Addressing inequality and intolerance in human–wildlife coexistence

Abstract

Millennia of human conflict with wildlife have built a culture of intolerance toward wildlife among some stakeholders. We explored 2 key obstacles to improved human-wildlife coexistence: coexistence inequality (how the costs and benefits of coexisting with wildlife are unequally shared) and intolerance. The costs of coexisting with wildlife are often disproportionately borne by the so-called global south and rural communities, and the benefits often flow to the global north and urban dwellers. Attitudes and behaviors toward wildlife (tolerance versus intolerance) vary with social and cultural norms. We suggest more empathetic advocacy is needed that, for example, promotes conservation while appropriately considering those who bear the costs of conflict with wildlife. To achieve more equitable cost-sharing, we suggest limiting the costs incurred by those most affected or by sharing those costs more widely. For example, we advocate for the development of improved wildlife compensation schemes, increasing the scale of rewilding efforts, and preventing wildlife-derived revenue leaching out of the local communities bearing the costs of coexistence.

Understanding drivers of human tolerance to gray wolves and brown bears as a strategy to improve landholder–carnivore coexistence

“…In PNALM, however, some respondents lamented that only a few people directly benefited from tourism. This falls into other evidence of inequality in financial benefits within communities in contexts of human-wildlife interactions (Jordan, Smith, Appleby, van Eeden, & Webster, 2020). To prevent similar scenarios, RMGAG should establish a priori strategies to address inequality within the community.…”

Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world

“…2020) and transboundary PAs and areas surrounding PAs (Jordan et al. 2020 [this issue]; Martínez‐Jauregui et al. 2020 [this issue]; Salerno et al.…”

“…Jordan et al. (2020) emphasize that wildlife species outside PAs may be perceived as “pests” and that there is a growing risk of conflict if benefits and costs are disproportionally and unequally shared among stakeholders, societies, and the global North and South. They stress critical aspects related to intolerance and how attitudes and behavior toward wildlife vary with social and cultural norms.…”

Using recent baselines as benchmarks for megafauna restoration places an unfair burden on the Global South

“…In his plead for a full reckoning of the historical biogeography of species in conservation, Sanderson (2019) argues that "picking a particular date [to define the indigenous range of a species] means arbitrarily accepting some events as incontrovertible while requiring others to be addressed through conservation action", and that using recent or historical baselines "stamps conservation with a Eurocentric perspective that is unwarranted for a global enterprise". This post-Columbian bias has been highlighted and discussed in the context of rewilding before (Donlan et al 2006, Keulartz 2016, Svenning and Faurby 2017, Jordan et al 2020), but we for the first time quantify these global geographic patterns for megafauna restoration, linking them to contemporary measures of human development, funding and governance. Our analysis highlights the uneven distribution of the burden of megafauna restoration across the world, and how this geographic pattern changes with the benchmark used to guide restoration.…”