An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human-predator relations

S. Pooley*, M. Barua, W. Beinart, A. Dickman, G. Holmes, J. Lorimer, A. J. Loveridge, D. W. Macdonald, G. Marvin, S. Redpath, C. Sillero-Zubiri, A. Zimmermann, E. J. Milner-Gulland

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

36 Citations (Scopus)
7 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In a world of shrinking habitats and increasing competition for natural resources, potentially dangerous predators bring the challenges of coexisting with wildlife sharply into focus. Through interdisciplinary collaboration among authors trained in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, we reviewed current approaches to mitigating adverse human-predator encounters and devised a vision for future approaches to understanding and mitigating such encounters. Limitations to current approaches to mitigation include too much focus on negative impacts; oversimplified equating of levels of damage with levels of conflict; and unsuccessful technical fixes resulting from failure to engage locals, address hidden costs, or understand cultural (nonscientific) explanations of the causality of attacks. An emerging interdisciplinary literature suggests that to better frame and successfully mitigate negative human-predator relations conservation professionals need to consider dispensing with conflict as the dominant framework for thinking about human-predator encounters; work out what conflicts are really about (they may be human-human conflicts); unravel the historical contexts of particular conflicts; and explore different cultural ways of thinking about animals. The idea of cosmopolitan natures may help conservation professionals think more clearly about human-predator relations in both local and global context. These new perspectives for future research practice include a recommendation for focused interdisciplinary research and the use of new approaches, including human-animal geography, multispecies ethnography, and approaches from the environmental humanities notably environmental history. Managers should think carefully about how they engage with local cultural beliefs about wildlife, work with all parties to agree on what constitutes good evidence, develop processes and methods to mitigate conflicts, and decide how to monitor and evaluate these. Demand for immediate solutions that benefit both conservation and development favors dispute resolution and technical fixes, which obscures important underlying drivers of conflicts. If these drivers are not considered, well-intentioned efforts focused on human-wildlife conflicts will fail.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)513–523
Number of pages11
JournalConservation Biology
Volume31
Issue number3
Early online date13 Feb 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2017

Fingerprint

predator
predators
wildlife
human-wildlife relations
interdisciplinary research
social science and humanities
zoogeography
anthropology
dispute resolution
social sciences
environmental history
conflict
animal
natural resources
managers
mitigation
natural resource
history
monitoring
damage

Keywords

  • conservation management
  • human–wildlife conflict
  • interdisciplinary research
  • predators
  • conflicto humano – vida silvestre
  • depredadores
  • investigación interdisciplinaria
  • manejo de la conservación

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Ecology
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation

Cite this

Pooley, S., Barua, M., Beinart, W., Dickman, A., Holmes, G., Lorimer, J., ... Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2017). An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human-predator relations. Conservation Biology, 31(3), 513–523 . https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12859

An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human-predator relations. / Pooley, S.; Barua, M.; Beinart, W.; Dickman, A.; Holmes, G.; Lorimer, J.; Loveridge, A. J.; Macdonald, D. W.; Marvin, G.; Redpath, S.; Sillero-Zubiri, C.; Zimmermann, A.; Milner-Gulland, E. J.

In: Conservation Biology, Vol. 31, No. 3, 01.06.2017, p. 513–523 .

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pooley, S, Barua, M, Beinart, W, Dickman, A, Holmes, G, Lorimer, J, Loveridge, AJ, Macdonald, DW, Marvin, G, Redpath, S, Sillero-Zubiri, C, Zimmermann, A & Milner-Gulland, EJ 2017, 'An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human-predator relations', Conservation Biology, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 513–523 . https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12859
Pooley, S. ; Barua, M. ; Beinart, W. ; Dickman, A. ; Holmes, G. ; Lorimer, J. ; Loveridge, A. J. ; Macdonald, D. W. ; Marvin, G. ; Redpath, S. ; Sillero-Zubiri, C. ; Zimmermann, A. ; Milner-Gulland, E. J. / An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human-predator relations. In: Conservation Biology. 2017 ; Vol. 31, No. 3. pp. 513–523 .
@article{da12d2bb8689446d817a7aad8d074395,
title = "An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human-predator relations",
abstract = "In a world of shrinking habitats and increasing competition for natural resources, potentially dangerous predators bring the challenges of coexisting with wildlife sharply into focus. Through interdisciplinary collaboration among authors trained in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, we reviewed current approaches to mitigating adverse human-predator encounters and devised a vision for future approaches to understanding and mitigating such encounters. Limitations to current approaches to mitigation include too much focus on negative impacts; oversimplified equating of levels of damage with levels of conflict; and unsuccessful technical fixes resulting from failure to engage locals, address hidden costs, or understand cultural (nonscientific) explanations of the causality of attacks. An emerging interdisciplinary literature suggests that to better frame and successfully mitigate negative human-predator relations conservation professionals need to consider dispensing with conflict as the dominant framework for thinking about human-predator encounters; work out what conflicts are really about (they may be human-human conflicts); unravel the historical contexts of particular conflicts; and explore different cultural ways of thinking about animals. The idea of cosmopolitan natures may help conservation professionals think more clearly about human-predator relations in both local and global context. These new perspectives for future research practice include a recommendation for focused interdisciplinary research and the use of new approaches, including human-animal geography, multispecies ethnography, and approaches from the environmental humanities notably environmental history. Managers should think carefully about how they engage with local cultural beliefs about wildlife, work with all parties to agree on what constitutes good evidence, develop processes and methods to mitigate conflicts, and decide how to monitor and evaluate these. Demand for immediate solutions that benefit both conservation and development favors dispute resolution and technical fixes, which obscures important underlying drivers of conflicts. If these drivers are not considered, well-intentioned efforts focused on human-wildlife conflicts will fail.",
keywords = "conservation management, human–wildlife conflict, interdisciplinary research, predators, conflicto humano – vida silvestre, depredadores, investigaci{\'o}n interdisciplinaria, manejo de la conservaci{\'o}n",
author = "S. Pooley and M. Barua and W. Beinart and A. Dickman and G. Holmes and J. Lorimer and Loveridge, {A. J.} and Macdonald, {D. W.} and G. Marvin and S. Redpath and C. Sillero-Zubiri and A. Zimmermann and Milner-Gulland, {E. J.}",
note = "Acknowledgments S.P. is grateful for a grant from The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities (TORCH) to convene a workshop at which the authors developed a list of key challenges, concepts, approaches, and references. We thank D. Macdonald and his team for hosting us at the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU) of the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, and 2 anonymous reviewers for very constructive comments.",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/cobi.12859",
language = "English",
volume = "31",
pages = "513–523",
journal = "Conservation Biology",
issn = "0888-8892",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human-predator relations

AU - Pooley, S.

AU - Barua, M.

AU - Beinart, W.

AU - Dickman, A.

AU - Holmes, G.

AU - Lorimer, J.

AU - Loveridge, A. J.

AU - Macdonald, D. W.

AU - Marvin, G.

AU - Redpath, S.

AU - Sillero-Zubiri, C.

AU - Zimmermann, A.

AU - Milner-Gulland, E. J.

N1 - Acknowledgments S.P. is grateful for a grant from The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities (TORCH) to convene a workshop at which the authors developed a list of key challenges, concepts, approaches, and references. We thank D. Macdonald and his team for hosting us at the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU) of the Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, and 2 anonymous reviewers for very constructive comments.

PY - 2017/6/1

Y1 - 2017/6/1

N2 - In a world of shrinking habitats and increasing competition for natural resources, potentially dangerous predators bring the challenges of coexisting with wildlife sharply into focus. Through interdisciplinary collaboration among authors trained in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, we reviewed current approaches to mitigating adverse human-predator encounters and devised a vision for future approaches to understanding and mitigating such encounters. Limitations to current approaches to mitigation include too much focus on negative impacts; oversimplified equating of levels of damage with levels of conflict; and unsuccessful technical fixes resulting from failure to engage locals, address hidden costs, or understand cultural (nonscientific) explanations of the causality of attacks. An emerging interdisciplinary literature suggests that to better frame and successfully mitigate negative human-predator relations conservation professionals need to consider dispensing with conflict as the dominant framework for thinking about human-predator encounters; work out what conflicts are really about (they may be human-human conflicts); unravel the historical contexts of particular conflicts; and explore different cultural ways of thinking about animals. The idea of cosmopolitan natures may help conservation professionals think more clearly about human-predator relations in both local and global context. These new perspectives for future research practice include a recommendation for focused interdisciplinary research and the use of new approaches, including human-animal geography, multispecies ethnography, and approaches from the environmental humanities notably environmental history. Managers should think carefully about how they engage with local cultural beliefs about wildlife, work with all parties to agree on what constitutes good evidence, develop processes and methods to mitigate conflicts, and decide how to monitor and evaluate these. Demand for immediate solutions that benefit both conservation and development favors dispute resolution and technical fixes, which obscures important underlying drivers of conflicts. If these drivers are not considered, well-intentioned efforts focused on human-wildlife conflicts will fail.

AB - In a world of shrinking habitats and increasing competition for natural resources, potentially dangerous predators bring the challenges of coexisting with wildlife sharply into focus. Through interdisciplinary collaboration among authors trained in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, we reviewed current approaches to mitigating adverse human-predator encounters and devised a vision for future approaches to understanding and mitigating such encounters. Limitations to current approaches to mitigation include too much focus on negative impacts; oversimplified equating of levels of damage with levels of conflict; and unsuccessful technical fixes resulting from failure to engage locals, address hidden costs, or understand cultural (nonscientific) explanations of the causality of attacks. An emerging interdisciplinary literature suggests that to better frame and successfully mitigate negative human-predator relations conservation professionals need to consider dispensing with conflict as the dominant framework for thinking about human-predator encounters; work out what conflicts are really about (they may be human-human conflicts); unravel the historical contexts of particular conflicts; and explore different cultural ways of thinking about animals. The idea of cosmopolitan natures may help conservation professionals think more clearly about human-predator relations in both local and global context. These new perspectives for future research practice include a recommendation for focused interdisciplinary research and the use of new approaches, including human-animal geography, multispecies ethnography, and approaches from the environmental humanities notably environmental history. Managers should think carefully about how they engage with local cultural beliefs about wildlife, work with all parties to agree on what constitutes good evidence, develop processes and methods to mitigate conflicts, and decide how to monitor and evaluate these. Demand for immediate solutions that benefit both conservation and development favors dispute resolution and technical fixes, which obscures important underlying drivers of conflicts. If these drivers are not considered, well-intentioned efforts focused on human-wildlife conflicts will fail.

KW - conservation management

KW - human–wildlife conflict

KW - interdisciplinary research

KW - predators

KW - conflicto humano – vida silvestre

KW - depredadores

KW - investigación interdisciplinaria

KW - manejo de la conservación

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85012262520&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/cobi.12859

DO - 10.1111/cobi.12859

M3 - Article

VL - 31

SP - 513

EP - 523

JO - Conservation Biology

JF - Conservation Biology

SN - 0888-8892

IS - 3

ER -