Building a resilient coexistence with wildlife in a more crowded world

Carter, Neil; Linnell, John D. C.

doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad030

Cited by 12 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, greater understanding of how wildlife attitudes, including comfort, may facilitate the incorporation of coexistence into multi-scale conservation planning efforts within landscapes increasingly dominated by human activity (Parris et al, 2018;Marchini et al, 2019;Apfelbeck et al, 2020;Kay et al, 2022). The success of these conservation efforts and the identification of stakeholders fall along the conflict-to-coexistence continuum depend upon human and wildlife behaviors rooted in complex social, ecological, and place-based relationships (Dietsch et al, 2019;Carter and Linnell, 2023).…”

Section: Implications For Coexistencementioning

confidence: 99%

Social-ecological drivers of metropolitan residents’ comfort living with wildlife

Haight,

Larson,

Clark

et al. 2023

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionHuman-wildlife coexistence in cities depends on how residents perceive and interact with wildlife in their neighborhoods. An individual’s attitudes toward and responses to wildlife are primarily shaped by their subjective cognitive judgments, including multi-faceted environmental values and perceptions of risks or safety. However, experiences with wildlife could also positively or negatively affect an individual’s environmental attitudes, including their comfort living near wildlife. Previous work on human-wildlife coexistence has commonly focused on rural environments and on conflicts with individual problem species, while positive interactions with diverse wildlife communities have been understudied. MethodsGiven this research gap, we surveyed wildlife attitudes of residents across twelve neighborhoods in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, AZ to ask: how do the environments in which residents live, as well as their values, identities, and personal characteristics, explain the degree to which they are comfortable living near different wildlife groups (coyotes, foxes, and rabbits)? ResultsWe found that residents who were more comfortable living near wildlife commonly held pro-wildlife value orientations, reflecting the expectation that attitudes toward wildlife are primarily driven be an individual’s value-based judgements. However, attitudes were further influenced by sociodemographic factors (e.g., pet ownership, gender identity), as well as environmental factors that influence the presence of and familiarity with wildlife. Specifically, residents living closer to desert parks and preserves were more likely to have positive attitudes toward both coyotes and foxes, species generally regarded by residents as riskier to humans and domestic animals. DiscussionBy improving understanding of people’s attitudes toward urban wildlife, these results can help managers effectively evaluate the potential for human-wildlife coexistence through strategies to mitigate risk and facilitate stewardship.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Coexistencementioning

confidence: 99%

Social-ecological drivers of metropolitan residents’ comfort living with wildlife

Haight,

Larson,

Clark

et al. 2023

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To achieve coexistence or cohabitation between humans and wildlife, adaptation is essential from both parties (Carter & Linnell, 2016). Coexistence hinges on understanding resilience factors in human-wildlife systems, obtaining predictive insights into the effectiveness of conservation policies and heeding early warning signs if positive attitudes are declining (Carter & Linnell, 2023). Considering the ecosystem services and disservices associated with wildlife, as well as social participation of stakeholders can be instrumental in addressing interactions and find solutions for challenges (Ceauşu et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reintroduced, but not accepted: Stakeholder perceptions of beavers in Germany

Hohm,

Moesch,

Bahm

et al. 2024

People and Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While reintroductions of regionally extinct native species usually benefit ecosystems, reintroduced animals often struggle to locate appropriate habitats where they can establish themselves without conflict with humans. European beavers (Castor fiber) were successfully reintroduced to Germany almost 60 years ago and have reached high abundances again. As beavers can damage trees and change landscapes, they are increasingly in conflict with humans. We investigated human perceptions of beavers in Germany using an online survey, as they are an example of a reintroduced species with an expanding population and potential conflicts with humans. We asked participants about their emotions (anger, fear, interest, joy) towards beavers and what they consider to be acceptable beaver habitats. Of nearly 1500 survey participants, 803 (53%) were from the general public, 475 (32%) from the agricultural sector and 219 (15%) from forestry. People in these sectors had very different perspectives: beavers were positively perceived by the general public, but negatively by stakeholders working in agriculture and forestry. Independently of stakeholder groups, we also found regional differences, as participants from Bavaria—the German state with the highest beaver densities—viewed beavers more negatively than those from the rest of Germany. Zoos and wildlife parks, as well as urban and nature conservation areas, were considered to be the most acceptable habitats for beavers, whereas survey participants did not accept private gardens and cultivated areas as beaver habitats. We discuss the sources of negative emotions towards beavers and how ecologically suitable habitats differ from those that appear acceptable by humans. Even 60 years after their reintroduction, beavers in Germany are still being recognized as both a novelty and a nuisance. Our findings highlight the need for active beaver management and increased public engagement to enable positive coexistence between beavers and humans in Germany. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

show abstract