Planning for Coexistence in a Complex Human-Dominated World

doi:10.1017/9781108235730.022

19 - Planning for Coexistence in a Complex Human-Dominated World

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 April 2019

Silvio Marchini,

Katia M. P. M. B. Ferraz,

Alexandra Zimmermann,

Thaís Guimarães-Luiz,

Ronaldo Morato,

Pedro L. P. Correa and

Edited by

Jenny A. Glikman and

Beatrice Frank: Affiliation:
Capital Regional District of Victoria Regional Parks
Jenny A. Glikman: Affiliation:
Institute for Conservation Research, San Diego Zoo Global
Silvio Marchini: Affiliation:
Universidade de São Paulo

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Conservation planning, with its emphasis on nature reserves, provides a basis for the development of spatial plans, usually at regional scale, that explicitly state objectives and then provide options for achieving them, despite limited financial resources. Conservation planning, however, is still an imperfect science that places more importance on ecological considerations than on social ones. Complementing social considerations with an integrated understanding of the ecology of a region, and obtaining enough social data in a cost-effective manner, are recurrent challenges. Here, we address the potential of systematic planning to improve human–wildlife interactions. Mapping risks and opportunities with behavioural, social and economic data, e.g., would greatly facilitate management decisions. While data collection through conventional field methods is a constraint at large spatial scales, the huge and fast-growing amount of social data in the 'big data' space remains largely unexplored. We describe new, promising approaches for big data visualization and analysis that could be used to inform wildlife managers through easy-to-interpret, data-intensive approaches.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Human–Wildlife Interactions
Turning Conflict into Coexistence
, pp. 414 - 438
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235730.022 [Opens in a new window]
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

19.6 References

Adams, W. M. (2015). The political ecology of conservation conflicts. In Redpath, S. M., Gutiérrez, R. J., Wood, K. A. & Young, J. C., eds., Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating towards Solutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–75.CrossRef Google Scholar

Akcora, C. G. (2010). Using Microblogs for Crowdsourcing and Public Opinion Mining. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York.Google Scholar

Amit, R. & Jacobson, S. K. (2017). Stakeholder barriers and benefits associated with improving livestock husbandry to prevent jaguar and puma depredation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 22(3), 246–66.CrossRef Google Scholar

Ball, I. R., Possingham, H. P. & Watts, M. (2009). Marxan and relatives: Software for spatial conservation prioritisation. In Moilanen, A., Wilson, K. A. & Possingham, H. P., eds., Spatial Conservation Prioritisation: Quantitative Methods and Computational Tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 185–95.Google Scholar

Batrinca, B. & Treleaven, P. C. (2015). Social media analytics: A survey of techniques, tools and platforms. AI & Society, 30(1), 89–116.Google Scholar

Behr, D. M., Ozgul, A. & Cozzi, G. (2017). Combining human acceptance and habitat suitability in a unified socio‐ecological suitability model: A case study of the wolf in Switzerland. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54, 1919–29.Google Scholar

Bruskotter, J. T., Singh, A., Fulton, D. C. & Slagle, K. (2015). Assessing tolerance for wildlife: Clarifying relations between concepts and measures. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 20(3), 255–70.Google Scholar

Bruskotter, J. T. & Wilson, R. S. (2014). Determining where the wild things will be: Using psychological theory to find tolerance for large carnivores. Conservation Letters, 7(3), 158–65.Google Scholar

Buesching, C. D., Slade, E., Newman, C., Riutta, T., Riordan, P. & Macdonald, D. W. (2015). Many hands make light work – but do they? A critical evaluation of citizen science. In Macdonald, D. W. & Feber, R. E., eds., Wildlife Conservation on Farmlands. 2 vols. Conflict in the Countryside. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bull, J. W., Verissimo, D. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2017). When a ripple becomes a flood – why we didn’t sign Ripple et al.’s ‘World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice’. Conservation Optimism. Available from https://conservationoptimism.com/blog (accessed December 2017).Google Scholar

Bunnefeld, N., Hoshino, E. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2011). Management strategy evaluation: A powerful tool for conservation?. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26(9), 441–7.Google Scholar

Burgman, M. (2005). Risks and Decisions for Conservation and Environmental Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Byers, O., Lees, C., Wilcken, J. & Schwitzer, C. (2013). The ‘One Plan Approach’: The philosophy and implementation of CBSG’s approach to integrated species conservation planning. WAZA Magazine, 14, 2–5.Google Scholar

Campbell, J. (2003). NBII Enterprise Architecture – Section 2 – Business Architecture. NBII Report Programme.Google Scholar

Carter, N. H. & Linnell, J. D. (2016). Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(8), 575–8.Google Scholar

Carter, N. H., Riley, S. J., Shortridge, A., Shrestha, B. K. & Liu, J. (2014). Spatial assessment of attitudes toward tigers in Nepal. Ambio, 43(2), 125–37.Google Scholar

Carvalho, E. A., Zarco-González, M. M., Monroy-Vilchis, O. & Morato, R. G. (2015). Modeling the risk of livestock depredation by jaguar along the Trans-Amazon highway, Brazil. Basic & Applied Ecology, 16(5), 413–19.Google Scholar

Couvet, D., Jiguet, F., Julliard, R., Levrel, H. & Teyssedre, A. (2008). Enhancing citizen contributions to biodiversity science and public policy. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 33(1), 95–103.Google Scholar

Cushman, S. A., Macdonald, E. A., Landguth, E. L., Malhi, Y. & Macdonald, D. W. (2017). Multiple-scale prediction of forest loss risk across Borneo. Landscape Ecology, 32, 1581–98.Google Scholar

Decker, D. J., Evensen, D. T., Siemer, W. F., Leong, K. M., Riley, S. J., Wild, M. A., Castle, K. T. & Higgins, C. L. (2010). Understanding risk perceptions to enhance communication about human–wildlife interactions and the impacts of zoonotic disease. ILAR Journal, 51(3), 255–61.Google Scholar

Dickman, A. J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: The importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation, 13(5), 458–66.Google Scholar

Dickman, A. J., Macdonald, E. A. & Macdonald, D. W. (2011). A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human–carnivore coexistence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(34), 13937–44.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Dickman, A. J., Marchini, S. & Manfredo, M. (2013). The human dimension in addressing conflict with large carnivores. Key Topics in Conservation Biology, 2, 110–26.Google Scholar

El Bizri, H., Morcatty, T., Lima, J. & Valsecchi, J. (2015). The thrill of the chase: Uncovering illegal sport hunting in Brazil through YouTube™ posts. Ecology & Society, 20(3), art. 30.CrossRef Google Scholar

Elith, J. & Leathwick, J. R. (2009). Species distribution models: Ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, & Systematics, 40, 677–97.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fonseca, M. G., Aragão, L. E. O., Lima, A., Shimabukuro, Y. E., Arai, E. & Anderson, L. O. (2016). Modelling fire probability in the Brazilian Amazon using the maximum entropy method. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 25(9), 955–69.Google Scholar

Frank, B. (2016). Human–wildlife conflicts and the need to include tolerance and coexistence: An introductory comment. Society & Natural Resources, 29(6), 738–43.Google Scholar

Groves, C. R. (2003). Drafting a Conservation Blueprint: A Practitioner´s Guide to Planning for Biodiversity. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar

Guisan, A. & Thuiller, W. (2005). Predicting species distribution: Offering more than simple habitat models. Ecology Letters, 8(9), 993–1009.Google Scholar

Heinonen, J. P. M. & Travis, J. M. J. (2015). Modelling conservation conflicts. In Redpath, S. M., Gutiérrez, R. J., Wood, K. A. & Young, J. C., eds., Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating towards Solutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195–211.Google Scholar

Hemson, G., Maclennan, S., Mills, G., Johnson, P. & Macdonald, D. (2009). Community, lions, livestock and money: A spatial and social analysis of attitudes to wildlife and the conservation value of tourism in a human–carnivore conflict in Botswana. Biological Conservation, 142(11), 2718–25.Google Scholar

Herda-Rapp, A. & Goedeke, T. L. (2005). Mad about Wildlife: Looking at Social Conflict over Wildlife. Leiden: Brill Academic.Google Scholar

Hoare, R. (2015). Lessons from 20 years of human–elephant conflict mitigation in Africa. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 20(4), 289–95.Google Scholar

Infographic. (2015). The Data Explosion in 2014 Minute by Minute. Available from http://aci.info/2014/07/12/the-data-explosion-in-2014-minute-by-minute-infographic (accessed November 2018).Google Scholar

IUCN Species Survival Commission. (2017). Guidelines for Species Conservation Planning. Version 1.0. Gland, Switzerland.Google Scholar

Jacobs, M. H. (2012). Human emotions toward wildlife. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 17(1), 1–3.Google Scholar

Justus, J. & Sarkar, S. (2002). The principle of complementarity in the design of reserve networks to conserve biodiversity: A preliminary history. Journal of Biosciences, 27(4), 421–35.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kansky, R., Kidd, M. & Knight, A. T. (2016). A wildlife tolerance model and case study for understanding human wildlife conflicts. Biological Conservation, 201, 137–45.Google Scholar

Kansky, R. & Knight, A. T. (2014). Key factors driving attitudes towards large mammals in conflict with humans. Biological Conservation, 179, 93–105.Google Scholar

Khoury, M. J. & Ioannidis, J. P. (2014). Big data meets public health. Science, 346(6213), 1054–55.Google Scholar

Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M. & Campbell, B. M. (2006). An operational model for implementing conservation action. Conservation Biology, 20, 408–19.Google Scholar

Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M., Difford, M. & Campbell, B. M. (2010). Mapping human and social dimensions of conservation opportunity for the scheduling of conservation action on private land. Conservation Biology, 24(5), 1348–58.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Knight, A. T., Rodrigues, A. S., Strange, N., Tew, T. & Wilson, K. A. (2013). Designing effective solutions to conservation planning problems. Key Topics in Conservation Biology, 2, 362–83.Google Scholar

Kuhnert, P. M., Martin, T. G. & Griffiths, S. P. (2010). A guide to eliciting and using expert knowledge in Bayesian ecological models. Ecology Letters, 13(7), 900–14.Google Scholar

Kyriazi, Z., Maes, F. & Degraer, S. (2016). Coexistence dilemmas in European marine spatial planning practices: The case of marine renewables and marine protected areas. Energy Policy, 97, 391–9.Google Scholar

Lacy, R. C. (2000). Structure of the VORTEX simulation model for population viability analysis. Ecological Bulletins, 48, 191–203.Google Scholar

Loring, P. A. (2016). Toward a theory of coexistence in shared social-ecological systems: The case of Cook inlet salmon fisheries. Human Ecology, 44(2), 153–65.Google Scholar

Macdonald, D. W., Boitani, L., Dinerstein, E., Fritz, H. & Wrangham, R. (2013). Conserving large mammals. Key Topics in Conservation Biology, 2, 277–312.CrossRef Google Scholar

MacMillan, D. C. & Marshall, K. (2006). The Delphi process: An expert‐based approach to ecological modelling in data‐poor environments. Animal Conservation, 9(1), 11–19.Google Scholar

Madden, F. (2004). Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: Global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(4), 247–57.Google Scholar

Madden, F. & McQuinn, B. (2014). Conservation’s blind spot: The case for conflict transformation in wildlife conservation. Biological Conservation, 178, 97–106.CrossRef Google Scholar

Malleson, N. & Andresen, M. A. (2015). The impact of using social media data in crime rate calculations: Shifting hot spots and changing spatial patterns. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 42(2), 112–21.CrossRef Google Scholar

Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L. & Dietsch, A. M. (2016). Implications of human value shift and persistence for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology, 30(2), 287–96.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Manral, U., Sengupta, S., Hussain, S. A., Rana, S. & Badola, R. (2016). Human wildlife conflict in India: A review of economic implication of loss and preventive measures. Indian Forester, 142(10), 928–40.Google Scholar

Marchini, S. (2014). Who’s in conflict with whom? Human dimensions of the conflicts involving wildlife. In Verdade, L. M., Lyra-Jorge, M. C. & Piña, C. I., eds., Applied Ecology and Human Dimensions in Biological Conservation. New York: Springer Press, pp. 189–209.Google Scholar

Marchini, S. & Crawshaw, P. G. Jr (2015). Human–wildlife conflicts in Brazil: A fast-growing issue. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 20(4), 323–8.Google Scholar

Marchini, S. & Macdonald, D. W. (2012). Predicting ranchers’ intention to kill jaguars: Case studies in Amazonia and Pantanal. Biological Conservation, 147(1), 213–21.CrossRef Google Scholar

Margules, C. R. & Pressey, R. L. (2000). Systematic conservation planning. Nature, 405(6783), 243–53.Google Scholar

Mattmann, C. A. (2013). Computing: A vision for data science. Nature, 493(7433), 473–5.Google Scholar

McBride, M. F. & Burgman, M. A. (2012). What is expert knowledge, how is such knowledge gathered, and how do we use it to address questions in landscape ecology? In Perera, A. H., Drew, C. A. & Johnson, C. J., eds., Expert Knowledge and its Application in Landscape Ecology. New York: Springer, pp. 11–38.CrossRef Google Scholar

McManus, J. S., Dickman, A. J., Gaynor, D., Smuts, B. H. & Macdonald, D. W. (2015). Dead or alive? Comparing costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal human–wildlife conflict mitigation on livestock farms. Oryx, 49(4), 687–95.Google Scholar

Miller, J. R. (2015). Mapping attack hotspots to mitigate human–carnivore conflict: Approaches and applications of spatial predation risk modeling. Biodiversity & Conservation, 24(12), 2887–911.Google Scholar

Mintzberg, H. & Quinn, J. B. (1996). The Strategy Process: Concepts, Contexts, Cases. London: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Naidoo, R., Balmford, A., Ferraro, P. J., Polasky, S., Ricketts, T. H. & Rouget, M. (2006). Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(12), 681–7.Google Scholar

Nghiem, L. T., Papworth, S. K., Lim, F. K. & Carrasco, L. R. (2016). Analysis of the capacity of Google Trends to measure interest in conservation topics and the role of online news. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0152802.Google Scholar

Peterson, M. N., Birckhead, J. L., Leong, K., Peterson, M. J. & Peterson, T. R. (2010). Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlife conflict. Conservation Letters, 3(2), 74–82.Google Scholar

Phillips, S. J. & Dudík, M. (2008). Modeling of species distributions with Maxent: New extensions and a comprehensive evaluation. Ecography, 31(2), 161–75.CrossRef Google Scholar

Pigott, D. M., Golding, N., Mylne, A., Huang, Z., Henry, A. J., Weiss, D. J., Brady, O. J., Kraemer, M. U., Smith, D. L., Moyes, C. L. & Bhatt, S. (2014). Mapping the zoonotic niche of Ebola virus disease in Africa. Elife, 3, e04395.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pressey, R. L. & Nicholls, A. O. (1989). Efficiency in conservation evaluation: Scoring versus iterative approaches. Biological Conservation, 50(1–4), 199–218.Google Scholar

Redpath, S. M., Bhatia, S. & Young, J. (2015). Tilting at wildlife: Reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx, 49(2), 222–5.Google Scholar

Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., Amar, A., Lambert, R. A., Linnell, J. D., Watt, A. & Gutierrez, R. J. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28(2), 100–9.Google Scholar

Santos, S. M., Marques, J. T., Lourenço, A., Medinas, D., Barbosa, A. M., Beja, P. & Mira, A. (2015). Sampling effects on the identification of roadkill hotspots: Implications for survey design. Journal of Environmental Management, 162, 87–95.Google Scholar

Silvertown, J., Buesching, C. D., Jacobson, S. K. & Rebelo, T. (2013). Citizen science and nature conservation. Key Topics in Conservation Biology, 2, 127–42.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sitati, N. W., Walpole, M. J., Smith, R. J. & Leader‐Williams, N. (2003). Predicting spatial aspects of human–elephant conflict. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40(4), 667–77.Google Scholar

Souza, R. A. & De Marco, P. (2014). The use of species distribution models to predict the spatial distribution of deforestation in the western Brazilian Amazon. Ecological Modelling, 291, 250–9.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sutherland, W. J. & Burgman, M. A. (2015). Use experts wisely. Nature, 526(7573), 317–18.Google Scholar

Tenkanen, H., Di Minin, E., Heikinheimo, V., Hausmann, A., Herbst, M., Kajala, L. & Toivonen, T. (2017). Instagram, Flickr, or Twitter: Assessing the usability of social media data for visitor monitoring in protected areas. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 17615.Google Scholar

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211 (4481), 453–8.Google Scholar

Vucetich, J. A., Burnham, D., Macdonald, E. A., Bruskotter, J. T., Marchini, S., Zimmermann, A. & Macdonald, D. W. (2018). Just conservation: What is it and should we pursue it? Biological Conservation, 221, 23–33.Google Scholar

Weckel, M. E., Mack, D., Nagy, C., Christie, R. & Wincorn, A. (2010). Using citizen science to map human–coyote interaction in suburban New York, USA. Journal of Wildlife Management, 74(5), 1163–71.Google Scholar

Wilson, K. A., Underwood, E. C., Morrison, S. A., Klausmeyer, K. R., Murdoch, W. W., Reyers, B., Wardell-Johnson, G., Marquet, P. A., Rundel, P. W., McBride, M. F. & Pressey, R. L. (2007). Conserving biodiversity efficiently: What to do, where, and when. PLoS Biology, 5(9), 223.Google Scholar

Wilson, S., Davies, T. E., Hazarika, N. & Zimmermann, A. (2013). Understanding patterns of human–elephant conflict in Assam: An analysis to inform mitigation strategies. Oryx, 49(01), 140–9.Google Scholar

Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S. & Rabinowitz, A. (2005). People and Wildlife, Conflict or Coexistence? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Yurco, K., King, B., Young, K. R. & Crews, K. A. (2017). Human–wildlife interactions and environmental dynamics in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Society & Natural Resources, 30(9), 1112–26.CrossRef Google Scholar

Zeitzoff, T., Kelly, J. & Lotan, G. (2015). Using social media to measure foreign policy dynamics: An empirical analysis of the Iranian–Israeli confrontation (2012–13). Journal of Peace Research, 52(3), 368–83.Google Scholar

Zimmermann, A., Baker, N., Inskip, C., Linnell, J. D. C., Marchini, S., Odden, J., Rasmussen, G. & Treves, A. (2010). Contemporary views of human–carnivore conflicts on wild rangelands. In du Toit, J. T., Kock, R. & Deutsch, J. C., eds., Wild Rangelands: Conserving Wildlife While Maintaining Livestock in Semi-Arid Ecosystems. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 129–51.Google Scholar

Zimmermann, A., Walpole, M. J. & Leader-Williams, N. (2005). Cattle ranchers’ attitudes to conflicts with jaguar Panthera onca in the Pantanal of Brazil. Oryx, 39(4), 406–12.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.