Governing trade‐offs in ecosystem services and disservices to achieve human–wildlife coexistence

Abstract

Sustaining wildlife populations, which provide both ecosystem services and disservices, represents a worldwide conservation challenge. The ecosystem services and Ostrom's social–ecological systems frameworks have been adopted across natural and social sciences to characterize benefits from nature. Despite their generalizability, individually they do not include explicit tools for addressing the sustainable management of many wildlife populations. For instance, Ostrom's framework does not specifically address competing perspectives on wildlife, whereas the ecosystem services framework provides a limited representation of the social and governance context wherein such competing perspectives are embedded. We developed a unified social–ecological framework of ecosystem disservices and services (SEEDS) that advances both frameworks by explicitly acknowledging the importance of competing wildlife perspectives embedded in the social and governance contexts. The SEEDS framework emulates the hierarchical structure of Ostrom's social–ecological systems, but adds subsystems reflecting heterogeneous stakeholder views and experiences of wildlife‐based services and disservices. To facilitate operationalizing SEEDS and further broader analyses across human–wildlife systems, we devised a list of variables to describe SEEDS subsystems, such as types and level of services and disservices, cost and benefit sharing, and social participation of stakeholders. Steps to implement SEEDS involve engaging local communities and stakeholders to define the subsystems, analyze interactions and outcomes, and identify leverage points and actions to remedy unwanted outcomes. These steps connect SEEDS with other existing approaches in social–ecological research and can guide analyses across systems or within individual systems to provide new insights and management options for sustainable human–wildlife coexistence.

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

“…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.…”

“…Indeed, ecosystem services provided by carnivores were reported only in 38% of articles. Neglecting ecosystem services provided by carnivores, both in scientific research and outreach activities, can undermine attempts to foster human tolerance for carnivores, which is a critical component of coexistence (Peterson et al 2010, Pooley et al 2017, Ceausu et al 2018, Lozano et al 2019. Therefore, we call for a shift in mindset that recognizes the dual role of carnivores as providers of both ecosystem services and disservices to humans.…”

“…trophic cascades, Beschta and Ripple 2009) that translate in key regulating ecosystem services in rewilding landscapes (Kuijper et al 2016). New analytical frameworks have been developed to evaluate tradeoffs in ecosystem services and disservices from carnivores to different recipients (Ceausu et al 2018), although parameterizing these frameworks with empirical data across sites and species are much needed. This idea of the dual role of biodiversity as provider of beneficial and detrimental contributions to people has been acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services under the paradigm of 'nature's contributions to people' (Díaz et al 2018).…”

Integrated spatial analysis for human–wildlife coexistence in the American West

“…Evaluating spatial patterns of ecosystem services, disservices, and their recipients Researchers also seek to quantify and map ecosystem services provided by wildlife, such as ecotourism, crop pollination, or waste and pest removal (Lozano et al 2019). In other instances, wildlife can be the source of ecosystem disservices or conflicts, such as crop damage or livestock depredation (Ceauşu et al 2019). However, a recent global assessment found that current research has emphasized conflicts in lieu of taking into account both benefits and costs of wildlife (Lozano et al 2019).…”

Anthropocene refugia: integrating history and predictive modelling to assess the space available for biodiversity in a human-dominated world

“…The socio-ecological 324 implications of some species' recolonising part of their historical range or occupying new areas should be 325 carefully considered, in particular for species often involved in human-wildlife conflicts, such as large 326 carnivores [82]. Unified socio-ecological approaches that explicitly acknowledge competing perspectives 327 between wildlife conservation and social and governance contexts can be applied to provide new insights 328 into management options for sustainable human-wildlife coexistence [83]. 329 6.…”