Wildlife impacts and vulnerable livelihoods in a transfrontier conservation landscape |
| |
Authors: | Jonathan Salerno Karen Bailey Andrea E Gaughan Forrest R Stevens Tom Hilton Lin Cassidy Michael D Drake Narcisa G Pricope Joel Hartter |
| |
Institution: | 1. Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, Colorado State University, 1480 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO, 80523 U.S.A.;2. Environmental Studies Program, University of Colorado, Sustainability, Energy and Environment Community, 4001 Discovery Drive, Boulder, CO, 80309 U.S.A.;3. Department of Geography and Geosciences, University of Louisville, Lutz Hall, Louisville, KY, 40292 U.S.A.;4. Okavango Research Institute, University of Botswana, Box 233, Maun, Botswana;5. Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601 S College Road., Wilmington, NC, 28403 U.S.A. |
| |
Abstract: | 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. |
| |
Keywords: | human–wildlife systems adaptive livelihoods transboundary conservation human–wildlife impacts participatory mapping community-based conservation African elephants Loxodonta africana Africa África conservación basada en la comunidad conservación transfronteriza elefante africano impacto humano – fauna mapeo participativo medios de subsistencia adaptativos sistema humano – fauna 人类-野生动物系统 适应性生计 跨境保护 人类-野生动物冲突 参与性绘图 基于社区的保护 非洲象 (Loxodonta africana) 非洲 |
|
|