Mainstreaming human and large carnivore coexistence through institutional collaboration

Achieving coexistence between large carnivores and humans in human-dominated landscapes (HDLs) is a key challenge for societies globally. This challenge cannot be adequately met with the current sectoral approaches to HDL governance and an academic community largely dominated by disciplinary sectors. Academia (universities and other research institutions and organizations) should take a more active role in embracing societal challenges around conservation of large carnivores in HDLs by facilitating cross-sectoral cooperation to mainstream coexistence of humans and large carnivores. Drawing on lessons from populated regions of Europe, Asia, and South America with substantial densities of large carnivores, we suggest academia should better embrace the principles and methods of sustainability sciences and create institutional spaces for the implementation of transdisciplinary curricula and projects; reflect on research approaches (i.e., disciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary) they apply and how their outcomes could aid leveraging institutional transformations for mainstreaming; and engage with various institutions and stakeholder groups to create novel institutional structures that can respond to multiple challenges of HDL management and human–large carnivore coexistence. Success in mainstreaming this coexistence in HDL will rest on the ability to think and act cooperatively. Such a conservation achievement, if realized, stands to have far-reaching benefits for people and biodiversity.     

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.     

Desert pastoralists’ negative and positive effects on rare wildlife in the Gobi

In arid regions of the developing world, pastoralists and livestock commonly inhabit protected areas, resulting in human–wildlife conflict. Conflict is inextricably linked to the ecological processes shaping relationships between pastoralists and native herbivores and carnivores. To elucidate relationships underpinning human–wildlife conflict, we synthesized 15 years of ecological and ethnographic data from Ikh Nart Nature Reserve in Mongolia's Gobi steppe. The density of argali (Ovis ammon), the world's largest wild sheep, at Ikh Nart was among the highest in Mongolia, yet livestock were >90% of ungulate biomass and dogs >90% of large‐carnivore biomass. For argali, pastoral activities decreased food availability, increased mortality from dog predation, and potentially increased disease risk. Isotope analyses indicated that livestock accounted for >50% of the diet of the majority of gray wolves (Canis lupus) and up to 90% of diet in 25% of sampled wolves (n = 8). Livestock composed at least 96% of ungulate prey in the single wolf pack for which we collected species‐specific prey data. Interviews with pastoralists indicated that wolves annually killed 1–4% of Ikh Nart's livestock, and pastoralists killed wolves in retribution. Pastoralists reduced wolf survival by killing them, but their livestock were an abundant food source for wolves. Consequently, wolf density appeared to be largely decoupled from argali density, and pastoralists had indirect effects on argali that could be negative if pastoralists increased wolf density (apparent competition) or positive if pastoralists decreased wolf predation (apparent facilitation). Ikh Nart's argali population was stable despite these threats, but livestock are increasingly dominant numerically and functionally relative to argali. To support both native wildlife and pastoral livelihoods, we suggest training dogs to not kill argali, community insurance against livestock losses to wolves, reintroducing key native prey species to hotspots of human–wolf conflict, and developing incentives for pastoralists to reduce livestock density.     

Effects of payments for ecosystem services on wildlife habitat recovery

Conflicts between local people's livelihoods and conservation have led to many unsuccessful conservation efforts and have stimulated debates on policies that might simultaneously promote sustainable management of protected areas and improve the living conditions of local people. Many government‐sponsored payments‐for‐ecosystem‐services (PES) schemes have been implemented around the world. However, few empirical assessments of their effectiveness have been conducted, and even fewer assessments have directly measured their effects on ecosystem services. We conducted an empirical and spatially explicit assessment of the conservation effectiveness of one of the world's largest PES programs through the use of a long‐term empirical data set, a satellite‐based habitat model, and spatial autoregressive analyses on direct measures of change in an ecosystem service (i.e., the provision of wildlife species habitat). Giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) habitat improved in Wolong Nature Reserve of China after the implementation of the Natural Forest Conservation Program. The improvement was more pronounced in areas monitored by local residents than those monitored by the local government, but only when a higher payment was provided. Our results suggest that the effectiveness of a PES program depends on who receives the payment and on whether the payment provides sufficient incentives. As engagement of local residents has not been incorporated in many conservation strategies elsewhere in China or around the world, our results also suggest that using an incentive‐based strategy as a complement to command‐and‐control, community‐ and norm‐based strategies may help achieve greater conservation effectiveness and provide a potential solution for the park versus people conflict.     

Poaching Risks in Community‐Based Natural Resource Management

Poaching can disrupt wildlife‐management efforts in community‐based natural resource management systems. Monitoring, estimating, and acquiring data on poaching is difficult. We used local‐stakeholder knowledge and poaching records to rank and map the risk of poaching incidents in 2 areas where natural resources are managed by community members in Caprivi, Namibia. We mapped local stakeholder perceptions of the risk of poaching, risk of wildlife damage to livelihoods, and wildlife distribution and compared these maps with spatially explicit records of poaching events. Recorded poaching events and stakeholder perceptions of where poaching occurred were not spatially correlated. However, the locations of documented poaching events were spatially correlated with areas that stakeholders perceived wildlife as a threat to their livelihoods. This result suggests poaching occurred in response to wildlife damage occurred. Local stakeholders thought that wildlife populations were at high risk of being poached and that poaching occurred where there was abundant wildlife. These findings suggest stakeholders were concerned about wildlife resources in their community and indicate a need for integrated and continued monitoring of poaching activities and further interventions at the wildlife‐agricultural interface. Involving stakeholders in the assessment of poaching risks promotes their participation in local conservation efforts, a central tenet of community‐based management. We considered stakeholders poaching informants, rather than suspects, and our technique was spatially explicit. Different strategies to reduce poaching are likely needed in different areas. For example, interventions that reduce human‐wildlife conflict may be required in residential areas, and increased and targeted patrolling may be required in more remote areas. Stakeholder‐generated maps of human‐wildlife interactions may be a valuable enforcement and intervention support tool. Riesgos de Cacería Furtiva en el Manejo de Recursos Naturales Basado en Comunidades     

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.     

Mitigating the Effect of Development on Bats in England with Derogation Licensing

The Convention on Biological Diversity has catalyzed worldwide awareness of threats to biological diversity and stimulated global conservation strategies. These have led to national and international legislation and have generated debate about the most effective conservation actions. Under the EU Habitats Directive, all member states are obliged to establish a system for strict protection of species listed in Annex IV(a), which includes all bats. In England, this obligation has resulted in legislation that allows for derogation from strict protection under license, provided activities are undertaken to mitigate any potential negative effects on bat numbers. We used an evidence‐based approach to assess the cost‐effectiveness of mitigation strategies and the English bat‐derogation licensing process as a whole. We analyzed data from 389 bat derogation licenses issued in England from 2003 to 2005 relating to 1776 roosts and 15 species to determine the nature and extent of development and mitigation activities and their effects on bats. Overall the effects of licensed activities on roosts were negative. Despite the level of protection afforded to bats, the majority (68%) of roosts for which derogation licenses were issued were destroyed. There were species‐specific differences in the probability of roosts being destroyed, and impacts on roosts did not reflect a species’ conservation status. Information provided by licensees was inadequate and inconsistent. Most licensees (67%) failed to submit postdevelopment reports, and postdevelopment monitoring was conducted at only 19% of sites. Despite a minimum of £4.13 million spent on mitigation structures for bats from 2003 to 2005, it was unclear whether the licensing process meets EU obligations. On the basis of our results, we believe there is a need to overhaul the licensing process, to establish a comprehensive, standardized postdevelopment monitoring system, and to demonstrate that mitigation is commensurate with Britain's legal obligations. Mitigando el Efecto del Desarrollo sobre los Murciélagos en Inglaterra con Licencias de Derogación     

Negative Off‐Site Impacts of Ecological Restoration: Understanding and Addressing the Conflict

Abstract: Ecological restoration is a key component of biological conservation. Nevertheless, unlike protection of existing areas, restoration changes existing land use and can therefore be more controversial. Some restoration projects negatively affect surrounding landowners, creating social constraints to restoration success. Just as negative off‐site impacts (i.e., negative externalities) flow from industrial areas to natural areas, restoration projects can generate negative externalities for commercial land uses, such as agriculture. Negative externalities from industry have led to government regulation to prevent human health and environmental impacts. Negative externalities from restoration projects have elicited similar legal constraint on at least one large‐scale conservation project, riparian restoration in the Sacramento River Conservation Area. The negative externalities of restoration that are perceived to be the direct result of specific goals, such as endangered species management, are likely to be more contentious than externalities arising from unintended phenomena such as weed invasion. Restoration planners should give equal consideration to off‐site characteristics as to on‐site characteristics when choosing sites for restoration and designing projects. Efforts to control externalities can lead to off‐site ecological benefits.     

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.     

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.