Explore the vast range of titles available.

Aim: Predators often have important roles in structuring ecosystems via their effects on each other and on prey populations. However, these effects may be altered in the presence of anthropogenic food resources, fuelling debate about whether the availability of such resources could alter the ecological role of predators. Here, we review the extent to which human-provided foods are utilised by terrestrial mammalian predators (> 1 kg) across the globe. We also assess whether these resources have a direct impact on the ecology and behaviour of predators and an indirect impact on other co-occurring species. Location: Global. Methods: Data were derived from searches of the published literature. To summarise the data we grouped studies based on the direct and indirect effects of resource subsidies on predators and co-occurring species. We then compared the types of predators accessing these resources by grouping species taxonomically and into the following categories: (1) domesticated species, (2) mesopredators and (3) top predators. Results: Human-provided foods were reported to be utilised by 36 terrestrial predator species in 34 different countries. In the presence of these resources we found that: (1) predator abundance increased, (2) the dietary preferences of predators altered to include the food subsidy, (3) life-history parameters such as survival, reproduction and sociality shifted to the benefit or detriment of the predator, and (4) predators changed their home ranges, activity and movements. In some instances, these modifications indirectly affected co-occurring species via increased predation or competition. Main conclusions: The availability of human-provided food to predators often results in behavioural or population-induced changes to predators and trophic cascades. We conclude that there is an urgent need to reduce the access of predators to food subsidies to minimise human-wildlife conflicts and to preserve the integrity of ecosystem functioning in human-influenced landscapes world-wide.

Humans 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.

In a world of shrinking habitats and increasing competition for natural resources, potentially dangerous predators bring the challenges of coexisting with wildlife sharply into focus. Through interdisciplinary collaboration among authors trained in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences, we reviewed current approaches to mitigating adverse human-predator encounters and devised a vision for future approaches to understanding and mitigating such encounters. Limitations to current approaches to mitigation include too much focus on negative impacts; oversimplified equating of levels of damage with levels of conflict; and unsuccessful technical fixes resulting from failure to engage locals, address hidden costs, or understand cultural (nonscientific) explanations of the causality of attacks. An emerging interdisciplinary literature suggests that to better frame and successfully mitigate negative human-predator relations conservation professionals need to consider dispensing with conflict as the dominant framework for thinking about human-predator encounters; work out what conflicts are really about (they may be human-human conflicts); unravel the historical contexts of particular conflicts; and explore different cultural ways of thinking about animals. The idea of cosmopolitan natures may help conservation professionals think more clearly about human-predator relations in both local and global context. These new perspectives for future research practice include a recommendation for focused interdisciplinary research and the use of new approaches, including human-animal geography, multispecies ethnography, and approaches from the environmental humanities notably environmental history. Managers should think carefully about how they engage with local cultural beliefs about wildlife, work with all parties to agree on what constitutes good evidence, develop processes and methods to mitigate conflicts, and decide how to monitor and evaluate these. Demand for immediate solutions that benefit both conservation and development favors dispute resolution and technical fixes, which obscures important underlying drivers of conflicts. If these drivers are not considered, well-intentioned efforts focused on human-wildlife conflicts will fail. En un mundo en el que los hábitats se reducen y la competencia por los recursos naturales incrementa, los depredadores potencialmente peligrosos resaltan pronunciadamente la dificultad de coexistir con la vida silvestre. Por medio de la colaboración interdisciplinaria entre autores preparados en las humanidades, las ciencias sociales y las ciencias naturales revisamos las estrategias actuales para mitigar los encuentros adversos entre depredadores y humanos y diseñamos una visión para estrategias futuras para entender y mitigar dichos encuentros. Las limitaciones de las estrategias actuales para la mitigación incluyen demasiado enfoque sobre los impactos negativos; la equiparación demasiado simplificada de los niveles de daño con los niveles del conflicto; y los arreglos técnicos infructuosos que resultan del fracaso por involucrar a los locales, hablar sobre los costos ocultos o entender las explicaciones culturales (no científicas) de la causalidad de los ataques. La literatura interdisciplinaria emergente sugiere que para enmarcar de mejor manera y mitigar exitosamente las relaciones negativas entre humanos y depredadores, los profesionales de la conservación necesitan considerar dispensar el conflicto como el marco de trabajo dominante para pensar sobre los encuentros entre humanos y depredadores; descifrar de qué se tratan realmente los conflictos (pueden ser conflictos humano - humano); aclarar los contextos históricos de conflictos particulares; y explorar las diferentes formas culturales de pensar sobre los animales. La idea de naturalezas cosmopolitas puede ayudar a los profesionales de la conservación a pensar de manera más clara sobre las relaciones humano - depredador en el contexto global y en el local. Estas nuevas perspectivas para la futura investigación de la práctica incluyen una recomendación para la investigación interdisciplinaria enfocada y el uso de nuevas estrategias, incluidas la geografía humano - animal, la etnografía de varias especies y estrategias de las humanidades ambientales, notablemente la historia ambiental. Los manejadores deberían pensar cuidadosamente sobre cómo se involucran con las creencias de los locales acerca de la vida silvestre, trabajar con todos los actores para acordar qué constituye una buena evidencia, desarrollar procesos y métodos para mitigar los conflictos, y decidir cómo monitorear y evaluarlos. La demanda por soluciones inmediatas que benefician tanto a la conservación como al desarrollo favorece a la resolución de disputas y a los arreglos técnicos, lo que hace a un lado a importantes conductores subyacentes de los conflictos. Si no son considerados estos conductores, los esfuerzos bien intencionados enfocados en los conflictos humano - vida silvestre fracasarán.

Conflicts between people over wildlife are widespread and damaging to both the wildlife and people involved. Such issues are often termed human–wildlife conflicts. We argue that this term is misleading and may exacerbate the problems and hinder resolution. A review of 100 recent articles on human–wildlife conflicts reveals that 97 were between conservation and other human activities, particularly those associated with livelihoods. We suggest that we should distinguish between human–wildlife impacts and human–human conflicts and be explicit about the different interests involved in conflict. Those representing conservation interests should not only seek technical solutions to deal with the impacts but also consider their role and objectives, and focus on strategies likely to deliver long-term solutions for the benefit of biodiversity and the people involved.

Human–wildlife conflict occurs when the needs and behavior of wildlife impact negatively on humans or when humans negatively affect the needs of wildlife. To explore the nature, causes and mitigations of human wildlife conflict, the coexistence between human and wildlife assessment was conducted around Bale Mountains National Park. Data were collected by means of household questionnaires, focus group discussion, interview, field observation and secondary sources. The nature and extent of human wildlife conflict in the study area were profoundly impacted humans, wild animal and the environment through crop damage, habitat disturbance and destruction, livestock predation, and killing of wildlife and human. The major causes of conflict manifested that agricultural expansion (30%), human settlement (24%), overgrazing by livestock (14%), deforestation (18%), illegal grass collection (10%) and poaching (4%). To defend crop raider, farmers have been practiced crop guarding (34%), live fencing (26%), scarecrow (22%), chasing (14%), and smoking (5%). However, fencing (38%), chasing (30%), scarecrow (24%) and guarding (8%) were controlling techniques to defend livestock predator animals. As emphasized in this study, human–wildlife conflicts are negative impacts on both human and wildlife. Accordingly, possible mitigate possibilities for peaceful co-existence between human and wildlife should be create awareness and training to the local communities, identifying clear border between the closure area and the land owned by the residents, formulate rules and regulation for performed local communities, equal benefit sharing of the local communities and reduction of human settlement encroachment into the national park range. Generally, researcher recommended that stakeholders and concerned bodies should be creating awareness to local community for the use of wildlife and human–wildlife conflict mitigation strategies.

Climate change and human–wildlife conflict are both pressing challenges for biodiversity conservation and human well-being in the Anthropocene. Climate change is a critical yet underappreciated amplifier of human–wildlife conflict, as it exacerbates resource scarcity, alters human and animal behaviours and distributions, and increases human–wildlife encounters. We synthesize evidence of climate-driven conflicts occurring among ten taxonomic orders, on six continents and in all five oceans. Such conflicts disrupt both subsistence livelihoods and industrial economies and may accelerate the rate at which human–wildlife conflict drives wildlife declines. We introduce a framework describing distinct environmental, ecological and sociopolitical pathways through which climate variability and change percolate via complex social–ecological systems to influence patterns and outcomes of human–wildlife interactions. Identifying these pathways allows for developing mitigation strategies and proactive policies to limit the impacts of human–wildlife conflict on biodiversity conservation and human well-being in a changing climate.The authors summarize the underappreciated role of climate change in amplifying human–wildlife conflict. They synthesize evidence of climate-related conflicts and introduce a framework highlighting the environmental, ecological and sociopolitical pathways linking climate change to conflict outcomes.

Trophic rewilding is an ecological restoration strategy that uses species introductions to restore top-down trophic interactions and associated trophic cascades to promote self-regulating biodiverse ecosystems. Given the importance of large animals in trophic cascades and their widespread losses and resulting trophic downgrading, it often focuses on restoring functional megafaunas. Trophic rewilding is increasingly being implemented for conservation, but remains controversial. Here, we provide a synthesis of its current scientific basis, highlighting trophic cascades as the key conceptual framework, discussing the main lessons learned from ongoing rewilding projects, systematically reviewing the current literature, and highlighting unintentional rewilding and spontaneous wildlife comebacks as underused sources of information. Together, these lines of evidence show that trophic cascades may be restored via species reintroductions and ecological replacements. It is clear, however, that megafauna effects may be affected by poorly understood trophic complexity effects and interactions with landscape settings, human activities, and other factors. Unfortunately, empirical research on trophic rewilding is still rare, fragmented, and geographically biased, with the literature dominated by essays and opinion pieces. We highlight the need for applied programs to include hypothesis testing and science-based monitoring, and outline priorities for future research, notably assessing the role of trophic complexity, interplay with landscape settings, land use, and climate change, as well as developing the global scope for rewilding and tools to optimize benefits and reduce human–wildlife conflicts. Finally, we recommend developing a decision framework for species selection, building on functional and phylogenetic information and with attention to the potential contribution from synthetic biology.

Human-wildlife conflicts are commonly addressed by excluding, relocating, or lethally controlling animals with the goal of preserving public health and safety, protecting property, or conserving other valued wildlife. However, declining wildlife populations, a lack of efficacy of control methods in achieving desired outcomes, and changes in how people value animals have triggered widespread acknowledgment of the need for ethical and evidence-based approaches to managing such conflicts. We explored international perspectives on and experiences with human-wildlife conflicts to develop principles for ethical wildlife control. A diverse panel of 20 experts convened at a 2-day workshop and developed the principles through a facilitated engagement process and discussion. They determined that efforts to control wildlife should begin wherever possible by altering the human practices that cause human-wildlife conflict and by developing a culture of coexistence; be justified by evidence that significant harms are being caused to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems, and/or other animals; have measurable outcome-based objectives that are clear, achievable, monitored, and adaptive; predictably minimize animal welfare harms to the fewest number of animals; be informed by community values as well as scientific, technical, and practical information; be integrated into plans for systematic long-term management; and be based on the specifics of the situation rather than negative labels (pest, overabundant) applied to the target species. We recommend that these principles guide development of international, national, and local standards and control decisions and implementation. Los conflictos entre los humanos y la vida silvestre son tratados comúnmente al excluir, reubicar o controlar letalmente a los animales con el objetivo de preservar la salud pública y la seguridad, proteger la propiedad o conservar a otros ejemplares valiosos de vida silvestre. Sin embargo, las poblaciones de vida silvestre declinantes, la falta de efectividad de los métodos de control para obtener los resultados deseados y los cambios en cómo las personas valoran a los animales han disparado un reconocimiento extendido por la necesidad de estrategias éticas basadas en evidencias para manejar dichos conflictos. Exploramos las perspectivas sobre y las experiencias internacionales con los conflictos entre humanos y vida silvestre para desarrollar los principios para un control ético de la vida silvestre. Un panel diverso de veinte expertos se reunió durante dos días en un taller y desarrolló los principios por medio de un proceso de participación facilitada y discusiones. Los expertos determinaron que los esfuerzos para controlar a la vida silvestre deberían comenzar en donde sea posible alterando las prácticas humanas que ocasionan el conflicto humano-vida silvestre y desarrollando una cultura de coexistencia; deberían estar justificados por la evidencia de los daños significativos que afectan a la gente, la propiedad, el sustento, los ecosistemas y otros animales; deberían tener objetivos medibles basados en resultados que son claros, alcanzables, monitoreados y adaptativos; deberían minimizar los daños al bienestar animal para el menor número de animales: deberían estar informados por los valores comunitarios así como la información científica, técnica y práctica; deberían ser integrados a los planes para el manejo sistemático a largo plazo; y deberían estar basados en las especificidades de la situación en lugar de las etiquetas negativas (plaga, sobreabundante) aplicadas a las especies objetivo. Recomendamos que estos principios guíen el desarrollo de los estándares internacionales, nacionales y locales y controlen las decisiones y su implementación.

Human-wildlife conflict is a major conservation challenge, and compensation for wildlife damage is a widely used economic tool to mitigate this conflict. The effectiveness of this management tool is widely debated. The relative importance of factors associated with compensation success is unclear, and little is known about global geographic or taxonomic differences in the application of compensation programs. We reviewed research on wildlife-damage compensation to determine geographic and taxonomic gaps, analyze patterns of positive and negative comments related to compensation, and assess the relative magnitude of global compensation payments. We analyzed 288 publications referencing wildlife compensation and identified 138 unique compensation programs. These publications reported US$222 million (adjusted for inflation) spent on compensation in 50 countries since 1980. Europeans published the most articles, and compensation funding was highest in Europe, where depredation by wolves and bears was the most frequently compensated damage. Authors of the publications we reviewed made twice as many negative comments as positive comments about compensation. Three-quarters of the negative comments related to program administration. Conversely, three-quarters of the positive comments related to program outcomes. The 3 most common suggestions to improve compensation programs included requiring claimants to employ damageprevention practices, such as improving livestock husbandry orfencing of crops to receive compensation (n = 25, 15%); modifying ex post compensation schemes to some form of outcome-based performance payment (n = 21, 12%); and altering programs to make compensation payments more quickly (n = 14, 8%). We suggest that further understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of compensation as a conflict-mitigation tool will require more systematic evaluation of the factors driving these opinions and that differentiating process and outcomes and understanding linkages between them will result in more fruitful analyses and ultimately more effective conflict mitigation. El conflicto humano – fauna silvestre es un enorme reto para la conservación, y la compensación del daño hecho a la fauna es una herramienta única utilizada ampliamente para mitigar este conflicto. La efectividad de esta herramienta de manejo se debate ampliamente. La importancia relativa de los factores asociados con el éxito de la compensación no es clara y se sabe poco sobre las diferencias geográficas o taxonómicas en la aplicación de los programas de compensación. Revisamos las investigaciones sobre la compensación del daño a la fauna para determinar los vacíos geográficos y taxonómicos, analizar los patrones de los comentarios positivos y negativos relacionados con la compensación, y valorar la magnitud relativa de los pagos de compensación global. Analizamos 288 publicaciones con referencias a la compensación de fauna e identificamos 138 programas únicos de compensación. Estas publicaciones reportaron USD $222 millones (ajustados a la inflación) gastados en la compensación en 50 países desde 1980. Los europeos publicaron la mayoría de los artículos, y el financiamiento de la compensación fue más alto en Europa, en donde la depredación por lobos y osos fue el daño compensado con mayor frecuencia. Tres-cuartos de los comentarios negativos se relacionaron con la administración del programa. Al contrario, tres-cuartos de los comentarios positivos se relacionaron con los resultados de los programas. Las tres sugerencias más comunes para mejorar los programas de compensación incluyeron requerir que los solicitantes emplearan prácticas de prevención del daño, como la mejora de la crianza de ganado o la colocación de cercas alrededor de cultivos para recibir compensación (n = 25, 15%); modificar los esquemas post-modificación anteriores en alguna forma de pago de desempeño basado en el resultado (n = 21, 12%); y alterar los programas para realizar pagos de compensación de forma más rápida (n = 14, 8%). Sugerimos que el futuro entendimiento de las fortalezas y debilidades de la compensación como herramienta en la mitigación del conflicto requerirá evaluaciones más sistemáticas de los factores que conducen a estas opiniones y que diferenciar los procesos y resultados y entender las conexiones entre ellos resultará en análisis más fructíferos, y finalmente una mitigación de conflictos más efectiva.

Public tolerance toward predators is fundamental in their conservation and is highly driven by people’s perception of the risk they may pose. Although predator attacks on humans are rare, they create lasting media attention, and the way the media covers them might affect people’s risk perception. Understanding how mass media presents attacks and how this can affect perception will provide insights into potential strategies to improve coexistence with these species. We collected media reports of predator attacks on humans and examined their content. Almost half (41.5%) of the analyzed reports contained graphic elements. Differences in framing between species groups or species were found, with sharks and leopards having the highest proportion of graphic reports, whereas canids and bears had the highest number of neutral reports. This bias in coverage, instead of providing insights into the causes of these incidents and possible remedies, may provoke fear and decrease support for predator conservation.