A conceptual model for the integration of social and ecological information to understand human-wildlife interactions

Abstract

There is growing recognition that interdisciplinary approaches that account for both ecological and social processes are necessary to successfully address human-wildlife interactions. However, such approaches are hindered by challenges in aligning data types, communicating across disciplines, and applying social science information to conservation actions. To meet these challenges, we propose a conceptual model that adopts a social-ecological systems approach and integrates social and ecological theory to identify the multiple, nested levels of influence on both human and animal behavior. By accounting for a diverse array of influences and feedback mechanisms between social and ecological systems, this model fulfills a need for approaches that treat social and ecological processes with equal depth and facilitates a comprehensive understanding of the drivers of human and animal behaviors that perpetuate human-wildlife interactions. We apply this conceptual model to our work on human-black bear conflicts in Colorado, USA to demonstrate its utility. Using this example, we identify key lessons and offer guidance to researchers and conservation practitioners for applying integrated approaches to other human-wildlife systems.

Human-carnivore relations: conflicts, tolerance and coexistence in the American West

“…In addition, we suggest that research on human-carnivore relations develop and analyze a standard, comprehensive set of social and ecological factors, wherever possible, to allow for more direct comparisons across sites and over time. Several studies provide an excellent foundation for enumerating and refining those factors (Lischka et al 2018). Our findings on how different social and ecological characteristics led to differential research interest on ecosystem services and conflicts supports previous calls to apply social-ecological approaches in order to uncover the multiple beneficial and detrimental contributions provided by carnivores to people (Ceausu et al 2018, Lozano et al 2019, Jones et al 2019.…”

“…However, carnivores can also benefit humans by the provision of ecosystem services such as the mitigation of diseases (Harris and Dunn 2010), carcass removal (Moleón et al 2014 and opportunities provided for ecotourism (Willemen et al 2015, Arbieu et al 2017. Carnivores and humans are therefore considered parts of integrated social-ecological systems, whereby the mutual wellbeing is inextricably linked (Carter et al 2014, Darimont et al 2018, Dressel et al 2018, Lischka et al 2018, Lozano et al 2019.…”

Using pastoral ideology to understand human–wildlife coexistence in arid agricultural landscapes

“…Acknowledging the diversity of factors operating across social and ecological systems can lead to a broader understanding of the underlying causes of human–wildlife conflict (Carter et al, ; Morzillo, de Beurs, & Martin‐Mikle, ; Redpath et al, ). While conflicts occur largely at the interface of human and wildlife behaviors, the context that shapes these interactions includes multiple, nested levels of internal and external social and ecological processes (Lischka et al, ; Manfredo et al, ; Manfredo, Teel, Gavin, & Fulton, ). These range from society‐ and ecosystem‐level influences, down to individual attributes of humans (e.g., values) and wildlife (e.g., physiological conditions).…”

“…Limitations can stem from misperceptions about the quality and utility of social science information, particularly of qualitative research, and from epistemological differences across disciplines (Bennett et al, 2017;Fox et al, 2006;Pooley, Mendelsohn, & Milner-Gulland, 2014). Challenges also arise from inadequate attention in social-ecological systems models to individual human thought and behavior that can form the basis for conservation problems and ultimately determine the course and success of management interventions (Lischka et al, 2018;Manfredo et al, 2014Manfredo et al, , 2017. Given the global nature of human-wildlife conflicts, it is also important to document and understand these social dimensions across cultures to enhance transferability of findings and inform more broad-based solutions (Dickman, 2010;Manfredo & Dayer, 2004;Teel et al, 2010).…”

Management and Perception of Metropolitan Natura 2000 Sites: A Case Study of La Mandria Park (Turin, Italy)

“…This participatory approach to decision making in Natura 2000 sites is essential [6], with the aim of conserving habitat biodiversity and ensuring proper local economic development [7]. It should take into account the knowledge and the needs of users of Natura 2000 sites [8,9], integrating social and ecological aspects in the management plans [10]. In this regard, the Guidelines on Wilderness in Natura 2000 [11] highlight the need to re-build relationships with people who live, work or visit the sites with specific and differentiated communication strategies in order to increase public awareness of nature conservation [12,13].…”