Social-ecological predictors of spotted hyena navigation through a shared landscape

Human-wildlife interactions are increasing in severity due to climate change and proliferating urbanization. Regions where human infrastructure and activity are rapidly densifying or newly appearing constitute novel environments in which wildlife must learn to coexist with people, thereby serving as ideal case studies with which to infer future human-wildlife interactions in shared landscapes. As a widely reviled and behaviorally plastic apex predator, the spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) is a model species for understanding how large carnivores navigate these human-caused 'landscapes of fear' in a changing world. Using high-resolution GPS collar data, we applied resource selection functions and step selection functions to assess spotted hyena landscape navigation and fine-scale movement decisions in relation to social-ecological features in a rapidly developing region comprising two protected areas: Lake Nakuru National Park and Soysambu Conservancy, Kenya. We then used camera trap imagery and Barrier Behavior Analysis (BaBA) to further examine hyena interactions with barriers. Our results show that environmental factors, linear infrastructure, human-carnivore conflict hotspots, and human tolerance were all important predictors for landscape-scale resource selection by hyenas, while human experience elements were less important for fine-scale hyena movement decisions. Hyena selection for these characteristics also changed seasonally and across land management types. Camera traps documented an exceptionally high number of individual spotted hyenas (234) approaching the national park fence at 16 sites during the study period, and BaBA results suggested that hyenas perceive protected area boundaries' semi-permeable electric fences as risky but may cross them out of necessity. Our findings highlight that the ability of carnivores to flexibly respond within human-caused landscapes of fear may be expressed differently depending on context, scale, and climatic factors. These results also point to the need to incorporate societal factors into multiscale analyses of wildlife movement to effectively plan for human-wildlife coexistence.

Contrasting effects of human settlement on the interaction among sympatric apex carnivores

In the face of a growing human footprint, understanding interactions among threatened large carnivores is fundamental to effectively mitigating anthropogenic threats and managing species. Using data from a large-scale camera trap survey, we investigated the effects of environmental and anthropogenic variables on the interspecific interaction of a carnivore guild comprising of tiger, leopard and dhole in Bhutan. We demonstrate the complex effects of human settlement density on large carnivore interactions. Specifically, we demonstrate that leopard–dhole co-occupancy probability was higher in areas with higher human settlement density. The opposite was true for tiger–leopard co-occupancy probability, but it was positively affected by large prey (gaur) abundance. These findings suggest that multi-carnivore communities across land-use gradients are spatially structured and mediated also by human presence and/or the availability of natural prey. Our findings show that space-use patterns are driven by a combination of the behavioural mechanism of each species and its interactions with competing species. The duality of the effect of settlement density on species interactions suggests that the benefits of exploiting anthropogenic environments are a trade-off between ecological opportunity (food subsidies or easy prey) and the risk of escalating conflict with humans.

Impact of Location on Predator Control Preference Patterns

In recent decades, interactions with carnivores have increased in suburban and urban areas. However, it is unknown how predator control preferences of urban, suburban, and rural residents compare. We sought to characterize predator control preferences regarding interactions with bobcats (Lynx rufus) and coyotes (Canis latrans), and compare these preferences among people living in urban, suburban, and rural areas. We also sought to determine the factors that predicted the likelihood of respondents changing their predator control preference. We conducted cross-sectional surveys of adult residents of the United States and the state of Ohio and embedded randomly assigned carnivore interaction scenarios in which respondents were asked to choose their preferred predator control in response to each scenario. We found that when both scenarios took place in an agricultural location, respondents became significantly more sensitive to changes in the severity (i.e., they were more likely to switch their preferred method of predator control). Subjects overwhelmingly indicated a preference for non-lethal forms of predator control. Specifically, 71.8% of respondents preferred non-lethal in response to both scenarios, 18.5% gave mixed responses (i.e., preferred lethal in response to one of the scenarios but non-lethal in response to the other scenario), and only 9.7% preferred lethal predator control in response to both scenarios. The tendency to prefer only non-lethal methods decreased along the urban-rural gradient such that 78.5% of urban respondents expressed a consistent preference for non-lethal forms of control, compared with 72.8% of suburban respondents, and 51.3% rural respondents. This suggests that most urban and suburban residents view lethal predator control methods as simply inappropriate—at least for the scenarios described. In practice, the management of human-carnivore interactions in urban and suburban areas is complicated by a variety of factors (e.g., the presence and density of humans and their pets) which reduce the flexibility of wildlife managers in these areas. Additionally, management options may be further restricted by the preferences of residents, especially given that management is likely to be more visible in these areas. Strong preferences against lethal control in urban and suburban settings may incentivize the development of novel methods for controlling human-carnivore conflicts in the future.

Ecological Knowledge and Management of Fauna Among the Mexicatl of the Sierra Negra, México: An Interpretive Approach

Generally motivated by the relevance of animals in human subsistence, the management of fauna has taken different shapes throughout the world. This study aims to analyse a typology of management forms, exploring their relationship with the motivation to maintain coexistence and use of fauna and mitigate negative human-fauna interactions by the Mexicatl (Nahua) people in Central Mexico. We generally expected to find a broad spectrum of management types in a gradient of interactions intensity. This is because we hypothesised that the more meaningful these interactions due to the magnitude of benefit or damage, philias, or phobias among other positive or negative perceptions, and ecological aspects and management viability, the more actions and practices might be motivated to maintain or mitigate them. We conducted a qualitative research based on interpretivist approaches, mixing qualitative and quantitative analyses, to register the Mexicatl names of fauna present in the area and recognised by locals and to analyse the influence of local ecological knowledge (LEK) and natural history as perceived by people on the use, conflicts, and management practices regarding local fauna. In order to gather such information, in 2018 and 2019 we generated 356 free lists of fauna and 20 sessions of group interviews about the presence of animals in the area, the Mexicatl name, information on distribution, diet, use, management, and other facts. We used visual stimuli with children and young people from schools of basic and intermediate levels in five rural communities and the municipal head of Coyomeapan, Puebla. We also generated free lists and in-depth interviews with 18 persons older than 16 years. People recognised 114 animal items, the most salient being 11 domestic and 14 wild animals including deer, medium and small mammals, snakes, and birds. For both domestic and wild fauna, people reported 18 use categories and three types of damage (crop losses, predation of domestic animals, and damages to health). LEK interacted with traditional celebrations, religious beliefs, land tenure, and migration to define preferences and management types of fauna. Bushmeat demand, especially for Mazama temama and Cuniculus paca, was related to a perception of healthy nutrition properties. Management actions included husbandry of domestic animals, extraction of wild animals for supply, or to avoid damages, captivity, tolerance to damage, protection of seeds and domestic animals threatened by wild fauna, regulations for extraction of wild fauna, and agreements to prevent conflicts. Mixed quantitative and qualitative approaches allowed the interpretation of the human-fauna interactions related to subsistence, coexistence, and the high relevance of LEK, perceptions, religious beliefs, ecosystem, socio-demographic factors, and animal behaviour and habits, which are crucial factors that influence the shaping of management practices. Local management strategies of fauna were diverse and contribute to biocultural conservation and theoretical construction on domestication.

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.

Conservation lessons from taboos and trolley problems

Governments pass conservation laws, adopt policies, and make plans yet frequently fail to implement them. Implementation of conservation, however, often requires costly sacrifice: people foregoing benefit for the benefit of biodiversity. Decisions involve trade-offs with outcomes that depend on the values at stake and people's perceptions of those values. Psychology, ethics, and behavioral science have each addressed the challenge of making difficult, often tragic, trade-off decisions. Based on these literatures, values can be classified as secular or sacred, where sacred values are those for which compensation may be unthinkable (e.g., freedom). Taboo trade-offs emerge when secular values are pitted against sacred ones. These are difficult to discuss, much less negotiate. Confronting taboo trade-offs in conservation may require discursive approaches to better understand particular attributes of decisions that place sacred human values at risk. Tragic trade-offs emerge when sacred values are pitted against one another. The trolley problem-a forced choice between 2 unthinkable outcomes-is a simple heuristic illustrating ethical challenges of tragic trade-offs. Behavior studies illustrate that people have a strong aversion to losses where an active choice was made, resulting in a bias toward status quo decisions. Faced with tragic, trolley-problem-like choices, people tend to avoid taking responsibility for action, defer decisions, evade opinions on painful choices, and regret unfortunate outcomes of actions. To help close the implementation gap, conservation actors may need to directly address the psychological, ethical, and behavioral barriers created by the remorse, regret, and moral residue of implementing conservation choices that have tragic outcomes. Recognition of these predictable features of the human psyche may foster better administrative structures to support action with durable outcomes as well as new research directions.

Cost of Coexisting with a Relict Large Carnivore Population: Impact of Apennine Brown Bears, 2005-2015

Human-carnivore conflicts are a major conservation issue. As bears are expanding their range in Europe's human-modified landscapes, it is increasingly important to understand, prevent, and address human-bear conflicts and evaluate mitigation strategies in areas of historical coexistence. Based on verified claims, we assessed costs, patterns, and drivers of bear damages in the relict Apennine brown bear population in the Abruzzo Lazio and Molise National Park (PNALM), central Italy. During 2005-2015, 203 ± 71 (SD) damage events were verified annually, equivalent to 75,987 ± 30,038 €/year paid for compensation. Most damages occurred in summer and fall, with livestock depredation, especially sheep and cattle calves, prevailing over other types of damages, with apiaries ranking second in costs of compensation. Transhumant livestock owners were less impacted than residential ones, and farms that adopted prevention measures loaned from the PNALM were less susceptible to bear damages. Livestock farms chronically damaged by bears represented 8 ± 3% of those annually impacted, corresponding to 24 ± 6% of compensation costs. Further improvements in the conflict mitigation policy adopted by the PNALM include integrated prevention, conditional compensation, and participatory processes. We discuss the implications of our study for Human-bear coexistence in broader contexts.

The ecology of human-carnivore coexistence

The persistence of large carnivores in human-dominated landscapes will become increasingly challenging as the human footprint expands. Here, we bring together long-term demographic and behavioral data on one of the worlds’ most conflict-prone species, the brown bear, to quantify the mechanisms facilitating human–carnivore coexistence. We found that human-dominated landscapes are highly lethal, especially to young bears, until they learn to adapt to people. As bears age, they avoid times when people are most active but do not strongly avoid where people live. To sustain human–carnivore coexistence under high rates of mortality requires the influx of animals from areas with low human presence (i.e., demographic rescue). Paradoxically, our work demonstrates that connectivity leads to both coexistence and conflict.

With a shrinking supply of wilderness and growing recognition that top predators can have a profound influence on ecosystems, the persistence of large carnivores in human-dominated landscapes has emerged as one of the greatest conservation challenges of our time. Carnivores fascinate society, yet these animals pose threats to people living near them, resulting in high rates of carnivore death near human settlements. We used 41 y of demographic data for more than 2,500 brown bears—one of the world’s most widely distributed and conflict-prone carnivores—to understand the behavioral and demographic mechanisms promoting carnivore coexistence in human-dominated landscapes. Bear mortality was high and unsustainable near people, but a human-induced shift to nocturnality facilitated lower risks of bear mortality and rates of conflict with people. Despite these behavioral shifts, projected population growth rates for bears in human-dominated areas revealed a source-sink dynamic. Despite some female bears successfully reproducing in the sink areas, bear persistence was reliant on a supply of immigrants from areas with minimal human influence (i.e., wilderness). Such mechanisms of coexistence reveal a striking paradox: Connectivity to wilderness areas supplies bears that likely will die from people, but these bears are essential to avert local extirpation. These insights suggest carnivores contribute to human–carnivore coexistence through behavioral and demographic mechanisms, and that connected wilderness is critical to sustain coexistence landscapes.