Editorial: Understanding Coexistence With Wildlife

Pooley, Simon; Linnell, John Durrus; Münster, Ursula; Dooren, Thom van; Zimmermann, Alexandra

doi:10.3389/fcosc.2022.830971

Cited by 10 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, over the past decade scholarly works have increasingly focused on the human side of human-wildlife dynamics, using quantitative and qualitative methods to better understand people's values, experiences and actions relative to conservation objectives and outcomes (e.g., Bennett et al, 2017;Margulies and Karanth, 2018;Bhatia et al, 2021;Pooley et al, 2022;Stern and Humphries, 2022). An essential part of understanding these dynamic relationships is recognizing the variation between people and communities, which is shaped by the different socio-cultural, political, economic and environmental factors (Redpath et al, 2017;Hughes and Nielsen, 2019;Hughes et al, 2020b;Hill, 2021;Kimaro and Hughes, 2021;Morehouse et al, 2021;Rust et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation through connection: Approaches to engaging communities in applied grizzly bear research

Hughes

Elmeligi²,

Morehouse³

2022

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human-wildlife dynamics is a growing field and one of considerable importance to conservation. Wild spaces are in short supply, and consequently wildlife and people increasingly share the landscape, though not necessarily by choice. As a result, peoples’ needs might not be prioritized over those of wildlife, even in cases of human-wildlife conflict. For wildlife conservation to be effective and human-wildlife coexistence possible, the needs of both wildlife and people must be simultaneously addressed. Rather than an afterthought or a sentence in the conservation/management implications section of a paper, community engagement should be addressed before, during, and after a research project. However, this can be a difficult and often complicated task, for multiple reasons. Building relationships founded on trust, respect and reciprocity with community members takes commitment, time, skill, and a willingness by researchers to be open-minded in terms of methodologies and new ideas. Different cultural norms, beliefs, perspectives and biases can further exacerbate these challenges. Here, we share three short case studies reflecting our own research experiences engaging with communities in the field of grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) ecology and conservation science. We conclude with guidelines for advancing effective community engagement and suggestions for tackling some common barriers. Overall, we offer considerations for a practical and more holistic approach to large carnivore conservation, established on a foundation of strong community support.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conservation through connection: Approaches to engaging communities in applied grizzly bear research

Hughes

Elmeligi²,

Morehouse³

2022

Front. Conserv. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, several of ongoing discourses on human–wildlife coexistence continue to focus on known examples of conflict, including studies of human interaction with elephants (Thekaekara et al., 2022), tigers (Inskip et al., 2016), and bears (Bhattacharyya & Slocombe, 2017). Also, much‐existing work positions human–wildlife coexistence as a problem in need of intervention, based on incomplete definitions and generic interpretations of tolerance as the primary focus (Pooley, 2022; Schroer, 2021). Thus, deeper meanings and expressions of coexistence and its extension into an understanding of anthropogenic wilderness remain broadly unrecognized.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, examining human–wildlife through a conflict lens only may overlook positive human encounters with wild animals (Frank et al., 2019; Nyhus, 2016). Focusing on human–wildlife interactions that reflect constructive and positive associations with animals, including coexistence, rather than negative outcomes only (Frank et al., 2019; Pooley, 2022), would provide opportunities to advance conservation targets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indigenous insights on human–wildlife coexistence in southern India

Jolly

Satterfield

Kandlikar

et al. 2022

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As human–wildlife conflicts escalate worldwide, concepts such as tolerance and acceptance of wildlife are becoming increasingly important. Yet, contemporary conservation studies indicate a limited understanding of positive human–wildlife interactions, leading to potentially inaccurate representations of human–animal encounters. Failure to address these limitations contributes to the design and implementation of poor wildlife and landscape management plans and the dismissal of Indigenous ecological knowledge. We examined Indigenous perspectives on human–wildlife coexistence in India by drawing ethnographic evidence from Kattunayakans, a forest‐dwelling Adivasi community living in the Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary in Kerala. Through qualitative field study that involved interviews and transect walks inside the forests, we found that Kattunayakans displayed tolerance and acceptance of wild animals characterized as forms of deep coexistence that involves three central ideas: wild animals as rational conversing beings; wild animals as gods, teachers, and equals; and wild animals as relatives with shared origins practicing dharmam. We argue that understanding these adequately will support efforts to bring Kattunayakan perspectives into the management of India's forests and contribute to the resolution of the human–wildlife conflict more broadly.

show abstract

“…The IUCN initiated a Task Force on Human-Wildlife Conflict in 2016, which evolved into a permanent Specialist Group on Human-Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence in 2022. Research on coexistence focuses on the experiences and perspectives of those sharing landscapes with wildlife outside of protected areas (Pooley et al, 2022 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The challenge of compassion in predator conservation

Pooley

2022

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that compassion for wild animals and the humans living alongside them should be integral to wildlife conservation. Nowhere is this more apparent than in predator conservation, and case studies are used to explore the consequences of wild animal attacks for human victims. Some arguments for extending compassionate consideration to animals seen as individuals are considered, along with the challenges these pose for predator conservation. A way forward from this apparent impasse is suggested, drawing on the capacity approach to embrace human with animal actors. The paper concludes with implications for predator conservation and recommendations, including incident responses sensitive to the traumatic impacts of attacks, and more collaborative approaches to handling human-wildlife interactions taking account of the capacities of local humans and wildlife.

show abstract

Editorial: Understanding Coexistence With Wildlife

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Conservation through connection: Approaches to engaging communities in applied grizzly bear research

Conservation through connection: Approaches to engaging communities in applied grizzly bear research

Indigenous insights on human–wildlife coexistence in southern India

The challenge of compassion in predator conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About