for each intervention type. Research effort and focus varied among continents and aligned with the histories and cultures that shaped livestock production and attitudes toward carnivores. Livestock guardian animals most effectively reduced livestock losses. Lethal control was the second most effective control, although its success varied the most, and guardian animals and lethal control did not differ significantly. Financial incentives have promoted tolerance of large carnivores in some settings and reduced retaliatory killings. We suggest coexistence strategies be location‐specific, incorporate cultural values and environmental conditions, and be designed such that return on financial investment can be evaluated. Improved monitoring of mitigation measures is urgently required to promote effective evidence‐based policy.