Rethinking the study of human–wildlife coexistence

Abstract

Although coexistence with wildlife is a key goal of conservation, little is known about it or how to study it. By coexistence we mean a sustainable though dynamic state in which humans and wildlife coadapt to sharing landscapes, where human interactions with wildlife are effectively governed to ensure wildlife populations persist in socially legitimate ways that ensure tolerable risk levels. Problems that arise from current conflictoriented framing of human-wildlife interactions include reinforcing a human-nature dichotomy as fundamentally oppositional, suggesting coexistence requires the absence of conflict, and skewing research and management toward direct negative impacts over indirect impacts and positive aspects of living with wildlife. Human behavior toward wildlife is framed as rational calculus of costs and benefits, sidelining emotional and cultural dimensions of these interactions. Coexistence is less studied due to unfamiliarity with relevant methodologies, including qualitative methods, self-reflexivity and ethical rigor, and constraints on funding and time. These challenges are illustrated with examples from fieldwork in India and Africa. We recommend a basic approach to case studies aimed at expanding the scope of inquiries into human-wildlife relations beyond studies of rational behavior and quantification of costs and benefits of wildlife to humans.

More Than Just No Conflict: Examining the Two Sides of the Coexistence Coin

“…Indeed, all of this is easier in theory than in practice. Further, as Pooley et al (2020) pointed out, coexistence is a dynamic state implying that the same stakeholder group may feel differently toward wildlife in different situations/contexts. Additionally, the agency of the animals is completely missing from the discussion.…”

Human-Wildlife Conflicts in the Southern Yungas: What Role do Raptors Play for Local Settlers?

“…These factors may be rooted in cultural views of local settlers, which conservation agents could be questioning when they intervened in HWI, exacerbating HWC through human-human conflict. Scientists, legislators and other related stakeholders usually pursue top-down approaches, such as imposed political resolutions and legal mandates [ 8 ], adopting a position in which the truth-telling power of the scientific method is put in direct opposition and above of how locals experience and explain human–wildlife relations [ 95 ]. Such is the case for the Andean condor, where failure to recognize the condor predatory capacity leads local settlers to mistrust scientists, questioning their neutrality when addressing conservation challenges.…”

Tiger Becomes Termite Hill: Soliga/Solega Perceptions of Wildlife Interactions and Ecological Change

“…Drawing upon their fieldwork studying crocodile attacks in west India, Pooley et al (2021) argue for a shift in focus from conflict-oriented frameworks to co-existence, which include the cultural lens through which communities negotiate their interactions with wildlife. They define co-existence as "a sustainable though dynamic state, where humans and wildlife coadapt to sharing landscapes and human interactions with wildlife are effectively governed to ensure wildlife populations persist in socially legitimate ways that ensure tolerable risk levels."…”