Myths and assumptions about human-wildlife conflict and coexistence

Human procurement of meat from lion (Panthera leo) kills: Costs of disturbance and implications for carnivore conservation

In Africa, humans and large carnivores compete over access to resources, including prey. Disturbance by humans to kills made by carnivores, often for purposes of obtaining all or portions of the carcass, constitutes a form of human-wildlife conflict. However the occurrence of this practice, known as human kleptoparasitism, and its impact on carnivores has received little scientific attention. We obtained expert opinions from African lion researchers and stakeholders via a standardized questionnaire to characterize the geographic extent and frequency of human kleptoparasitism as it occurs in modern times. Our survey found modern human kleptoparasitism on kills made by lions, and possibly other large carnivores in Africa, to be geographically more widespread than previously reported. Meat lost to humans requires carnivores to hunt and kill additional prey thereby causing stress, increasing their energetic costs and risks of natural injury, and exposing them to risk of direct injury or death from human usurpers. Because of their conspicuous behaviors and tendency towards killing large-bodied prey, lions are particularly susceptible to humans detecting their kills. While human kleptoparasitism was geographically widespread, socio-economic factors influenced the frequency of occurrence. Prey type (wild game or domestic livestock) influenced human attitudes towards meat theft; ownership allows for legal recovery of livestock carcasses, while possessing wild game meat is mostly illegal and may incur penalties. Meat theft was associated with other illegal activities (i.e., illegal mining) and most prevalent among people of low income, including underpaid game scouts. Despite quantifiable costs to carnivores of human disturbance to their kills, the majority of experts surveyed reported a lack of knowledge on this practice. We propose that human disturbance at kills, especially loss of prey through human kleptoparasitism, constitutes an important anthropogenic threat that may seriously impact energy budgets of individual lions and other scavengers when meat and carcasses are removed from the ecosystem, and that the costs incurred by carnivores warrants further investigation.

Beyond Tolerance: Mitigating Human-Wildlife Conflict with Hospitality

Tolerance has become a central position in wildlife conservation thought, and a goal in and of itself. Appeals to tolerance are expected to grow as the planet becomes more crowded, species are lost, and habitat is degraded. The concept has been uncritically adopted in wildlife conservation to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts (HWCs). However, scholars have demonstrated that tolerance is burdened with limitations, paradoxes, and shortcomings. Thus, blind adherence to it is not expected to produce a coexistence design necessary to sustain wildlife populations in the long term. This paper is a conceptual scoping project that engages a summary and critique of tolerance as a design principle within wildlife conservation governance. After introducing a resultant theory of dysfunctional human-wildlife coexistence, a pathway toward hospitality as a social institution is outlined via several commitments societies can make to transition to an era of normalizing a process of sincere welcoming, care, and support. The transition from tolerance to hospitality will entail shifting responsibility to humans to modify their behavior to help keep wildlife invisible where it is essential, learning about what wildlife want and need, and ensuring wildlife is not injured for being themselves.

Why humans kill animals and why we cannot avoid it

Killing animals has been a ubiquitous human behaviour throughout history, yet it is becoming increasingly controversial and criticised in some parts of contemporary human society. Here we review 10 primary reasons why humans kill animals, discuss the necessity (or not) of these forms of killing, and describe the global ecological context for human killing of animals. Humans historically and currently kill animals either directly or indirectly for the following reasons: (1) wild harvest or food acquisition, (2) human health and safety, (3) agriculture and aquaculture, (4) urbanisation and industrialisation, (5) invasive, overabundant or nuisance wildlife control, (6) threatened species conservation, (7) recreation, sport or entertainment, (8) mercy or compassion, (9) cultural and religious practice, and (10) research, education and testing. While the necessity of some forms of animal killing is debatable and further depends on individual values, we emphasise that several of these forms of animal killing are a necessary component of our inescapable involvement in a single, functioning, finite, global food web. We conclude that humans (and all other animals) cannot live in a way that does not require animal killing either directly or indirectly, but humans can modify some of these killing behaviours in ways that improve the welfare of animals while they are alive, or to reduce animal suffering whenever they must be killed. We encourage a constructive dialogue that (1) accepts and permits human participation in one enormous global food web dependent on animal killing and (2) focuses on animal welfare and environmental sustainability. Doing so will improve the lives of both wild and domestic animals to a greater extent than efforts to avoid, prohibit or vilify human animal-killing behaviour.

An ensemble modeling approach to predict spatial risk patches of the Persian leopard-livestock conflicts in Lorestan Province, Iran

This study was conducted in the Lorestan Province in the west of Iran with two objectives of identifying major environmental variables in spatial risk modeling and identifying spatial risk patches of livestock predation by the Persian leopard. An ensemble approach of three models of maximum entropy (MaxEnt), generalized boosting model (GBM), and random forest (RF) were applied for spatial risk modeling. Our results revealed that livestock density, distance to villages, forest density, and human population density were the most important variables in spatial risk modeling of livestock predation by the leopard. The center of the study area had the highest probability of livestock predation by the leopard. Ten spatial risk patches of livestock predation by the leopard were identified in the study area. In order to mitigate the revenge killing of the leopards, the findings of this study highlight the imperative of implementing strategies by the Department of Environment (DoE) to effectively accompany the herds entering the wildlife habitats with shepherds and a manageable number of guarding dogs. Accordingly, the identified risk patches in this study deserve considerable attention, especially three primary patches found in the center and southeast of Lorestan Province.

The drums of war are beating louder: Media coverage of brown bears in Romania

The increasing demand for resources to meet the needs of our society has transformed the environment and increased the likelihood of human-wildlife interactions. Romania has the highest density of brown bears in Europe, with more than 7000 individuals populating the Carpathian Mountains and neighboring areas. The large brown bear population in Romania inhabits ever-increasing human-dominated landscapes, which frequently results in conflict with humans. The means and frequency by which the media communicates information to the readership influence the public perception of human-wildlife conflicts. This research is intended to contribute to the existing knowledge on human-brown bear coexistence in Romania by (1) exploring how the Romanian media depicts human-brown bear interactions in terms of the main themes discussed, framing of issues (emotions and key messages), and likely impacts on public perception; (2) analyzing the changes in reporting on human brown-bear interactions following the transition of the legal status of the brown bear from game to strictly protected species; and (3) investigating suggested policy and management solutions. The results indicate that news stories related to brown bears became common in Romanian mass media after 2016, when a provisional one-year ban on culling was instated, after which it increased abruptly in 2021, following the whistleblowing of an alleged trophy hunting event. The focus on human-bear interaction and hunting/poaching themes has not changed; however, the position of the media toward brown bears has become increasingly negative, even when presenting news stories covering human-bear interactions that incur no harm. To facilitate human-brown bear coexistence in Romania, scientists and practitioners should communicate with media representatives and provide a supplementary context for news stories. Evidence-informed news can help authorities better understand conflicts and create bottom-up pathways toward an optimistic future for brown bears and Romanian society.

Awareness of environmental legislation as a deterrent for wildlife crime: A case with Masaai pastoralists, poison use and the Kenya Wildlife Act

Illegal wildlife crime is a global phenomenon, accelerating the ongoing biodiversity crisis. In the Old World, and particularly in Africa, illegal use of poisons to eliminate carnivores is the main driver of the continental vulture crisis. Knowledge about the underlying source and drivers of this threat is lacking for most areas, including Kenya, a global vulture and biodiversity hotspot. An extensive questionnaire survey of over 1300 respondents was run, using a specialized questioning technique and quantitative analytical approaches. Results show that, while pastoralists have a positive attitude towards vultures, over 20% of them use poisons to eliminate predators. Poisoning was largely driven by livestock losses to predators, and by negative attitude towards predators. Poisoning was less prevalent among respondents aware of the Kenya Wildlife Act. Overall, we suggest that a combination of top-down, e.g. legislation, and bottom-up (such as corrals or compensation) along with awareness campaigns may help reduce poisoning on the ground.

Transdisciplinary deficit in large carnivore conservation funding in Europe

Achieving coexistence between humans and large carnivores in human-shaped landscapes is a complex challenge. Addressing this challenge requires the revaluation of the approaches academia uses to foster carnivore conservation and human-large carnivore coexistence. In this forum paper, we provide a brief overview of the three archetypical approaches of knowledge generation for large carnivore conservation in human dominated landscapes (disciplinary, interdisciplinary and emerging transdisciplinary approaches) and highlight the need for more explicit consideration of transdisciplinarity in large carnivore conservation funding. We refer to transdisciplinary deficit (TDD) for those situations when the context allows the implementation of transdisciplinarity but research and practice remains disciplinary or interdisciplinary. We identify drivers of this TDD and provide a brief overview of current and past conservation funding programmes at the European level in terms of their capacity to promote transdisciplinary approaches for large carnivore conservation. We show that current funding programmes favour sectorial and disciplinary approaches, resulting in low transdisciplinary substance in large carnivore conservation projects. TDD can be overcome by transforming the character of public funding towards multi-stakeholder collaboration, designing and nurturing effective communities of practice, and reducing co-financing rates for large, integrated projects.

Poaching of protected wolves fluctuated seasonally and with non-wolf hunting

Poaching is the main cause of mortality for many large carnivores, and mitigating it is imperative for the persistence of their populations. For Wisconsin gray wolves (Canis lupus), periods of increased risk in overall mortality and poaching seem to overlap temporally with legal hunting seasons for other large mammals (hunting wolves was prohibited). We analyzed monitoring data from adult, collared wolves in Wisconsin, USA (1979-2012, n = 495) using a competing-risk approach to test explicitly if seasons during which it was legal to train hunting hounds (hounding) or hunt other large mammals (hunting) affected wolves' hazard of cause-specific mortality and disappearance. We found increases in hazard for disappearances and documented ('reported') poaching during seasons with hunting, hounding or snow cover relative to a season without these factors. The 'reported poached' hazard increased > 650% during seasons with hunting and snow cover, which may be due to a seasonal surge in numbers of potential poachers or to some poachers augmenting their activities. Snow cover was a major environmental factor contributing to poaching, presumably through increased detection of wolves. Our study suggests poaching is by far the highest mortality hazard for wolves and reinforces the need for protections and policies targeting poaching of protected populations.

Renewed coexistence: learning from steering group stakeholders on a beaver reintroduction project in England

Species reintroductions are growing in popularity, and example motivations include supporting species populations or the restoration of ecosystem function. Interactions between humans and the reintroduced species are likely to occur post-reintroduction. Coexistence between humans and wildlife is adaptive and dynamic, in part requiring management of conflicts between humans and wildlife, or of conflicts between humans over wildlife management. We seek to learn from the experiences of steering group members in a Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) project in England and identify how governance of coexistence with reintroduced species may differ from the governance of coexistence with species that are already present in the landscape. Using a qualitative thematic analysis of an online survey, we identify a series of lessons in six key areas: (1) project governance, (2) stakeholder engagement, (3) research and monitoring programme, (4) strategy to manage arising conflicts, (5) public engagement, and (6) broad perspectives on reintroduction trials. We advocate for reflective evaluation as an essential component of reintroduction projects to enable knowledge-sharing from experiences, leading to improved practices in the future. Reflecting on our analysis, we identify and define ‘Renewed Coexistence’—a new term that draws on pre-existing coexistence knowledge but identifies the unique elements that relate to governing coexistence with reintroduced species.

A “Wicked Problem” Reconciling Human-Shark Conflict, Shark Bite Mitigation, and Threatened Species

Conservation measures often result in a “wicked problem,” i.e., a complex problem with conflicting aims and no clear or straightforward resolution without severe adverse effects on one or more parties. Here we discuss a novel approach to an ongoing problem, in which actions to reduce risk to humans, involve lethal control of otherwise protected species. To protect water users, nets are often used to catch potentially dangerous sharks at popular bathing beaches, yet in Australian waters one of the targeted species, the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) is listed as Vulnerable, while bycatch includes the Critically Endangered grey nurse shark (Carcharias taurus). Recent, highly publicised, shark attacks have triggered demands for improved bather protection, whilst welfare and conservation organisations have called for removal of lethal measures. This leaves management and policy makers with a wicked problem: removing nets to reduce impacts on threatened species may increase risk to humans; or leaving the program as it is on the premise that the benefits provided by bather protection are greater than the impact on threatened and protected species. We used multivariate analysis and generalised additive models to investigate the biological, spatial-temporal, and environmental patterns influencing catch rates of threatened and of potentially dangerous shark species in the New South Wales shark nets over two decades to April 2019. Factors influencing catches were used to develop a matrix of potential changes to reduce catch of threatened species. Our proposed solutions include replacing existing nets with alternative mitigation strategies at key beaches where catch rate of threatened species is high. This approach provides stakeholders with a hierarchy of scenarios that address both social demands and threatened species conservation and is broadly applicable to human-wildlife conflict scenarios elsewhere.

Coexisting With Different Human-Wildlife Coexistence Perspectives

Over the last decade, there has been a remarkable increase in scientific literature addressing human–wildlife interactions (HWI) and associated concepts, such as coexistence, tolerance, and acceptance. Despite increased attention, these terms are rarely defined or consistently applied across publications. Indeed, the meaning of these concepts, especially coexistence, is frequently assumed and left for the reader to interpret, making it hard to compare studies, test metrics, and build upon previous HWI research. To work toward a better understanding of these terms, we conducted two World Café sessions at international conferences in Namibia, Africa and Ontario, Canada. Here, we present the array of perspectives revealed in the workshops and build upon these results to describe the meaning of coexistence as currently applied by conservation scientists and practitioners. Although we focus on coexistence, it is imperative to understand the term in relation to tolerance and acceptance, as in many cases these latter terms are used to express, measure, or define coexistence. Drawing on these findings, we discuss whether a common definition of these terms is possible and how the conservation field might move toward clarifying and operationalizing the concept of human-wildlife coexistence.

Coexistence Praxis: The Role of Resource Managers in Wolf-Livestock Interactions on Federal Lands

In resource management, new terms are frequently introduced, reflecting ongoing evolution in the theory and practice of ecology and governance. Yet understandings of what new concepts mean, for whom, and what they imply for management on the ground can vary widely. Coexistence—a prominent concept within the literature and practices around human-wildlife conflict and predator management—is one such term: widely invoked and yet poorly defined. While for some coexistence is the latest paradigm in improving human-wildlife relations, the concept remains debated and indeed even hotly contested by others—particularly on the multiple-use public lands of the American West, where gray wolf conservation, livestock production, and the claims of diverse stakeholders share space.

The multiple meanings of coexistence present serious challenges for conservation practice, as what the concept implies or requires can be contested by those most central to its implementation. In this study we examine wolf-livestock management—a classic case of human-wildlife conflict—by focusing on the experiences and perspectives of U.S. Forest Service (USFS) managers. We reviewed coexistence's multivalence in the literature, complementing semi-structured interviews conducted with USFS employees on case study forests from across the western states. Through this, we highlight the complexity and multi-dimensionality of the concept, and the unique yet under-explored perspective that resource managers bring to these debates.

This work draws on insights from political ecology to emphasize the situatedness of manager practice—taking place within a broader set of relations and contextual pressures—while extending political ecologists' traditional focus on the resource user to a concern with the resource manager as a key actor in environmental conflicts. Through our engagement with the experiences and perceptions of USFS managers, who must balance conservation aims with long-established land uses like livestock grazing, we hope to clarify the various dimensions of coexistence. Our hope is that this work thus increases the possibility for empathy and collaboration among managers and stakeholders engaged in this complex socio-ecological challenge.

Human–Elephant Conflict in Sri Lanka: A Critical Review of Causal Explanations

Human–elephant conflict (HEC) is a severe and much-debated issue in Sri Lanka. An average of two hundred animals are intentionally killed, and seventy to eighty human casualties are counted each year. The Sri Lankan elephant (Elephas maximus maximus) is an endangered subspecies. The reported elephant mortality rates are high. On the other hand, human–elephant conflict also leads to hardship and trauma among rural populations. This research paper reviews causal explanations for HEC in Sri Lanka, tracing underlying narratives and connecting broader conservation theory and practical approaches. The paper discusses potential causes and contexts of HEC in Sri Lanka, including historical factors (i.e., colonial hunting and land-use changes), poaching, habitat loss due to population growth, crop-raiding behaviour, problem animals, and changes in agricultural production systems. The review concludes that socio-economic and cultural factors in HEC in Sri Lanka are poorly explained, and more research should focus on the underlying conditions of rural populations’ vulnerability.

Gaining insight into the assimilated diet of small bear populations by stable isotope analysis

Apennine brown bears (Ursus arctos marsicanus) survive in an isolated and critically endangered population, and their food habits have been studied using traditional scat analysis. To complement current dietary knowledge, we applied Stable Isotope Analysis (SIA) to non-invasively collected bear hairs that had been individually recognized through multilocus genotyping. We analysed carbon (δ¹³C) and nitrogen (δ¹⁵N) stable isotopes of hair sections and bear key foods in a Bayesian mixing models framework to reconstruct the assimilated diet on a seasonal basis and to assess gender and management status effects. In total, we analysed 34 different seasonal bear key foods and 35 hair samples belonging to 27 different bears (16 females and 11 males) collected during a population survey in 2014. Most bears showed wide δ¹⁵N and δ¹³C ranges and individual differences in seasonal isotopic patterns. Vegetable matter (herbs, fleshy fruits and hard mast) represented the major component of the assimilated diet across the dietary seasons, whereas vegetable crops were rarely and C4 plants (i.e., corn) never consumed. We confirmed an overall low consumption of large mammals by Apennine bears consistently between sexes, with highest values in spring followed by early summer but null in the other seasons. We also confirmed that consumption of fleshy fruits peaked in late summer, when wild predominated over cultivated fleshy fruits, even though the latter tended to be consumed in higher proportion in autumn. Male bears had higher δ ¹⁵N values than females in spring and autumn. Our findings also hint at additional differences in the assimilated diet between sexes, with females likely consuming more herbs during spring, ants during early summer, and hard mast during fall compared to males. In addition, although effect sizes were small and credibility intervals overlapped considerably, management bears on average were 0.9‰ lower in δ ¹³C and 2.9‰ higher in δ ¹⁵N compared to non-management bears, with differences in isotopic values between the two bear categories peaking in autumn. While non-management bears consumed more herbs, wild fleshy fruits, and hard mast, management bears tended to consume higher proportions of cultivated fruits, ants, and large mammals, possibly including livestock. Although multi-year sampling and larger sample sizes are needed to support our findings, our application confirms that SIA can effectively integrate previous knowledge and be efficiently conducted using samples non-invasively collected during population surveys.

Rethinking the study of human-wildlife coexistence

Although coexistence with wildlife is a key goal of conservation, little is known about it or how to study it. By coexistence we mean a sustainable though dynamic state in which humans and wildlife coadapt to sharing landscapes, where human interactions with wildlife are effectively governed to ensure wildlife populations persist in socially legitimate ways that ensure tolerable risk levels. Problems that arise from current conflict-oriented framing of human-wildlife interactions include reinforcing a human-nature dichotomy as fundamentally oppositional, suggesting coexistence requires the absence of conflict, and skewing research and management toward direct negative impacts over indirect impacts and positive aspects of living with wildlife. Human behavior toward wildlife is framed as rational calculus of costs and benefits, sidelining emotional and cultural dimensions of these interactions. Coexistence is less studied due to unfamiliarity with relevant methodologies, including qualitative methods, self-reflexivity and ethical rigor, and constraints on funding and time. These challenges are illustrated with examples from fieldwork in India and Africa. We recommend a basic approach to case studies aimed at expanding the scope of inquiries into human-wildlife relations beyond studies of rational behavior and quantification of costs and benefits of wildlife to humans.

Understanding human attitudes towards bats and the role of information and aesthetics to boost a positive response as a conservation tool

An understanding of human attitudes towards wildlife can be an essential element in the success or failure of a conservation initiative, policy or practice and represents one of the main conservation problems for wildlife species. Despite the ecosystem services bats provide, they often are a socially stigmatized group, misperceived and even hunted. This problem has been on the increase as a result of the Covid‐19 pandemic. We examined how aesthetic appeal and informational factors could influence human attitudes towards bats in a survey of 1966 participants from Spanish‐speaking countries. Gender, educational level, religiousness and previous experiences with bats were relevant variables to understand attitudes towards them. The results indicate that both aesthetic and informational stimuli increase the positive responses, reducing the negatives on the participants' attitudes. Our results show the importance of public attitudes to achieve conservation goals, especially in the context of human‐wildlife conflict. Bats are not charismatic animals and are still surrounded in mystery; however, our findings could benefit bat conservation plans, allowing the development of new communication strategies both locally and nationally and increasing public acceptance that will facilitate bat conservation.

Understanding wildlife crime in China: Socio-demographic profiling and motivation of offenders

Wildlife crime presents a growing threat to the integrity of ecological communities. While campaigns have raised consumer awareness, little is known about the socio-demographic profile of wildlife offenders, or how to intervene. Using data from China Judgements Online (2014–2018), we documented 4,735 cases, involving 7,244 offenders who smuggled, hunted, transported, sold and/or purchased protected species in contravention of China’s Criminal Law. Offenders were predominantly men (93.0% of 7,143 offenders), aged 30–44 (43.9% of 4,699), agricultural workers (48.4% of 3,960), with less schooling (78.6% of 4,699 < senior secondary school). Socio-economic profiles related to crime seriousness, the type of illegal activity, motivation and taxon involved. These generalizations reveal scope to tailor specific intervention and mitigation approaches to offender profiles, through public information campaigns, proactive incentives opposed by punitive disincentives, and provision of alternative incomes.

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.