Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world

  • Hannes J. König
    Junior Research Group Human‐Wildlife Conflict & Coexistence Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) Eberswalder Str. 84 Müncheberg D‐15374 Germany
  • Christian Kiffner
    Center for Wildlife Management Studies The School for Field Studies (SFS) PO Box 304 Karatu Tanzania
  • Stephanie Kramer‐Schadt
    Department of Biology Technische Universität Berlin (TUB) Rothenburgstr. 12 Berlin D‐12165 Germany
  • Christine Fürst
    Institute for Geosciences and Geography, Dept. Sustainable Landscape Development Martin‐Luther University Halle (MLU) Von‐Seckendorff‐Platz 4 Halle (Saale) D‐06120 Germany
  • Oliver Keuling
    Institute for Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Research (ITAW) University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover Bischofsholer Damm 15 Hannover D‐30173 Germany
  • Adam T. Ford
    Department of Biology The University of British Columbia (UBC) 1177 Research Road Kelowna BC V1V 1V7 Canada

抄録

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Human–wildlife conflict (HWC) is a key topic in conservation and agricultural research. Decision makers need evidence‐based information to design sustainable management plans and policy instruments. However, providing objective decision support can be challenging because realities and perceptions of human–wildlife interactions vary widely between and within rural, urban, and peri‐urban areas. Land users who incur costs through wildlife argue that wildlife‐related losses should be compensated and that prevention should be subsidized. Supporters of human–wildlife coexistence policies, such as urban‐dwelling people, may not face threats to their livelihoods from wildlife. Such spatial heterogeneity in the cost and benefits of living with wildlife is germane in most contemporary societies. This Special Section features contributions on wildlife‐induced damages that range from human perspectives (land use, psychology, governance, local attitudes and perceptions, costs and benefits, and HWC and coexistence theory) to ecological perspectives (animal behavior). Building on current literature and articles in this section, we developed a conceptual model to help frame HWC and coexistence dimensions. The framework can be used to determine damage prevention implementation levels and approaches to HWC resolution. Our synthesis revealed that inter‐ and transdisciplinary approaches and multilevel governance approaches can help stakeholders and institutions implement sustainable management strategies that promote human–wildlife coexistence.</jats:p>

収録刊行物

被引用文献 (3)*注記

もっと見る

問題の指摘

ページトップへ