Zeitschriftenartikel zum Thema „Human-Wildlife conflict and coexistence“
Um die anderen Arten von Veröffentlichungen zu diesem Thema anzuzeigen, folgen Sie diesem Link: Human-Wildlife conflict and coexistence.
Geben Sie eine Quelle nach APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard und anderen Zitierweisen an
Machen Sie sich mit Top-50 Zeitschriftenartikel für die Forschung zum Thema "Human-Wildlife conflict and coexistence" bekannt.
Neben jedem Werk im Literaturverzeichnis ist die Option "Zur Bibliographie hinzufügen" verfügbar. Nutzen Sie sie, wird Ihre bibliographische Angabe des gewählten Werkes nach der nötigen Zitierweise (APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver usw.) automatisch gestaltet.
Sie können auch den vollen Text der wissenschaftlichen Publikation im PDF-Format herunterladen und eine Online-Annotation der Arbeit lesen, wenn die relevanten Parameter in den Metadaten verfügbar sind.
Sehen Sie die Zeitschriftenartikel für verschiedene Spezialgebieten durch und erstellen Sie Ihre Bibliographie auf korrekte Weise.
1
Goswami, V. R., D. Vasudev, D. Karnad, Y. C. Krishna, M. Krishnadas, M. Pariwakam, T. Nair, A. Andheria, S. Sridhara und I. Siddiqui. „Conflict of human-wildlife coexistence“. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, Nr. 2 (02.01.2013): E108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1215758110.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
2
Nyhus, Philip J. „Human–Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence“. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41, Nr. 1 (November 2016): 143–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085634.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
3
Su, Kaiwen, Han Zhang, Lin Lin, Yilei Hou und Yali Wen. „Bibliometric analysis of human–wildlife conflict: From conflict to coexistence“. Ecological Informatics 68 (Mai 2022): 101531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101531.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
4
Klees van Bommel, Joanna, Catherine Sun, Adam T. Ford, Melissa Todd und A. Cole Burton. „Coexistence or conflict: Black bear habitat use along an urban-wildland gradient“. PLOS ONE 17, Nr. 11 (29.11.2022): e0276448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276448.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The urban-wildland interface is expanding and increasing the risk of human-wildlife conflict. Some wildlife species adapt to or avoid living near people, while others select for anthropogenic resources and are thus more prone to conflict. To promote human-wildlife coexistence, wildlife and land managers need to understand how conflict relates to habitat and resource use in the urban-wildland interface. We investigated black bear (Ursus americanus) habitat use across a gradient of human disturbance in a North American hotspot of human-black bear conflict. We used camera traps to monitor bear activity from July 2018 to July 2019, and compared bear habitat use to environmental and anthropogenic variables and spatiotemporal probabilities of conflict. Bears predominantly used areas of high vegetation productivity and increased their nocturnality near people. Still, bears used more high-conflict areas in summer and autumn, specifically rural lands with ripe crops. Our results suggest that bears are generally modifying their behaviours in the urban-wildland interface through spatial and temporal avoidance of humans, which may facilitate coexistence. However, conflict still occurs, especially in autumn when hyperphagia and peak crop availability attract bears to abundant rural food resources. To improve conflict mitigation practices, we recommend targeting seasonal rural attractants with pre-emptive fruit picking, bear-proof compost containment, and other forms of behavioural deterrence. By combining camera-trap monitoring of a large carnivore along an anthropogenic gradient with conflict mapping, we provide a framework for evidence-based improvements in human-wildlife coexistence.
5
Serenari, Christopher. „Beyond Tolerance: Mitigating Human–Wildlife Conflict with Hospitality“. Animals 14, Nr. 8 (15.04.2024): 1185. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani14081185.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Tolerance has become a central position in wildlife conservation thought, and a goal in and of itself. Appeals to tolerance are expected to grow as the planet becomes more crowded, species are lost, and habitat is degraded. The concept has been uncritically adopted in wildlife conservation to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts (HWCs). However, scholars have demonstrated that tolerance is burdened with limitations, paradoxes, and shortcomings. Thus, blind adherence to it is not expected to produce a coexistence design necessary to sustain wildlife populations in the long term. This paper is a conceptual scoping project that engages a summary and critique of tolerance as a design principle within wildlife conservation governance. After introducing a resultant theory of dysfunctional human–wildlife coexistence, a pathway toward hospitality as a social institution is outlined via several commitments societies can make to transition to an era of normalizing a process of sincere welcoming, care, and support. The transition from tolerance to hospitality will entail shifting responsibility to humans to modify their behavior to help keep wildlife invisible where it is essential, learning about what wildlife want and need, and ensuring wildlife is not injured for being themselves.
6
Hockings, Kimberley Jane. „Living at the interface“. Interaction Studies 10, Nr. 2 (23.07.2009): 183–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/is.10.2.05hoc.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Human–wildlife interactions have existed for thousands of years, however as human populations increase and human impact on natural ecosystems becomes more intensive, both parties are increasingly being forced to compete for resources vital to both. Humans can value wildlife in many contexts promoting coexistence, while in other situations, such as crop-raiding, wildlife conflicts with the interests of people. As our closest phylogenetic relatives, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in particular occupy a special importance in terms of their complex social and cultural relationship with humans. A case study is presented that focuses on the Bossou chimpanzees’ (Pan troglodytes verus) perspective of their habitat in the Republic of Guinea, West Africa, by highlighting the risks and opportunities presented by a human-dominated landscape, and detailing their day-to-day coexistence with humans. Understanding how rural people perceive chimpanzees and how chimpanzees adapt to living in anthropogenic environments will enhance our understanding of how people-wildlife interactions develop into situations of conflict and therefore can generate sustainable solutions to prevent or mitigate situations of conflict.
7
Kamande, Samuel Ngotho, Dr Emily Okuto und Colonel (Dr) John Kisilu Reuben. „Human-Wildlife Conflict Management: Towards a Comprehensive Strategies for Sustainable Coexistence in Conservancies in Laikipia County“. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science VII, Nr. IX (2023): 1011–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2023.70988.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The article explores the rampant issue of human-wildlife conflicts (HWC) in conservancies, primarily focusing on Laikipia County, Kenya. In response to the escalating global challenge of HWC, privately run conservancies have emerged as a proactive approach to safeguarding natural ecosystems while promoting responsible resource utilization. These conservancies also aim to reshape societal perceptions and behaviors regarding wildlife. However, the conservancies in Laikipia County currently face a significant HWC crisis due to the encroachment of human activities into wildlife habitats. This encroachment has led to adverse consequences for biodiversity conservation and local livelihoods. The insufficiency of existing control measures necessitates the development of comprehensive strategies that can effectively reduce conflicts, protect the interests of both human and wildlife populations, and ensure the long-term viability of conservancies. The study employs the socio-ecological systems (SES) theory as its foundational framework. Research within Laikipia County involves diverse participants, including conservancy staff, community leaders, and representatives from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) engaged in community outreach. The study adopts a mixed-methods approach, utilizing questionnaires and interviews to collect primary and secondary data. Quantitative data is analyzed using SPSS version 21, while qualitative analysis uncovers underlying patterns and themes in the dataset. The study’s findings emphasize the pivotal role of community engagement and strategic land use planning in mitigating human-wildlife conflicts. The data highlights that private conservancies actively organize community training programs to raise awareness about the significance of wildlife conservation. Moreover, a shift in land use, explicitly transitioning from livestock rearing to cropland cultivation, emerges as a viable strategy for reducing conflict incidents in Laikipia County. The SES theory underscores the importance of understanding both social and ecological factors for coexistence. Social acceptability influences attitudes towards wildlife, impacting conflict dynamics and conservation efforts. Striking a balance between environmental diversity and social acceptability is crucial for effective conflict resolution. The study’s results reveal how conservancies’ impact on local lifestyles can influence attitudes and values, potentially leading to conflicts between humans and wildlife.
8
Fletcher, Robert, und Svetoslava Toncheva. „The political economy of human-wildlife conflict and coexistence“. Biological Conservation 260 (August 2021): 109216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109216.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
9
Treves, Adrian, und Francisco J. Santiago‐Ávila. „Myths and assumptions about human‐wildlife conflict and coexistence“. Conservation Biology 34, Nr. 4 (14.05.2020): 811–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13472.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
10
Zimmermann, Alexandra. „First global summit on human–wildlife conflict and coexistence“. Oryx 57, Nr. 4 (Juli 2023): 417–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0030605323000431.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
11
Shanko, Getahun, und Bekele Tona. „Human-Terrestrial Wildlife Conflict in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review“. Scientific World Journal 2022 (29.08.2022): 1–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/2612716.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
We conducted a review of 26 articles published between 2009 and 2021 to determine human-wildlife conflict based on spatial and temporal patterns, biological components, drivers of conflict, and mitigation methods used. We employed search, synthesis, appraisal, and analysis framework for review and VOSviewer software for network analysis. We included articles that only focused on relations between terrestrial wildlife and humans, while others deal with ecology, distribution, and biology of wildlife because it does not go with HWC. Forty-seven species of terrestrial vertebrates were reported in conflict-related studies, being Bovidae and Cercopithecidae the most frequently studied groups, of which eleven are found in threatened list species. The main drivers reported were land use change, proximity to protected areas, and illegal resource exploitation. In the management case, the use of traditional protection techniques such as fencing, guarding, and physical barriers was reported. About 178 keywords’ analysis revealed a focus on “coexistence,” “mitigation,” and “food security.” The literature focused mainly on larger mammals, led by Ethiopian authors, and excluded the social dimensions of HWC. Therefore, identifying conflict-prone species focuses on the social dimensions of coexistence, such as human attitudes towards terrestrial wildlife, and broadening the taxonomic and cultural breadth of HWC is required.
12
Bhatia, Saloni, Stephen Mark Redpath, Kulbhushansingh Suryawanshi und Charudutt Mishra. „Beyond conflict: exploring the spectrum of human–wildlife interactions and their underlying mechanisms“. Oryx 54, Nr. 5 (04.11.2019): 621–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s003060531800159x.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
AbstractHumans have lived alongside and interacted with wild animals throughout evolutionary history. Even though wild animals can damage property, or injure humans and domesticated animals, not all interactions between humans and wildlife are negative. Yet, research has tended to focus disproportionately on negative interactions leading to negative outcomes, labelling this human–wildlife conflict. Studies have identified several factors, ranging from gender, religion, socio-economics and literacy, which influence people's responses to wildlife. We used the ISI Web of Knowledge database to assess quantitatively how human–wildlife interactions are framed in the scientific literature and to understand the hypotheses that have been invoked to explain these. We found that the predominant focus of research was on human–wildlife conflict (71%), with little coverage of coexistence (2%) or neutral interactions (8%). We suggest that such a framing is problematic as it can lead to biases in conservation planning by failing to consider the nuances of people's relationships with wildlife and the opportunities that exist for conservation. We propose a typology of human responses to wildlife impacts, ranging from negative to positive, to help moderate the disproportionate focus on conflict. We suggest that standardizing terminology and considering interactions beyond those that are negative can lead to a more nuanced understanding of human–wildlife relations and help promote greater coexistence between people and wildlife. We also list the various influential factors that are reported to shape human–wildlife interactions and, to generate further hypotheses and research, classify them into 55 proximate (correlates) and five ultimate (mechanisms) factors.
13
Mishra, Poonam, Anubha Chaudhary, Aayush Raj Tyagi, Anjali Gangwar, Anurag Tyagi, Mahima Singh, Megha Kaushik et al. „First Ministry-Academia Collaborative Report on Causes and Remedies of Human-Animal Conflict at Hastinapur Wildlife Sanctuary, Uttar Pradesh, India“. International Journal of Ecology 2022 (07.11.2022): 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/3543650.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Sustainable coexistence of different components of an ecosystem is a fundamental requirement for the overall welfare of the human population worldwide. Despite this fact, continued growth in human population, increasing demand for various available natural resources, and invasion of all inhabitable habitats have led to the destruction of the coexistence of wildlife and human and also caused the fragmentation of natural habitat for the wildlife in India. This in turn may viciously affect the rural population residing in the nearby area of such regions, for example, the area covered for sanctuaries, which are established in consideration to provide protection to the indigenous wildlife. Hence, it becomes essential to mitigate such conflicts to create a healthy environment for cosurvival of all stakeholders. Here, in this study, we have tried to figure out the possible reasons and provide certain cures to avoid the recurring human-wildlife conflicts in one of the largest wildlife sanctuaries, Hastinapur wildlife sanctuary, situated in Uttar Pradesh, India.
14
Frank, Beatrice, und Brandon P. Anthony. „Towards More Resilient Conservation Practices: Bridging the Past and Present of Human–Wildlife Interactions“. Sustainability 13, Nr. 21 (03.11.2021): 12131. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su132112131.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Human–wildlife interactions (HWI), whether they be conflict to coexistence situations, are widely researched and described in the literature, as shown by the flourishing of HWI publications over the past 20 years [...]
15
Larson, Kelli L., Jose-Benito Rosales Chavez, Jeffrey A. Brown, Jorge Morales-Guerrero und Dayanara Avilez. „Human–Wildlife Interactions and Coexistence in an Urban Desert Environment“. Sustainability 15, Nr. 4 (10.02.2023): 3307. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su15043307.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Negative interactions between people and wildlife pose a significant challenge to their coexistence. Past research on human–wildlife interactions has largely focused on conflicts involving carnivores in rural areas. Additional research is needed in urban areas to examine the full array of negative and positive interactions between people and wildlife. In this study, we have conducted interviews in the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona (USA), to explore residents’ everyday interactions with wildlife where they live. Our multifaceted approach examines interactions involving physical contact and observational experiences, as well as associated attitudinal and behavioral responses and actions toward wildlife. Overall, the qualitative analysis of residents’ narratives identified two distinct groups: people who are indifferent toward wildlife where they live, and those who appreciate and steward wildlife. Instead of revealing conflicts and negative interactions toward wildlife, our findings underscore the positive interactions that can foster human wellbeing in urban areas. The holistic approach presented herein can advance knowledge and the management of coexistence, which involves not only managing conflicts but also tolerance, acceptance, and stewardship. Understanding diverse human–wildlife interactions and managing coexistence can advance both wildlife conservation and human wellbeing in cities.
16
Tampakis, Stilianos, Veronika Andrea, Thomas Panagopoulos, Paraskevi Karanikola, Rallou Gkarmiri und Theodora Georgoula. „Managing the Conflict of Human–Wildlife Coexistence: A Community-Based Approach“. Land 12, Nr. 4 (05.04.2023): 832. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land12040832.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
One of the most recent and pressing issues for policymakers to address is the presence of wild boars in urban and rural areas. Their aggressive spread and invasion of human-populated areas have created an alarming problem as the coexistence of wild boars and people poses serious threats to human life and property. Human-caused factors, such as residential zone expansion and land use change, have exacerbated this problem. Furthermore, natural factors, such as predator reduction and climate change effects, create favorable conditions for population growth. This study sought to gain insights into citizens’ perspectives on a current issue, specifically wild boar colonization and coexistence in urban and rural settings. Between September 2021 and November 2022, a survey was conducted in two communities of northern and central Greece, addressing 800 citizens in total. Obtained through hierarchical log-linear analysis, factor analysis and two-step cluster analysis, the findings indicate that rural citizens appear to be more concerned about agricultural production losses and the high risk of road accidents, while the invasion-level perception was high in both areas. Intensive hunting has gained widespread acceptance as a management tool for wild boar populations in both urban and rural areas, while anthropocentric (EGO) and ecocentric (ECO) social groups have emerged.
17
Hunold, Christian, und Maz Mazuchowski. „Human–Wildlife Coexistence in Urban Wildlife Management: Insights from Nonlethal Predator Management and Rodenticide Bans“. Animals 10, Nr. 11 (28.10.2020): 1983. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10111983.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Conceptions of human–wildlife coexistence that acknowledge nonhuman wild animals as fellow urban dwellers with legitimate claims on shared urban spaces are starting to influence urban wildlife management practices. Insofar as at least some wild animals have successfully achieved membership in urban society, how has this revaluation affected how urban wildlife is governed? Our interpretive policy analysis explores this question in two areas of urban wildlife management where practices are becoming less lethal: predator management and rodent control. A directed qualitative content analysis of U.S. urban wildlife management plans and rodent control strategies reveals a shift from conflict to coexistence as the basis for understanding human–wildlife relations in urban settings. Indiscriminate killing of urban wildlife is condemned as unethical as well as impractical, and lethal control figures as a measure of last resort that must be rationally justified. Commensal rodents, however, do not benefit from this shift toward coexistence between humans and nonhuman species. Campaigns to restrict the use of rodenticides are intended to protect carnivores, not the rodents themselves. Though urban wildlife management is consistent with some elements of the vision of multispecies flourishing developed by human–animal studies scholars, not all species benefit equally from this transition, and the legitimacy of wild animals’ claims on shared urban spaces often remains contingent on their good behavior.
18
Sillero-Zubiri, Claudio, Ardiantiono, Flavia Caruso, Ying Chen, Dimitra Christidi, Girma Eshete, Nimalka Sanjeewani, Liomba-Junior Mathe und Meshach Andres Pierre. „From conflict to coexistence: the challenges of the expanding human–wildlife interface“. Oryx 57, Nr. 4 (Juli 2023): 409–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0030605323000698.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
19
Albarracín, Viviana, und Enzo Aliaga-Rossel. „Bearly Guilty: Understanding Human–Andean Bear Conflict Regarding Crop Losses“. Ethnobiology Letters 9, Nr. 2 (31.12.2018): 323–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.14237/ebl.9.2.2018.1300.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Conflicts between wildlife and humans are increasing worldwide, especially in areas where they coexist and share resources. To investigate attitudes and opinions of the human population towards human-Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus) conflicts in two indigenous Aymara communities, Chuñavi and Lambate, Bolivia, semi-structured interviews were directed to an adult member of families in the communities. Simultaneously, we registered, monitored, and evaluated 70 farm plots to record evidence of Andean bear and other wildlife damage to the maize crops and plants. We found that the locals thought the bear caused the most damage when, in actuality, the most harmful issues identified for maize crops were environmental factors, followed by parrots and birds. Knowledge of the interactions between wild animals and productive systems can contribute to an understanding of Andean bear-human coexistence.
20
Heeren, Alexander, Helen Bowman, Victoria Monroe, David Dodge und Kent Smirl. „Coyote Management Plans and Wildlife Watch: implications for community coaching approach to public outreach in southern California“. California Fish and Wildlife Journal 107, Nr. 3 (02.11.2021): 278–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.51492/cfwj.hwisi.9.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The majority of residents in southern California live in urban areas. Therefore, working with cities to promote tolerance and coexistence with urban wildlife is crucial to the conservation and management of native species. Human conflicts with coyotes (Canis latrans) illustrate the importance of incorporating the social sciences, particularly knowledge of human behavior, communication, and education, in a coyote management strategy. Here, we review 199 cities across southern California to determine which localities have a coyote management website or a coyote management plan. We also included cities that have collaborated with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in developing a “Wildlife Watch” program model. Wildlife Watch (based on the Neighborhood Watch national crime prevention program) uses conservation-oriented principles to empower local communities, agencies, and residents to remove wildlife attractants and to exclude or deter coyotes from neighborhoods. We examine how cities with coyote management websites and programs differ from cities without, based on U.S. census demographics. Using data from coyote conflict and sighting tools (Coyote Cacher, iNaturalist, and CDFW’s Wildlife Incident Reporting System) we compare coyote reports across cities with different management plans and websites. Finally, based on demographics from the US Census, we examine ways Wildlife Watch, or related programs, can be expanded and improved. An adaptive community-based program, like Wildlife Watch, offers a valuable toolkit to managers for navigating the diverse array of human perceptions, values, and attitudes regarding urban species and human-wildlife conflicts.
21
Parchizadeh, Jamshid, Kenneth F. Kellner, Jeremy E. Hurst, David W. Kramer und Jerrold L. Belant. „Factors influencing frequency and severity of human-American black bear conflicts in New York, USA“. PLOS ONE 18, Nr. 2 (24.02.2023): e0282322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282322.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Free-ranging large carnivores are involved in human-wildlife conflicts which can result in economic costs. Understanding factors that lead to human-wildlife conflicts is important to mitigate these negative effects and facilitate human-carnivore coexistence. We used a human-American black bear (Ursus americanus) conflict database maintained by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to determine whether drought, conflicts within the Adirondack and Catskill Parks as compared to outside of these parks, mild severity (Class 3) conflicts early in the year (April–June), and bear harvest in the previous year (as an index of bear abundance), were associated with greater frequency of high or moderate severity (Class 1–2) conflicts later in the year (July–September) across New York, USA. During 2006–2019, we obtained 3,782 mild severity conflict records early in the year, and 1,042 high or moderate severity records later in the year. We found that a one standard deviation increase in the cumulative precipitation difference from mean early in the year (about 7.59 cm) coincided with a 20% decrease in conflicts, and that Wildlife Management Units (WMUs) within the parks were predicted to have 5.61 times as many high or moderate severity conflicts as WMUs outside the parks. We also found that a one standard deviation increase in the frequency of mild severity conflicts (equivalent to 5.68 conflicts) early in the year coincided with an increase in the frequency of high or moderate severity conflicts in a WMU later in the year by 49%, while a one standard deviation increase in the bear abundance index in the previous year (0.14 bears/10 km2) coincided with a 23% increase in high or moderate severity conflicts. To reduce the frequency and severity of conflicts to facilitate human-black bear coexistence, we recommend the following measures to be taken in place consistently and build over time in local communities: (i) further reducing black bear access to anthropogenic foods and other attractants, (ii) non-lethal measures including bear-resistant waste management, (iii) electric fencing, and (iv) modifying placement or configuration of field crops.
22
MADDEN, FRANCINE. „Creating Coexistence between Humans and Wildlife: Global Perspectives on Local Efforts to Address Human–Wildlife Conflict“. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9, Nr. 4 (Dezember 2004): 247–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871200490505675.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
23
Burudi, Jocelyn, Krisztián Katona und Eszter Tormáné Kovács. „A review of the human wildlife conflicts around the Nairobi National Park, Kenya“. Review on Agriculture and Rural Development 12, Nr. 1-2 (12.12.2023): 80–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.14232/rard.2023.1-2.80-87.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Human-wildlife conflicts are one of the most important challenges facing wildlife conservation. In Kenya, the Nairobi National Park (NNP) experiences various pressures due to its small size and close proximity to an expanding city. The unfenced southern part of the park is the main hotspot for conflicts. For the review a content analysis of 21 publications related to NNP published between 2011 and 2022 was conducted to identify the causes, types and the mitigation measures of conflicts around the park. Documents for the analysis were collected through Google Scholar, Web of Science and Scopus. Our results indicate that livestock predation linked to lions is the major type of conflict superseded by retaliatory killings of the carnivores by the local communities. Other conflicts include crop raids by ungulates and the spread of diseases especially the East Coast fever that is transmitted from the wildebeest to livestock. Findings further reveal that one of the main causes of the conflicts is the expanding human population, which has encroached on wildlife dispersal corridors. It resulted in land subdivision and fencing of the farms as farmers try to protect their livestock from wildlife. This has greatly impeded wildlife migration. Mitigation methods in place include compensation schemes and landowners leasing their farms to the park management so that the corridors can be left open for free wildlife movement. These have however been inadequate therefore there is still a need to find sustainable mitigation measures that ensure coexistence between humans and wildlife in and around NNP.
24
Kuswanda, Wanda, Raden Garsetiasih, Hendra Gunawan, Rospita Odorlina Pilianna Situmorang, Freddy Jontara Hutapea, Rozza Tri Kwatrina, Endang Karlina et al. „Can Humans and Elephants Coexist? A Review of the Conflict on Sumatra Island, Indonesia“. Diversity 14, Nr. 6 (25.05.2022): 420. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/d14060420.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The high rate of deforestation and fragmentation of elephant habitat on Sumatra Island has triggered human-elephant conflict (HEC) in Sumatra Island, Indonesia. This conflict brings negative impacts on humans and elephants. Despite numerous efforts having been made to solve this problem, the HEC continues to occur in the remaining elephant enclave every year. The harmonious coexistence between humans and elephants could be improved through HEC mitigation programs. The aim of this paper was to review information on HEC in Sumatra Island, investigate the causes and implications of HEC, review existing HEC mitigation methods, and formulate strategies to improve the harmonious coexistence between humans and elephants. The best strategies to create successful human and elephant coexistence are strengthening the institutions and policies, restoring the habitat, developing wildlife corridors, establishing Essential Ecosystem Areas (EEA), community empowerment through ecotourism, providing legal access to forests through Social Forestry (SF), and providing compensation schemes for conflict victims.
25
Ntukey, Lucas Theodori, Linus Kasian Munishi, Edward Kohi und Anna Christina Treydte. „Land Use/Cover Change Reduces Elephant Habitat Suitability in the Wami Mbiki–Saadani Wildlife Corridor, Tanzania“. Land 11, Nr. 2 (17.02.2022): 307. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/land11020307.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Wildlife corridors are critical for maintaining the viability of isolated wildlife populations and conserving ecosystem functionality. Anthropogenic pressure has negatively impacted wildlife habitats, particularly in corridors between protected areas, but few studies have yet quantitatively assessed habitat changes and corresponding wildlife presence. We quantified land use/land cover and human–elephant conflict trends over the past two decades in the Wami Mbiki–Saadani (WMS) wildlife corridor, Tanzania, using RS and GIS combined with human–wildlife conflict reports. We designed landscape metrics and habitat suitability models for the African savanna elephant (Loxodonta africana) as a large mammal key species in the WMS ecosystem. Our results showed that forest cover, a highly suitable habitat for elephants, decreased by 3.0% between 1998 and 2008 and 20.3% between 2008 and 2018. Overall, the highly suitable habitat for elephants decreased by 22.4% from 1998 to 2018, when it was scarcely available and when small fragmented patches dominated the unprotected parts of the corridor. Our findings revealed that large mammalian habitat conservation requires approaches beyond habitat-loss detection and must consider other facets of landscape patterns. We suggest strengthening elephant habitat conservation through community conservation awareness, wildlife corridor mapping, and restoration practices to ensure a sustainable pathway to human–wildlife coexistence.
26
Liordos, Vasilios. „Conservation, Sustainability, Conflict and Coexistence: Key Themes in Wildlife Management“. Sustainability 16, Nr. 8 (14.04.2024): 3271. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su16083271.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
27
Zimmermann, Alexandra, und James Stevens. „Call for holistic, interdisciplinary and multilateral management of human–wildlife conflict and coexistence“. Oryx 55, Nr. 4 (Juli 2021): 490–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0030605321000545.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
28
Coleman, Tyler Steven, Wray Gabel, Michael Easter, Maggie McGreal, Mahmood Sasa Marin, Davinia Beneyto Garrigos und Christopher M. Murray. „The Spatial Ecology of Nuisance Crocodiles: Movement Patterns of Relocated American Crocodiles (Crocodylus acutus) in Guanacaste, Costa Rica“. Animals 14, Nr. 2 (22.01.2024): 339. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani14020339.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Anthropogenic alterations of the environment have increased, highlighting the need for human–wildlife coexistence and conflict mitigation. Spatial ecology, and the use of passive satellite movement technology in particular, has been used to identify patterns in human–wildlife conflict as a function of shared resources that present potential for dangerous situations. Here, we aim to remotely identify patterns indicative of human–crocodile conflict in Guanacaste, Costa Rica by exploring site fidelity and diverse modes of movement (i.e., land and water) across space between nuisance (relocated) and non-nuisance (wild) crocodiles. Advanced satellite remote sensing technology provided near-constant movement data on individuals at the regional scale. Telonics Iridium SeaTrkr-4370-4 transmitters were used with modified crocodilian fitting. Results indicate that relocated crocodiles exhibited large-scale movements relative to wild crocodiles. Nuisance relocated crocodiles either returned to the area of nuisance or potentially attempted to in short time frames. The results presented here highlight the need for alternative management strategies that facilitate relocation efficacy.
29
Sanare, John Erasto, Davide Valli, Cecilia Leweri, Gregory Glatzer, Vicki Fishlock und Anna Christina Treydte. „A Socio-Ecological Approach to Understanding How Land Use Challenges Human-Elephant Coexistence in Northern Tanzania“. Diversity 14, Nr. 7 (24.06.2022): 513. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/d14070513.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
A globally rapid land use/land cover change (LULC) in human-transformed landscapes alters the interface of human-wildlife interactions due to shifting socio-ecological and environmental pressures. Understanding these shifts is crucial for mitigating repeated negative interactions that escalate conflict states between people and wildlife. This study aimed to understand LULC changes over 30 years (1989–2019), with more recent spatio-temporal patterns of high pressure at the human-elephant interface, and potentially underlying environmental and human-driven factors that affect elephant movement patterns. We analyzed a dataset of 923 human-elephant conflict occurrences, mainly crop foraging incidents, in the Enduimet Wildlife Management Area (EWMA) between the years 2016 and 2020 and combined these data with LULC for year 2019 to understand potential drivers of conflict and assess how agricultural land and settlement have increased over time. We further used GPS datasets of elephants collared between 2019 to 2020 to understand elephant movement patterns in changing land use types. Landsat image analysis revealed that 41% of the area had been converted into farmlands and settlements within the last three decades, which creates elephant-intolerant habitats and the potential to increase pressure at the human-elephant interface. Collared elephants using EWMA moved through all land use types and did not avoid settlements, although they moved through these at higher speeds, reflecting perception of risk. Elephants travelled slightly more slowly in farmland, likely reflecting the availability of foraging opportunities. Our analysis shows that human-induced LULC changes and the encroachment into elephant habitats have resulted in spatially and temporally predictable increases in HEC in EWMA, driven by the proximity of farmlands and protected areas (PAs), so that incompatible land uses are the principal drivers of damage to human livelihoods and increased risks to Tanzanian (and Kenyan) natural capital. Communities in Enduimet urgently need support to increase the effective distance between their farming activities and the PAs. Village-level crop protection and small-scale land-use planning around PAs are important first steps to halt an escalating conflict situation but need to be supported with longer-range strategies that separate incompatible land-use types and encourage the cultivation of alternative crops and livelihood diversification.
30
Madden, M., M. Karidozo, W. Langbauer, F. Osborn, A. Presotto und R. Parry. „GEOSPATIAL ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN-WILDLIFE-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTIONS FOR SPATIAL DECISION SUPPORT“. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences XLIII-B4-2021 (30.06.2021): 281–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-xliii-b4-2021-281-2021.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract. Human-Elephant Conflict (HEC) is a global concern that requires geospatial data collection, analysis and geovisualization for decision support and mitigation. Bull African elephants, (Loxodonata africana), are often responsible for breaking fences, raiding crops and causing economic hardship in local communities in Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia. Methods for monitoring and understanding elephant movements are needed to mitigate conflict, find ways for coexistence and secure the future of Africa’s elephant populations. Researchers from academia and conservation organizations are partnering with decision makers and scientists of the Zimbabwe Department of National Park and Wild Life Management (PWMA) to track the movement of 15 bull elephants in the general area of Victoria Falls to analyse spatio-temporal patterns of elephant behaviour related to climatic factors, habitat conditions and changing land uses. Spatial decision support for local famers, resource managers and planners will assist in avoiding agricultural expansion and urban development that coincides with elephant corridors and access to water resources.
31
Songhurst, Anna, Graham McCulloch und Tim Coulson. „Finding pathways to human–elephant coexistence: a risky business“. Oryx 50, Nr. 4 (05.08.2015): 713–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0030605315000344.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
AbstractFinding ways for people and wildlife to coexist requires affording both parties access to critical resources and space, but also a behavioural change by both to avoid conflict. We investigated pathway use in a population of free-ranging African elephants Loxodonta africana in the Okavango Panhandle, Botswana that share their range with humans in a multi-use, heterogeneous landscape. We used detailed ground surveys to identify and map elephant movement pathways, and mixed-effect models to explore factors influencing elephant numbers and movement behaviour on and around these pathways. We found deviation in pathway use among the elephant population, suggesting behavioural adaptations to avoid human-associated risk: avoiding pathways near settlements, particularly near larger settlements; avoiding pathways close to cultivated land; and adopting a safety-in-numbers strategy when moving through areas of human use. Our findings suggest there is opportunity to capitalize on risk avoidance by elephant populations, to minimize resource-use overlap and reduce conflict between humans and elephants. We discuss a strategy that involves ensuring appropriate protection of elephant pathways in land-use planning, using development-free buffer zones, combined with mitigation techniques along the interface with agricultural lands to increase risk levels and reinforce human–elephant interface boundaries. We recommend further examination of the use of landscape-level mitigation techniques that encourage elephants to use pathways away from human activity and help define spatial boundaries for management of human–elephant conflict in multi-use landscapes.
32
C., Rosell, und F. Llimona. „Human–wildlife interactions“. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 35, Nr. 2 (Dezember 2012): 219–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.32800/abc.2012.35.0219.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
219Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 35.2 (2012)© 2012 Museu de Ciències Naturals de BarcelonaISSN: 1578–665XRosell, C. & Llimona, F., 2012. Human–wildlife interactions. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation, 35.2: 219–220. The nature of wildlife management throughout the world is changing. The increase in the world’s human population has been accompanied by a rapid expansion of agricultural and urban areas and infrastructures, especially road and railway networks. Worldwide, wildlife habitats are being transformed and fragmented by human activities, and the behavior of several species has changed as a result of human activities. Some species have adapted easily to urban or peri–urban habitats and take advantage of the new resources available. These data provide the context for why human–wildlife interactions are increasing. At the 30th International Union of Game Biologists Congress held in Barcelona in early September 2011, in addition to two plenary presentations, 52 authors from 12 different countries and three continents presented 15 papers in the Interactions of Humans and Wildlife Session, three of which are included in this volume. To some extent, all the papers reflected the inherent difficulty in solving the complex problems caused either by rapidly increasing species that begin to inhabit urban and agricultural areas in numbers not seen previously (e.g. coyo-tes, Canis latrans, inhabiting big cities; wild boar, Sus scrofa, across western Europe; wood pigeons, Columba palumbus, in France), or species whose populations are threatened by human activities (e.g., Eurasian Lynx, Lynx lynx, in the Czech Republic). Some papers addressed the contentious issue of predator control (e.g., gamebirds in Great Britain), while others presented data regarding how human activities influenced animal behavior (e.g., pink footed geese, Anser brachyrhynchus; and red deer, Cervus elaphus, in Germany). The papers presented at the congress show how human activities affect the distributions and dynamics of wildlife populations and also change the behavior of some species. Wildlife causes social and economic con-flicts by damaging agricultural and forest resources, bringing about traffic collisions, and creating problems for residents in urban areas; while many are increasingly distant from nature and may not accept the presence of wildlife others may actively encourage the presence of wild animals. The first paper in this volume, by Cahill et al. (2012), analyzes the management challenges of the increasing abundance of wild boar in the peri–urban area of Barcelona. This conflict has arisen in other large cities in Europe and elsewhere. The presence of the species causes problems for many residents, to such an extent that it is considered a pest in these areas. Wild boar habituation has not only been facilitated by population expansion, but also by the attitudes of some citizens who encourage their presence by direct feeding. This leads to wild boar behavior modification and also promotes an increase in the fertility rate of habituated females, which are significantly heavier than non–habituated females. Public attitudes regarding the species and harvesting methods (at present most specimens are removed by live capture and subsequently sacrificed) are highlighted as one of the key factors in the management of the conflict. The second paper provides an example of how the distribution of irrigated croplands influences wild boar roadkills in NW Spain (Colino–Rabanal et al., 2012). By modeling the spatial distribution of wild boar collisions with vehicles and using generalized additive models based on GIS, the authors show that the number of roadkills is higher in maize croplands than in forested areas. This factor is the main explanatory variable in the model. The paper provides an excellent example of how the synergies of diverse human elements in the landscape (maize croplands and roads in this case) affect the location and dimensions of these types of conflicts. The third and final paper, by Belotti et al. (2012), addresses the effects of tourism on Eurasian lynx movements and prey usage at Šumava National Park in the Czech Republic. The monitoring of 5 GPS–collared lynxes and analyses of data regarding habitat features suggests that human disturbance (proximity of roads and tourist trails) can modify the presence of lynxes during the day close to the site where they have hidden a prey item, such as an ungulate, that can provide them with food for several days. In such cases, adequate management of tourism development must involve a commitment to species conservation. The analyses and understanding of all these phenomena and the design of successful wildlife management strategies and techniques used to mitigate the conflicts require a good knowledge base that considers informa-tion both about wildlife and human attitudes. The papers presented stress the importance of spatial analyses of the interactions and their relationship with landscape features and the location of human activities. Species distribution and abundance are related to important habitat variables such as provision of shelter, food, comfor-table spaces, and an appropriate climate. Therefore, it is essential to analyze these data adequately to predict where conflicts are most likely to arise and to design successful mitigation strategies. The second key factor for adequate management of human–wildlife interactions is to monitor system change. An analysis of the variety of data on population dynamics, hunting, wildlife collisions, and wildlife presence in urban areas would provide a basis for adaptive management. In this respect, in the plenary session, Steve Redpath mentioned the importance of the wildlife biologist’s attitude when interpreting and drawing conclusions from recorded data and stressed the importance of conducting clear, relevant, and transparent science for participants involved in the management decision process, which often involves a high number of stakeholders. All of the papers addressing the problems associated with human wildlife interactions were characterized by a common theme. Regardless of the specific nature of the problem, the public was generally divided on how the problem should be addressed. A particularly sensitive theme was that of population control methods, especially when conflicts are located in peri–urban areas. Several presenters acknowledged that public participation was necessary if a solution was to be reached. Some suggested, as have other authors (Heydon et al., 2010), that a legislative framework may be needed to reconcile human and wildlife interests. However, each problem that was presented appeared to involve multiple stakeholders with different opinions. Solving these kinds of problems is not trivial. Social factors strongly influence perceptions of human–wildlife conflicts but the methods used to mitigate these conflicts often take into account technical aspects but not people’s attitudes. A new, more innovative and interdisciplinary approach to mitigation is needed to allow us 'to move from conflict towards coexistence' (Dickman, 2010). Other authors also mentioned the importance of planning interventions that optimize the participation of experts, policy makers, and affected communities and include the explicit, systematic, and participatory evaluation of the costs and benefits of alternative interventions (Treves et al., 2009). One technique that has been used to solve problems like these is termed Structured Decision Making (SDM). This technique was developed by the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. As described by Runge et al. (2009), the process is 'a formal application of common sense for situations too complex for the informal use of common sense', and provides a rational framework and techniques to aid in prescriptive decision making. Fundamentally, the process entails defining a problem, deciding upon the objectives, considering the alternative actions and the consequences for each, using the available science to develop a model (the plan), and then making the decision how to implement (Runge et al., 2009). Although complex, SDM uses a facilitator to guide stakeholders through the process to reach a mutually agreed–upon plan of action. It is clear that human–wildlife interactions are inherently complex because many stakeholders are usually involved. A rational approach that incorporates all interested parties would seem to be a productive way of solving these kinds of problems
33
McNutt, J. Weldon, Andrew B. Stein, Lesley Boggs McNutt und Neil R. Jordan. „Living on the edge: characteristics of human–wildlife conflict in a traditional livestock community in Botswana“. Wildlife Research 44, Nr. 7 (2017): 546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/wr16160.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Context Conflicts between wildlife and humans have occurred for millennia, and are major drivers of wildlife decline. To promote coexistence, Botswana established buffer zones called wildlife-management areas (WMAs) adjacent to National Parks and Reserves where communities assume stewardship of wildlife and derive financial benefits from it. In contrast, communities outside WMAs are generally excluded from these benefits despite incurring ‘coexistence costs’, including crop damage and livestock depredation, although they may receive compensation for these losses. Aims To investigate the perceptions and actions of a livestock farming community outside (but surrounded by) WMAs in northern Botswana, especially in relation to predator management. Methods We conducted standard-format interviews with 62 heads of households (cattleposts), and evaluated responses using descriptive and multivariate statistics. Key results Almost half (46%) of respondents expressed negative perceptions of predators, with 67% reporting losses to predation. After disease, predation was the most commonly reported source of livestock losses. Increased age of the head of household was the strongest predictor of reported predation. Few households employed husbandry beyond kraaling at night, but some (21%) reported conducting lethal control of predators. Reported use of lethal control was independent of the household experience with predation and whether they derived financial benefits from wildlife. Instead, households with larger herds were more likely to report using lethal control, despite the most educated farmers tending to have larger herds. Lethal control was almost twice as likely in households previously denied government compensation for losses (42%) than in those granted compensation (23%). Perhaps as a result of perceived failures of the government compensation scheme, most households (91%) supported the development of an independent insurance program, with 67% expressing willingness to pay a premium. Conclusions Our results challenge the assumption that deriving financial benefit from wildlife increases tolerance. A measurable disconnect also exists between the willingness of a household to employ lethal control and their experience with predation, suggesting that lethal control was used pre-emptively rather than reactively. Implications Efforts must be made to connect the financial costs incurred during farming alongside wildlife with the financial benefits derived from wildlife. Where compensation schemes exist, timely payments may reduce retaliatory killing.
34
RUST, N. A., und L. L. MARKER. „Cost of carnivore coexistence on communal and resettled land in Namibia“. Environmental Conservation 41, Nr. 1 (03.07.2013): 45–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0376892913000180.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
SUMMARYHuman-wildlife conflict is detrimental to the conservation of threatened carnivores and the livelihoods of rural communities. This paper compares perceived levels of human-carnivore conflict experienced on five Namibian communal conservancies and four resettled farming areas. Factors explored include how reported depredation was affected by livestock husbandry practices, the perceived annual cost of depredation and the reported problem predator species. Of the 147 respondents interviewed, perceived depredation was greater than in previous studies; high perceived depredation was associated with greater rates of predator removal, increased ranking of predators as problems and increased predator sighting frequency. Small stock species were the most commonly depredated livestock. The most frequently perceived predators were: jackals on goats and sheep, wild cats on chickens, leopards on horses and spotted hyenas on cattle. The financial cost of this predation was US$508898, mostly attributable to cattle depredation, and agricultural training schemes recommending good livestock management may help reduce this cost. A move from small to large stock farming could be promoted in areas with an abundance of small- to medium-sized carnivores and a lack of large carnivores. Further incentives, such as meat provision and income from consumptive and non-consumptive tourism could ensure benefits outweigh costs of wildlife coexistence.
35
Neagu, Andra Claudia, Steluta Manolache und Laurentiu Rozylowicz. „The drums of war are beating louder: Media coverage of brown bears in Romania“. Nature Conservation 50 (11.10.2022): 65–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.50.86019.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The increasing demand for resources to meet the needs of our society has transformed the environment and increased the likelihood of human-wildlife interactions. Romania has the highest density of brown bears in Europe, with more than 7000 individuals populating the Carpathian Mountains and neighboring areas. The large brown bear population in Romania inhabits ever-increasing human-dominated landscapes, which frequently results in conflict with humans. The means and frequency by which the media communicates information to the readership influence the public perception of human-wildlife conflicts. This research is intended to contribute to the existing knowledge on human-brown bear coexistence in Romania by (1) exploring how the Romanian media depicts human-brown bear interactions in terms of the main themes discussed, framing of issues (emotions and key messages), and likely impacts on public perception; (2) analyzing the changes in reporting on human brown-bear interactions following the transition of the legal status of the brown bear from game to strictly protected species; and (3) investigating suggested policy and management solutions. The results indicate that news stories related to brown bears became common in Romanian mass media after 2016, when a provisional one-year ban on culling was instated, after which it increased abruptly in 2021, following the whistleblowing of an alleged trophy hunting event. The focus on human-bear interaction and hunting/poaching themes has not changed; however, the position of the media toward brown bears has become increasingly negative, even when presenting news stories covering human-bear interactions that incur no harm. To facilitate human-brown bear coexistence in Romania, scientists and practitioners should communicate with media representatives and provide a supplementary context for news stories. Evidence-informed news can help authorities better understand conflicts and create bottom-up pathways toward an optimistic future for brown bears and Romanian society.
36
Gross, Eva M., Joana G. Pereira, Tadeyo Shaba, Samuel Bilério, Brighton Kumchedwa und Stephanie Lienenlüke. „Exploring Routes to Coexistence: Developing and Testing a Human–Elephant Conflict-Management Framework for African Elephant-Range Countries“. Diversity 14, Nr. 7 (29.06.2022): 525. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/d14070525.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Creating a future for elephants and people is a highly complex and dynamic challenge, involving social, behavioral, and ecological dimensions as well as multiple actors with various interests. To foster learning from human–elephant conflict (HEC) management projects and share best practices, a study was conducted to review the management of conflicts between elephants and humans in 12 African countries by qualitative expert interviews. Based on this information, a HEC management framework was developed in a two-tiered process. In the first phase, the theory of the framework was developed. In a second phase, the theoretical framework was validated and adjusted through stakeholder participation in two southern African projects (in Mozambique and Malawi). This holistic approach considers environmental as well as social, political, cultural, and economic factors directly or indirectly affecting interactions between people and wildlife. The framework integrates six interlinked strategies to guide managers and conservation practitioners to address HWC drivers and mitigate their impact. A legal environment and spatial planning form the basis of the framework. Social strategies, including meaningful stakeholder engagement and design of appropriate institutional structures and processes are considered the heart of the framework. Technical and financial strategies represent its arms and hands. At the top, monitoring steers all processes, provides feedback for adjustment, and informs decisions. The integration and coordination of these six strategies has great potential as a guiding route to human–wildlife coexistence in Africa and elsewhere.
37
Grundei, Lara-Luisa, Franziska M. Schöttes, Friederike Gethöffer, Daniel Tost, Laurin Kluge, Ursula Siebert und Michael Pees. „Human–Wildlife Interaction—A Social Survey“. Animals 14, Nr. 5 (05.03.2024): 808. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani14050808.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
With the results of a survey presented in this paper, we provide insight into public attitudes towards dealing with wildlife. Based on 1569 data sets derived from participating stakeholders, we inquired about the individual experience the participants had made with wild animals, and asked about their personal engagement, attitude towards management, and emotions involved and tried to evaluate basic contextual knowledge. As a result, we discovered a positive effect showing that a strong opinion about dealing with wildlife is associated with increasing contextual knowledge. People that are experienced in and engaged in wildlife conservation expressed significantly stronger positive emotions in this context. We conclude that education is essential in dealing with wildlife responsibly and that positive emotions are a main trigger for such engagement. The results of the survey underline that a combination of contextual knowledge and a positive attitude towards wildlife leads to a higher awareness of possible conflicts between humans and wildlife. Furthermore, these criteria are crucial when developing strategies that strive for a sustainable coexistence.
38
Buijs, Arjen, und Maarten Jacobs. „Avoiding negativity bias: Towards a positive psychology of human–wildlife relationships“. Ambio 50, Nr. 2 (07.10.2020): 281–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01394-w.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
AbstractRecently, new approaches to wildlife management are being developed, such as coexistence management and convivial conservation. These approaches aim to shift management practices from mitigating human–wildlife conflicts towards cohabitation and explore mutual benefits. To align empirical research to these new approaches, we argue for the relevance of positive psychology theory to inspire and structure research into the benefits of human–wildlife interactions. Positive psychology suggests three pathways through which human–wildlife interactions may lead to happiness and well-being: pleasure, engagement, and meaning. Applying these pathways to human–wildlife research may (i) structure existing research into the benefits of human–wildlife interactions, (ii) disclose unidentified benefits of human–wildlife interactions, and (iii) unravel mechanisms which make experiencing and protecting wildlife worthwhile and rewarding. Also, we suggest a potential feedback loop between wildlife experiences, happiness and well-being, and pro-environmental behaviours. More in-depth research into these mechanisms may improve our understanding of attitudes towards conservation of wildlife and its habitat and may suggest strategies to strengthen stewardship actions and public support for conservation strategies. Together, these strands of research could initiate research into what could be called a “Positive Ecology”.
39
Sulistianti, E. W., S. Basuni, J. B. Hernowo und H. Purnomo. „The challenges in establishing conservation-based ecotourism in the human-elephant conflict outside protected area: a literature review“. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1366, Nr. 1 (01.07.2024): 012033. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1366/1/012033.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract Most people who live near elephant ecosystems view elephants as aggressive, dangerous animals and pests as if the ecosystem disservices them. Interaction between humans and elephants living outside protected areas inevitably leads to conflict that causes agricultural land damage and wild elephant killings. The human-elephant conflict would become more complex because there are many stakeholders involved with various influences and interests, which makes human-elephant coexistence difficult to achieve. This paper aims to review wild elephant-based ecotourism challenges and formulate the challenges of ecotourism outside protected areas. The results of the challenges are reviewed in the constructions of socioeconomic and ecology. Such knowledge can be used to evaluate the applicability of potential technical solutions to reshape the negative interactions of humans and wildlife into opportunities for ecosystem services.
40
Cummings, C. R., M. A. Lea und J. M. Lyle. „Fur seals and fisheries in Tasmania: an integrated case study of human-wildlife conflict and coexistence“. Biological Conservation 236 (August 2019): 532–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.029.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
41
Canney, Angeline C., Lauren M. McGough, Nate A. Bickford und Kenneth E. Wallen. „Systematic Map of Human–Raptor Interaction and Coexistence Research“. Animals 12, Nr. 1 (27.12.2021): 45. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani12010045.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Global raptor conservation relies on humans to establish and improve interaction and coexistence. Human–wildlife interaction research is well-established, but tends to focus on large-bodied, terrestrial mammals. The scope and characteristics of research that explores human–raptor interactions are relatively unknown. As an initial step toward quantifying and characterizing the state of applied, cross-disciplinary literature on human–raptor interactions, we use established systematic map (scoping reviews) protocols to catalog literature and describe trends, identify gaps and biases, and critically reflect on the scope of research. We focus on the peer-reviewed (refereed) literature germane to human–raptor interaction, conflict, tolerance, acceptance, persecution and coexistence. Based on 383 papers retrieved that fit our criteria, we identified trends, biases, and gaps. These include a majority of research taking place within North America and Europe; disproportionately few interdisciplinary and social research studies; interactions focused on indirect anthropogenic mortality; and vague calls for human behavior changes, with few concrete steps suggested, when management objectives are discussed. Overall, we note a predominant focus on the study of ecological effects from human–raptor interactions rather than sociocultural causes, and suggest (as others have in various conservation contexts) the imperative of human behavioral, cultural, and political inquiry to conserve raptor species.
42
CHAKRABORTY, Souraditya, und Nabanita PAUL. „Efficacy of different human-elephant conflict prevention and mitigation techniques practiced in West Bengal, India“. Notulae Scientia Biologicae 13, Nr. 3 (18.08.2021): 11017. http://dx.doi.org/10.15835/nsb13311017.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Human-elephant conflicts (HEC) have become an ever-increasing threat to wildlife management in recent years around the world. In India, West Bengal has been one of the worst sufferers of these conflicts. With 2.89 % of the entire elephant population in India, the state records a high mortality rate, both human and pachyderm every year. Although several mitigation techniques, traditional as well as modern, have been used for many years, however, the conflict cases have not shown any steady decline. It seems that the measures practiced in the region focus on short-term alleviation rather than a long-lasting solution ensuring peaceful coexistence of the two species. The study discusses the mitigation and preventive measures of human-elephant conflicts practiced in the state, their efficacy and shortcomings. The study revealed a single “universal model” is not successful to mitigate the concerns; rather a combination of measures is required. An amalgamation of traditional and modern techniques is also suggested. An efficacious operative mitigation plan should be site-specific and based on several local factors including conflict, physiographical, habitat, anthropogenic and other such variables. Thus, a hypothetical model for designing an effective mitigation strategy has been proposed for future researchers and competent authorities to look into. This could be helpful for policy makers to plan effective management practices not only in the region but also elsewhere.
43
Naha, Dipanjan, Pooja Chaudhary, Gaurav Sonker und Sambandam Sathyakumar. „Effectiveness of non-lethal predator deterrents to reduce livestock losses to leopard attacks within a multiple-use landscape of the Himalayan region“. PeerJ 8 (24.07.2020): e9544. http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9544.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Lethal measures are widely adopted by local communities and governments to manage human-wildlife conflicts. Such measures lead to large scale decline of carnivore populations globally with trophic cascades on ecosystems and questionable impacts on human-wildlife conflicts. Mitigating human-carnivore conflicts through non-lethal measures will protect endangered predators and secure livelihoods. However, information on the effectiveness of such measures are extremely limited and hence cannot be applied in developing scientific evidence. Further to develop human-carnivore coexistence models, it is important for local community members, biologists and wildlife managers to actively participate in conservation programs. We evaluated the response of a non-lethal visual deterrent (i.e. fox lights) to deter leopard attacks on livestock within a multiple-use landscape of western Himalaya through community engagement. We monitored 16 experimental sites and 17 control sites within 27 villages and recorded data on livestock depredation by leopards between April 2018 to April 2019. A multivariate analysis was conducted to determine the influence of landscape predictors and animal husbandry practices on livestock depredation by leopards within the vicinity of human settlements. We found that visual deterrents discouraged common leopards to predate on livestock (cows and goats). We also demonstrated that community based conservation initiatives are successful in mitigating human-carnivore conflicts within large semi-natural landscapes. We suggest developing site specific coexistence strategies and adopting non-lethal measures to safeguard carnivores, livestock and humans within shared landscapes.
44
Sinha, Debolina. „Impact of Lockdown Mediated Anthro-Pause on Man-Animal Conflict“. Indian Journal of Pure & Applied Biosciences 9, Nr. 4 (30.08.2021): 173–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.18782/2582-2845.8773.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Objective: With the COVID-19 pandemic there was a major lockdown world-wide which halted human activity to a total pause giving rise to a new term never known previously “Anthro-pause”. During this anthro-pause there were various reports of rare animal sighting in urban areas. Some of the reports were true and some was far away from reality thus demand for detail study. Methods/findings: Man-animal conflict has resulted in mammoth destruction and aggravated mass extinction. A careful study of the pandemic driven anthro-pause has given a rare chance to study the impact of human intervention on wild life scientifically with realistic observations and data. This study will help to provide insight to address previously intractable questions like is it the urban structures or humans himself that have impacted the wild life. The learning will pave future understandings on how by minor changes to our lifestyles and transport networks can potentially have significant benefits for both ecosystems, human wildlife coexistence.
45
Pant, Ganesh, Maheshwar Dhakal, Narendra Man Babu Pradhan, Fiona Leverington und Marc Hockings. „Nature and extent of human–elephant Elephas maximus conflict in central Nepal“. Oryx 50, Nr. 4 (06.07.2015): 724–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0030605315000381.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
AbstractHuman–elephant conflict is one of the main threats to the long-term survival of the Asian elephant Elephas maximus. We studied the nature and extent of human–elephant interactions in the buffer zones of Chitwan National Park and Parsa Wildlife Reserve in Nepal, through household questionnaire surveys, key informant interviews, site observations, and analysis of the reported cases of damage during January 2008–December 2012. During this 5-year period 290 incidents of damage by elephants were reported, with a high concentration of incidents in a few locations. Property damage (53%) was the most common type of damage reported. Crop damage was reported less often but household surveys revealed it to be the most frequent form of conflict. There were also human casualties, including 21 deaths and four serious injuries. More than 90% of the human casualties occurred during 2010–2012. More than two thirds of the respondents (70%) perceived that human–elephant conflict had increased substantially during the previous 5 years. Despite the increase in incidents of human–elephant conflict in the area, 37% of respondents had positive attitudes towards elephant conservation. Our findings suggest that public awareness and compensation for losses could reduce conflict and contribute to ensuring coexistence of people and elephants in this human-dominated landscape.
46
Pratap, Chandran Benin, Aren D’Souza, V. H. Athulya Velt, Lydia Princess I, Velt V. H. Ashwini und Praisy Joice. „Managing Human-Elephant Cohabitation: Strategies for Mitigating Conflict and Encouraging Coexistence“. E3S Web of Conferences 405 (2023): 04018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202340504018.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Human-elephant cohabitation is becoming increasingly common in many parts of the world, particularly in areas where human populations are expanding into traditional elephant habitats. While this coexistence can have benefits for both humans and elephants, it can also lead to conflict and negative outcomes for both parties. This paper explores strategies for managing human-elephant co-habitation, with a focus on mitigating conflict and encouraging coexistence. The paper first examines the factors that contribute to conflict between humans and elephants, including competition for resources, property damage, and human safety concerns. It then reviews current approaches to mitigating conflicts, such as elephant-proof fencing, crop protection methods, and elephant relocation programs. Next, this work explores strategies for encouraging coexistence between humans and elephants. These include approaches such as ecotourism, community-based conservation programs, and education and outreach initiatives. The paper also discusses the importance of engaging local communities in the development and implementation of coexistence strategies. Finally, the pa-per presents case studies from around the world that highlight successful strategies for managing human-elephant cohabitation. These case studies demonstrate the effectiveness of a variety of approaches and underscore the importance of a holistic, community-based approach to managing human-elephant coexistence. Overall, this paper provides insights and recommendations for policymakers, conservation practitioners, and others seeking to promote peaceful coexistence between humans and elephants in areas of shared habitat.
47
Raycraft, Justin. „Human–Hyena (Crocuta crocuta) Conflict in the Tarangire Ecosystem, Tanzania“. Conservation 4, Nr. 1 (06.03.2024): 99–114. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/conservation4010008.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Interactions between people and large carnivores on shared landscapes can have harmful social and ecological consequences. Human–carnivore coexistence depends on an assemblage of sociological factors including effective management institutions that address the social costs of carnivore conservation and promote tolerance toward wildlife. In East Africa, large carnivores are particularly troublesome for herders who depend on livestock for subsistence and wellbeing. This paper provides an overview of human–hyena conflict in the Tarangire ecosystem of northern Tanzania. It presents descriptive results from a questionnaire survey (n = 1076) administered as part of an anthropological study (2019–2020; 2022; 2023) of human–wildlife interactions across twelve villages inhabited by Maasai agropastoralists. The survey instrument was designed through community-based participatory research methods to convey herder concerns about the impacts of spotted hyenas (Crocuta crocuta) on the livestock economy. Based on the perceptions and local ecological knowledge of Maasai interlocutors, the paper provides an overview of the spatial and temporal patterns of human–hyena interactions. Perceived frequencies of hyena attacks on kraaled livestock were unevenly distributed geographically, with those homesteads surrounding Manyara Ranch most heavily affected. Based on herder-reported livestock losses, the costs of depredation by spotted hyenas across the study area were estimated at approximately USD 904.84 per household per year. Most homesteads lacked fortified bomas and would benefit from the provision of lights and fencing materials to improve kraal structures. The paper’s central finding is that spotted hyenas represent a pressing, everyday concern for local pastoralists. Unsurprisingly, herders despise hyenas and are intolerant of sharing landscapes with them. For carnivore conservation outside protected areas to thrive in Tanzania, conservationists and policy makers must engage more meaningfully with the lived experiences of local herders who bear the brunt of conservation costs on their livelihoods.
48
Robertson, J. A. D., M. Roodbol, M. D. Bowles, S. G. Dures und J. M. Rowcliffe. „Environmental predictors of livestock predation: a lion's tale“. Oryx 54, Nr. 5 (07.06.2019): 648–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0030605318001217.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
AbstractNegative interactions between people and large carnivores are common and will probably increase as the human population and livestock production continue to expand. Livestock predation by wild carnivores can significantly affect the livelihoods of farmers, resulting in retaliatory killings and subsequent conflicts between local communities and conservationists. A better understanding of livestock predation patterns could help guide measures to improve both human relationships and coexistence with carnivores. Environmental variables can influence the intensity of livestock predation, are relatively easy to monitor, and could potentially provide a useful predictive framework for targeting mitigation. We chose lion predation of livestock as a model to test whether variations in environmental conditions trigger changes in predation. Analysing 6 years of incident reports for Pandamatenga village in Botswana, an area of high human–lion conflict, we used generalized linear models to show that significantly more attacks coincided with lower moonlight levels and temperatures, and attack severity increased significantly with extreme minimum temperatures. Furthermore, we found a delayed effect of rainfall: lower rainfall was followed by a significantly increased severity of attacks in the following month. Our results suggest that preventative measures, such as introducing deterrents or changing livestock management, could be implemented adaptively based on environmental conditions. This could be a starting point for investigating similar effects in other large carnivores, to reduce livestock attacks and work towards wider human–wildlife coexistence.
49
Prins, Herbert H. T. „The Pastoral Road to Extinction: Competition Between Wildlife and Traditional Pastoralism in East Africa“. Environmental Conservation 19, Nr. 2 (1992): 117–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0376892900030587.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
In some developing countries there is a call to open-up protected areas and even National Parks for low-intensity use by the local population to alleviate the pressure of the rapidly increasing human population, or because conservationists have been able to ‘take’ too much land according to others. This conflict in land-use has been noted by conservation authorities, and proposals have been formulated to give way to such pressure. Moreover, it has been suggested that there can be a harmonious coexistence between wildlife and livestock, so that opening-up of protected areas would not necessarily be to the detriment of wildlife, and also that the indigenous populations were able to manage wildlife and their habitats in the past (so why not again in the future). The last point in the concerted attack on the status of the protected areas is that ‘conservation is an alien concept in Third World countries’.In this paper is reviewed the question as to whether there ever has been such a harmonious coexistence between wildlife and pastoral Man in East Africa, and aerial census data from a number of districts in Tanzania and Kenya have been used to demonstrate that livestock outcompetes wildlife. At present ‘prestige overstocking’ is not the case any more, due to the fact that the human population outgrows the livestock population. Apparently, a very high rate of population growth is at the root of the call for more land, and even if, for example, the whole of the Serengeti were to be handed over to the local Masai, this enormous, relatively undisturbed ecocomplex could absorb the growth of the Masai population for only some forty years.Finding the key to increased development should not be sought in an opening-up of protected areas but in payment of in absentia benefits by the rich western countries. This money should be used for developing programmes aimed at population limitation, increased income for the rural poor, and increased sustainable human densities in areas outside the protected areas.
50
Francis, Neema, Anagha Govindan Kutty M, Kavya Ramesh und Prasad R. Menon. „Intruder Detector for Crop Protection Using Image Processing and RFID Technology“. Journal of Telecommunication Study 8, Nr. 2 (31.07.2023): 1–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.46610/jtc.2023.v08i02.001.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
One of the major issues threatening the livelihood security of many farmers is wildlife crop destruction. This may lead to human-wildlife conflict. So, reducing this is an important conservation goal for animal-human coexistence. For their betterment, it is crucial to find viable means of preventing such conflicts. So this project aims at providing safety to farmlands from crop theft and animal attacks. The proposed system provides surveillance security for agriculture by real-time animal and human detection based on the analysis of video content feeds from the surveillance cameras. The camera module in the field turns ON upon detecting the motion and takes a snapshot of the environment. Once the image has been received, it is processed using openCV to determine the object detected as human/animal. If it is an animal, the alarm gets ON and at the same time, a notification conveying the name of the detected animal will be sent to the farmer through an IoT platform so that the farmer can take necessary precautions. If it is a human, authorization of RFID will be checked. If no such authorization is detected the person will be considered an intruder and a notification will be sent thereby reducing crop losses and harm happening to both humans and animals. It serves as a flexible security system for the farmers, ensuring that their farmlands are completely protected from human incursion and animal attacks.