Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world [original]

Special Section: Challenges of and Solutions to Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Agricultural

Landscapes

Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world

Hannes J. König ,1Christian Kiffner ,2Stephanie Kramer-Schadt ,3,4 Christine Fürst ,5

Oliver Keuling ,6andAdamT.Ford 7

1Junior Research Group Human-Wildlife Conflict & Coexistence, Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Eber-

swalder Str. 84, Müncheberg, D-15374, Germany, email hkoenig@zalf.de

2Center for Wildlife Management Studies, The School for Field Studies (SFS), PO Box 304, Karatu, Tanzania

3Department of Biology, Technische Universität Berlin (TUB), Rothenburgstr. 12, Berlin, D-12165, Germany

4Department of Ecological Dynamics, Leibniz Institute for Zoo- and Wildlife Research (IZW), Alfred-Kowalke-Straße 17, Berlin, D-

10315, Germany

5Institute for Geosciences and Geography, Dept. Sustainable Landscape Development, Martin-Luther University Halle (MLU), Von-

Seckendorff-Platz 4, Halle (Saale), D-06120, Germany

6Institute for Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Research (ITAW), University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Bischofsholer Damm 15,

Hannover, D-30173, Germany

7Department of Biology, The University of British Columbia (UBC), 1177 Research Road, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: agricultural landscapes, conceptual framework, human–wildlife interaction, methods and tools for

human–wildlife research, protected areas, transboundary challenges

Coexistencia Humano – Vida Silvstre en un Mundo Cambiante

Resumen: El conflicto humano – vida silvestre (HWC) es un tema muy importante para la investigación agrícola

y de la conservación. Los tomadores de decisiones necesitan información basada en evidencias para diseñar planes

de manejo sustentable e instrumentos políticos. Sin embargo, proporcionar un apoyo objetivo para las decisiones

puede ser un reto ya que las realidades y percepciones de las interacciones humano – vida silvestre varían enorme-

mente entre y dentro de las áreas rurales, urbanas y peri-urbanas. Los usuarios de terrenos que incurren en costos

debido a la vida silvestre argumentan que las pérdidas relacionadas a la vida silvestre deberían ser compensadas

y que la prevención debería estar subsidiada. Es probable que quienes apoyan las políticas de coexistencia

entre humanos y vida silvestre, como los habitantes de zonas urbanas, no enfrenten una amenaza a su medio de

Article impact statement: Integrated and participatory research are needed to provide the evidence base to address human–wildlife conflict

and coexistence.

Paper submitted March 1, 2020; revised manuscript accepted April 3, 2020.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution

and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

786

Conservation Biology, Volume 34, No. 4, 786–794

DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13513

König et al. 787

subsistencia debido a la vida silvestre. Dicha heterogeneidad espacial en el costo y beneficio de cohabitar con

la vida silvestre es relevante en la mayoría de las sociedades contemporáneas. Esta Sección Especial presenta

contribuciones sobre daños inducidos por vida silvestre que van desde las perspectivas humanas (uso de suelo,

psicología, gobierno, actitudes y percepciones locales, costo y beneficio y la teoría del conflicto y la coexistencia

humano-vida silvestre) hasta las perspectivas ecológicas (comportamiento animal). A partir de los artículos y la

literatura actuales en esta sección desarrollamos un modelo conceptual para ayudar a estructurar los alcances

del HWC y de la coexistencia. El marco de trabajo puede usarse para determinar los niveles y estrategias de

implementación de la prevención del daño a la solución del conflicto humano - fauna. Nuestra síntesis reveló

que las estrategias inter- y transdisciplinarias y las estrategias de gobierno multiniveles pueden ayudar a que los

actores y las instituciones implementen estrategias de manejo sustentable para promover la coexistencia entre

los humanos y la vida silvestre.

Palabras Clave: áreas protegidas, interacción humano, fauna, marco de trabajo conceptual, métodos y her-

ramientas para la investigación humano, fauna, paisaje agrícola, retos transfronterizos

:

,

,,

,,

,

, (

) ()

,

,

,:;

:

:,,,,,

Introduction

Human–wildlife conflicts (HWCs) are common near

agricultural and other production landscapes, such as

urban and peri-urban areas or near protected areas

(PAs). Human-wildlife conflicts is defined as interactions

between wildlife humans with a negative outcome

(Madden 2004). From an anthropocentric perspective,

such conflicts may occur when wildlife damage crops,

injure or kill domestic animals, or threaten or kill people.

Because this is a reciprocal process, humans and animals

are negatively affected by the conflict, and HWC is one

of the most complex and urgent issues facing wildlife

management and conservation (Frank et al. 2019),

especially outside PAs (Woodroffe et al. 2005). Scholars

are seeking ways to refocus policy-relevant conflict

research on finding pathways toward human–wildlife

coexistence (Marchini et al. 2019) and coadaptation

(Carter & Linnell 2016).

The literature on HWCs, interaction, and coexistence

has grown exponentially in the last 20 years (Fig. 1), and

work on conflict (based on a keyword search) outpaces

work on interactions and coexistence 3-fold. This may

be because scholarship on human–wildlife interactions

has focused mainly on conflict (i.e., negative outcomes

for people, wildlife, or both) (Chapron & López-Bao

2020 [this issue]) or because new ways of thinking

about these interactions now include a paradigm of

coexistence. Most published studies were conducted in

the biological sciences (approximately 45%), followed

by the agricultural sciences (approximately 35%). Work

in the social sciences and humanities (approximately

12%) warrants greater attention and integration (Bennett

& Roth 2019; Frank et al. 2019).

Coexistence is defined as a dynamic but sustainable

state in which humans and wildlife coadapt to living

in shared landscapes, where human interactions with

wildlife are governed by effective institutions that

ensure long-term wildlife population persistence, social

legitimacy, and tolerable levels of risk (Carter & Linnell

2016). Although this term has only recently been used

by researchers, scientific focus on human–wildlife coex-

istence emerged much earlier (Herrero 1970). In 2003 a

Special Section in Conservation Biology was published:

“Human-Carnivore Conflict: Local Solutions with Global

Applications” (Treves & Karanth 2003). The guest editors

of the section highlighted the need for multidisciplinary

research in HWC and for involving policy makers and

managers. The importance of stakeholder participation

in environmental decision making is increasingly being

recognized, and multiple attempts have been made to

implement participative processes (Reed 2008). With

this Special Section on HWC, we sought to broaden the

scope by considering multiuse agricultural landscapes

and species ranging from native carnivores (e.g., lions

[Panthera leo], spotted hyena [Crocuta crocuta], and

Conservation Biology

Volume 34, No. 4, 2020

788 Conflicts and Coexistence

Figure 1. Number of peer-reviewed articles on

human–wildlife conflict, interaction, and coexistence

published from 2000 to 2019 based on literature

search in the Scopus database. Search strings are

“human–wildlife coexistence,” “human-wildlife

conflict,” and “human–wildlife interaction.”

wolves [Canis lupus]) and herbivores (e.g., elephants,

wild boar [Sus scrofa], and Japanese macaque [Macaca

fuscata]) to invasive species (e.g., camels, feral pigs, and

rabbits).

Examples in the section showcase wildlife disturbed

and threatened by agricultural practices and, in contrast,

wildlife that thrive in agricultural lands (i.e., have net

growth rates >1 and able to exploit anthropogenic

resources). The 11 contributions to this section include

comprehensive reviews, essays, and innovative case

studies from Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America,

where HWC and coexistence challenges differ.

Contributors were asked to address 3 critical questions

related to HWC and coexistence: What are the key

challenges of social–ecological models used to promote

coexistence? Which methodological and biological

considerations determine the effectiveness of mitigation

measures that can facilitate coexistence? And, which

dimensions, instruments, and levels of governance de-

termine the outcome of HWC and coexistence (Fig. 2)?

We considered why integrated research, based on a

combination of socioeconomic, socioecological, and ba-

sic ecological research methods, is needed to understand

and overcome the challenges of HWC and to transform

them into coexistence. We also examined theories,

concepts, and challenges of HWC and coexistence and

devised a conceptual framework to structure HWC and

Figure 2. Conceptual framework of human–wildlife

conflict (HWC) and coexistence that can be used to

determine damage prevention implementation levels

and approaches to human–wildlife conflict resolution.

coexistence into different dimensions, damage preven-

tion implementation levels, and methods and tools. We

applied our framework to the case of gray wolves (Canis

lupus) returning to Germany, although the framework

is generic enough to be transferrable to other conflict

scenarios. We also explored HWC challenges posed by

the decoupling of policy jurisdictional boundaries and

transboundary movement of wildlife.

In our synthesis of the Special Section contributions,

we sought to present a clear path to conflict solving:

a holistic perspective that objectively considers and

weighs diverging arguments of stakeholder groups to

provide the evidence base required to cope with the

diverse and challenging facets of HWC and coexistence.

We considered the role of holistic and interdisciplinary

(joint research among different scientific disciplines)

science in generating new knowledge about HWC and

coexistence and in facilitating transdisciplinary work

with stakeholders that bridge the gaps between science,

policy making, and practice. By transdisciplinary,we

mean coproduction of knowledge as boundary work

by policy makers and managers in research activities

in support of identifying solutions to a problem (von

Wehrden et al. 2019).

Call for Governance Structures

The underlying reasons for HWCs are manifold. The

unprecedented magnitude of natural resource use by

humans (Turner Ii et al. 2007) is fueled by a population

approaching 8 billion people, many of them in systems

that depend on persistent economic growth. The need

to produce food (Godfray et al. 2010) is accompanied by

high rates of land-use changes, which typically transform

Conservation Biology

Volume 34, No. 4, 2020

König et al. 789

natural or seminatural areas to urbanized and agricultural

areas (Foley et al. 2005).

Current HWC and coexistence research focuses

primarily on large mammals (Nyhus 2016), perhaps

because such species can pose a risk to human safety

and livelihoods. This anthropocentric view of wildlife

leads to classifying species as good or bad, without con-

sidering their intrinsic value. Human activities (e.g., land

conversion, harvesting, and introduction of non-native

species), however, constantly affects species’ presence

(Sala et al. 2000), but species may respond differently

to those human activities (Brashares 2010). Hence, due

to the finite nature of natural resources, agricultural and

human-dominated landscapes are increasingly becoming

arenas for human–wildlife interactions. Source–sink

dynamics attracting wildlife to human food sources and

the magnitude of conflict may be context dependent,

yet conflicts frequently attract considerable attention

where wildlife is perceived to negatively affect people’s

well-being or livelihoods (Kansky et al. 2016).

Moreover, human–wildlife interactions often trans-

lated into conflicts between people or groups of people

with divergent interests (Redpath et al. 2015). For

example, conflicts arise between farmers, who focus on

economic production, and conservationists, who seek

to maintain natural areas.

The institutional structures that shape interactions

between humans and wildlife are diverse and vary by re-

gion. For example, European approaches to coexistence

are often formalized through international regulatory

processes, and these may differ from processes in rural

areas in the global South, where more informal and

community-driven approaches typically provide the

context for coexistence (e.g., Broekhuis et al. 2018). The

effectiveness of international conservation agreements

in shaping human–wildlife coexistence remains largely

untested. The consensus is principally that coexistence

can be achieved only through a holistic perspective in

which socioeconomic and ecological aspects are given

full consideration (Nyhus 2016; Hill et al. 2017).

A key challenge in managing human–wildlife interac-

tions is to design and implement sustainable governance

mechanisms (Morzillo et al. 2014; Soulsbury & White

2015). People and most wildlife species have extensive

learning abilities, complex social life histories, and

their own agendas and strategies on how to access

and use resources. Instruments for spatial planning and

development at multiple scales are needed to manage

human–wildlife interactions sustainably to avoid or

reduce conflicts (Seijger et al. 2017) and to ensure a

sustainable coexistence (Woodroffe et al. 2005).

To make progress toward human–wildlife coexis-

tence, a better understanding and objective testing

of assumptions about the causes of wildlife-induced

damages from various perspectives, including wildlife

ecology, human perceptions and behavior, and legal

frameworks (Chapron & López-Bao 2020; Treves &

Santiago-Ávila 2020 [this issue]; Wilkinson et al. 2020

[this issue]) is essential. This is particularly important in

landscapes where people have modified nature in such

a way that agriculture provides habitat to some (pro-

tected) species and where novel governance models are

needed to balance shared land use between people and

wildlife.

Agriculture and Conservation Interface

Confronted with returning carnivores, such as gray

wolves and brown bears [ursus arctos]inEurope

(Chapron et al. 2014), governance (i.e., how to manage

conflicts or turn them into sustainable coexistence) is

challenged when conflicts become political (Treves et al.

2017). Ideally, finding solutions includes participatory

and stakeholder-inclusive approaches in which all regu-

latory agencies and community members codevelop pro-

grams that can collectively evaluate possible trade-offs

related to wildlife management goals (Dorresteijn et al.

2016; Martin et al. 2020). However, scant quantitative re-

search addresses how best to derive such a participatory

process in the context of human–wildlife coexistence.

In this Special Section, 2 conflict areas appear of major

concern: agricultural landscapes that provide habitat for

wildlife (Carter et al. 2020 [this issue]; Denninger Snyder

& Rentsch 2020 [this issue]; Perry et al. 2020 [this issue];

Rees et al. 2020 [this issue]; Tsunoda & Enari 2020 [this

issue]; Wilkinson et al. 2020) and transboundary PAs and

areas surrounding PAs (Jordan et al. 2020 [this issue];

Martínez-Jauregui et al. 2020 [this issue]; Salerno et al.

2020 [this issue]), where wildlife species damage mainly

subsistence farms and where effective implementation

of conservation laws has resulted in increased wildlife

populations. For people lacking access to governance

over wildlife management, informal actions, such as retal-

iatory killing or poaching, may occur at high rates outside

PAs and can have negative consequences for wildlife

inside PAs (Kahler et al. 2013). Such uncoordinated

and often illegal lethal management can have cascading

effects on the species’ distribution, abundance, and

long-term population viability (Woodroffe et al. 2005).

In other cases, lethal control can unintendedly increase

damage occurrences (Eklund et al. 2018; van Eeden

et al. 2018). Due to the often illegal, and thus cryptic,

nature of these informal responses, the magnitude

and effects of poaching on wildlife species are rarely

monitored directly (Liberg et al. 2012). Although strong

governance may help shape coexistence, formalized

governance is not a panacea for coexistence. For

example, heavily subsidized predator control programs

in the United States are aimed explicitly at reducing

carnivore populations rather than at contributing to

human–carnivore coexistence (Bergstrom 2017).

Conservation Biology

Volume 34, No. 4, 2020

790 Conflicts and Coexistence

Perhaps a formal and objective accounting of farm-

ers’ perceptions about wildlife-related damages and

establishing effective means for quantifying economic

losses and costs (i.e., transaction and opportunity costs)

(Carter et al. 2020; Jordan et al. 2020; Rees et al.

2020; Salerno et al. 2020) can improve transparency in

this controversial topic. We conclude that conservation

needs to focus especially on multiuse landscapes, such as

agricultural areas, where the interface between humans

and wildlife occurs.

Conceptual Framework and an HWC Example with

Wolves

Transforming HWC to sustainable coexistence requires

holistic and integrative approaches. Building on existing

literature and contributions to this section, we devel-

oped a conceptual framework for structuring different

dimensions of HWC, damage prevention implementation

levels, and methods and tools (Fig. 2). We considered

the case of gray wolves (Canis lupus)inGermanyto

illustrate how the framework can be applied to a specific

context. The framework applies mostly to conflicts that

are damagerelated, and less to those that are political.

Gray wolves returned to Germany in 2000, and

by 2019 there were 105 packs and 25 pairs and

13 individuals (approximately 700 individuals total

[www.dbb-wolf.de]). Livestock owners perceived and

experienced diverse direct and indirect economic losses

due to the presence of wolves and the subsequent need

to adapt to the new situation.

Governance

In response to the increasing wolf numbers, a strictly

protected species under the EU directive, Germany’s

parliament approved in 2019 (Bundestag 2019) an

amendment to the Nature Conservation Act that relaxes

lethal control of wolves (Kiffner et al. 2019). Adjustments

were justified mainly to establish legal options (e.g.,

killing injured and “problematic” wolves [i.e., wolves

that have repeatedly breached wolf-proof fences and

killed livestock]). Federal states must implement the law.

For example, Brandenburg (where most of the wolves

live in Germany) developed a state-specific regulation

that provides guidelines on when, how, and under what

circumstances wolves can be killed (Brandenburg 2019).

Capacity Building

Multiple stakeholder groups are directly and indirectly

affected by wolves. This includes livestock farmers, state

agencies that implement wolf monitoring and formally

handle livestock losses due to predation, private hunters

who perceive loss of prey, and wildlife managers who

cull problematic wolves. Capacity building (e.g., how

to build fences and apply for funding for fences or

for compensation) is carried out by legal authorities

or nongovernmental organizations and mainly targets

farmers who keep livestock.

Damage Prevention

Implementation of damage prevention measures in-

cludes fences built to a minimum standard height and

voltage and livestock guarding (Reinhardt et al. 2012).

Preventive killing of wolves is illegal. However, in the

event of repeated predation events, private hunters and

wildlife managers are allowed to kill individual wolves

or entire packs until local predation has stopped.

Context Adaptation

Adoption of effective mitigation strategies (Denninger

Snyder & Rentsch 2020) is key to effective damage

prevention and HWC and coexistence. Because one-size-

fits-all strategies to reduce HWC are ineffective (Eklund

et al. 2018), adaptation to specific HWC situations

is required. By considering legal frameworks (laws),

knowledge, and technical equipment (capacities and

capabilities), stakeholders (e.g., livestock keepers) may

choose their own damage prevention measures (e.g.,

fencing and guard dogs) to cope with wolves.

Challenges

Although this governance approach appears relatively

straightforward, the seamless integration of local actors

affected by wolves remains a challenge. For example,

payment routines for carnivore damages are subject to

bureaucratic processes, delayed access to funds, and

unresolved claims (Morehouse et al. 2018). For some

stakeholders, whose dominant belief system focuses

on the existence and intrinsic value of wolves on the

landscape (Boman & Bostedt 1999), the expansion

of carnivore populations to new areas challenges the

utilitarian value of people’s livestock. The current model

lacks an explicit system to evaluate the effectiveness of

the implemented mitigation methods and even an assess-

ment of the benefits that the return of an apex predator

will yield, such as dilution of pathogens or reduction of

browsing damage (Ripple et al. 2014). We suggest such

an evidence basis is a necessary step in effective damage

prevention. In this case, wolf predation behavior, land-

scape and governance structures, and farm management

ideally inform a holistic and integrated assessment.

Management Options for Coexistence

It is a general management challenge when humans and

wildlife live in transboundary areas. Although we are

aware that people and wildlife have always had lethal

and nonlethal interactions, there are emerging frontiers

Conservation Biology

Volume 34, No. 4, 2020

Loading more pages...