Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:36:54.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - The Twin Challenges of Preventing Real and Perceived Threats to Human Interests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2019

By
Omar Ohrens ,
Francisco Santiago-Ávila  and
Adrian Treves
Edited by
Beatrice Frank ,
Jenny A. Glikman  and
Silvio Marchini
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
Get access

Summary

Coexistence with wildlife should be promoted by methods that preserve animals and protect human interests so the motivation to retaliate is lowered. Non-lethal interventions should meet two criteria. First, if non-lethal methods are functionally effective (FE), defined as preventing threats to human interests, one justification for lethal interventions should diminish. Second, if non-lethal methods are also perceived as effective (PE), another justification for lethal control should diminish. Therefore, both PE and FE of methods might have to align for individual human adoption of a novel method of wildlife control. Here we discuss PE and its cognitive components relevant to implementation of interventions. We present many examples from terrestrial carnivores to illustrate the variability of PE. We also present an integrative framework for understanding the potential overlap of PE and FE. Finally, we summarize the research needs to advance the study of PE in human–wildlife interactions.
Type
Chapter
Information
Human–Wildlife Interactions
Turning Conflict into Coexistence
 , pp. 242 - 264
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.)

References

12.6 References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amit, R. & Jacobson, S. K. (2017). Understanding rancher coexistence with jaguars and pumas: A typology for conservation practice. Biodiversity & Conservation, 26, 1353–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ängsteg, I., Ängsteg, R., Levin, M., Karlsson, J., Eklund, A. & Råsberg, A. (2014). Stängsling mot stora rovdjur. Sweden: Viltskadecenter, SLU.Google Scholar
Barrett, L. F. (2006). Solving the emotion paradox: Categorization and the experience of emotion. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 10, 20–46.Google Scholar
Breitenmoser, U., Angst, C., Landary, J.-M., Breitenmoser-Wursten, C., Linnell, J. D. C. & Weber, J.-M. (2005). Non-lethal techniques for reducing depredation. In Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S. & Rabinowitz, A., eds., People & Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49–71.Google Scholar
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D. C., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., López-Bao, J. V., Adamec, M., Álvares, F., Anders, O., Balčiauskas, L., Balys, V., Bedő, P., Bego, F., Blanco, J. C., Breitenmoser, U., Brøseth, H., Bufka, L., Bunikyte, R., Ciucci, P., Dutsov, A., Engleder, T., Fuxjäger, C., Groff, C., Holmala, K., Hoxha, B., Iliopoulos, Y., Ionescu, O., Jeremić, J., Jerina, K., Kluth, G., Knauer, F., Kojola, I., Kos, I., Krofel, M., Kubala, J., Kunovac, S., Kusak, J., Kutal, M., Liberg, O., Majić, A., Männil, P., Manz, R., Marboutin, E., Marucco, F., Melovski, D., Mersini, K., Mertzanis, Y., Mysłajek, R. W., Nowak, S., Odden, J., Ozolins, J., Palomero, G., Paunović, M., Persson, J., Potočnik, H., Quenette, P.-Y., Rauer, G., Reinhardt, I., Rigg, R., Ryser, A., Salvatori, V., Skrbinšek, T., Stojanov, A., Swenson, J. E., Szemethy, L., Trajçe, A., Tsingarska-Sedefcheva, E., Váňa, M., Veeroja, R., Wabakken, P., Wölfl, M., Wölfl, S., Zimmermann, F., Zlatanova, D. & Boitani, L. (2014). Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science, 346, 1517–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunwoody, S. (2007). The challenge of trying to make a difference using media messages. In Moser, S. C. & Dilling, L., eds., Creating a Climate for Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 89–104.Google Scholar
Eklund, A., López-Bao, J. V., Tourani, M., Chapron, G. & Frank, J. (2017). Limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce livestock predation by large carnivores. Scientific Reports, 7, 2097.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Espuno, N., Lequette, B., Poulle, M. L., Migot, P. & Lebreton, J. D. (2004). Heterogeneous response to preventive sheep husbandry during wolf recolonization of the French Alps. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 32, 1195–1208.Google Scholar
Esteves, F. & Öhman, A. (1993). Masking the face: Recognition of emotional facial expressions as a function of the parameters of backward masking. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 34, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Favre, D. S. (1979). Wildlife rights: The ever-widening circle. Environmental Law, 9, 241–81.Google Scholar
Finucane, M. L., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Flynn, J. & Satterfield, T. A. (2000). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The ‘white male’ effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2, 159–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishbein, M. & Yzer, M. C. (2003). Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions. Communication Theory, 13, 164–83.Google Scholar
Frank, B. (2016). Human–wildlife conflicts and the need to include tolerance and coexistence: An introductory comment. Society & Natural Resources, 29, 738–43.Google Scholar
Frank, J. & Eklund, A. (2017). Poor construction, not time, takes its toll on subsidised fences designed to deter large carnivores. PLoS ONE, 12, e0175211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, J., Johansson, M. & Flykt, A. (2015). Public attitude towards the implementation of management actions aimed at reducing human fear of brown bears and wolves. Wildlife Biology, 2, 122–30.Google Scholar
Gehring, T. M., VerCauteren, K. C., Provost, M. L. & Cellar, A. C. (2010). Utility of livestock-protection dogs for deterring wildlife from cattle farms. Wildlife Research, 37, 715–21.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J., Campbell, M., Eccles, M. & Steen, N. (2000). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for evaluating guideline implementation strategies. Family Practice, 17, 11–18.Google Scholar
Heberlein, T. (2012). Navigating Environmental Attitudes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchins, M. & Wemmer, C. (1986). Wildlife conservation and animal rights: Are they compatible? In Fox, M. W. & Mickley, L. D., eds., Advances in Animal Welfare Science 1986/87. Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States, pp. 111–37.Google Scholar
Inskip, C. & Zimmermann, A. (2009). Human–felid conflict: A review of patterns and priorities worldwide. Oryx, 43, 18–34.Google Scholar
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, 696–701.Google Scholar
Johansson, M. & Karlsson, J. (2011). Subjective experience of fear and the cognitive interpretation of large carnivores. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 16, 15–29.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. N. & Wallach, A. D. (2016). The virtuous circle: Predator-friendly farming and ecological restoration in Australia. Restoration Ecology, 24, 821–6.Google Scholar
Jones, J. P. G., Andriamarovololona, M. M. & Hockley, N. (2008). The importance of taboos and social norms to conservation in Madagascar. Conservation Biology, 22, 976–86.Google Scholar
Kahnemann, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697–720.Google Scholar
Karanth, K. U. & Madhusudan, M. D. (2002). Mitigating human–wildlife conflicts in southern Asia. In Terborgh, J., Van Schaik, C. P., Rao, M. & Davenport, L. C., eds., Making Parks Work: Identifying Key Factors to Implementing Parks in the Tropics. Covelo, CA: Island Press, pp. 250–64.Google Scholar
Karlsson, J. & Sjöström, M. (2011). Subsidized fencing of livestock as a means of increasing tolerance for wolves. Ecology & Society, 16, art. 16.Google Scholar
Kellert, S. R. (1985). Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote. Biological Conservation, 31, 167–89.Google Scholar
Kinzig, A. P., Ehrlich, P. R., Alston, L. J., Arrow, K., Barrett, S., Buchman, T. G., Daily, G. C., Levin, B., Levin, S., Oppenheimer, M., Ostrom, E. & Saari, D. (2013). Social norms and global environmental challenges: The complex interaction of behaviors, values, and policy. BioScience, 63, 164–75.Google Scholar
Lindquist, K. A., Wager, T. D., Kober, H., Bliss-Moreau, E. & Barrett, L. F. (2012). The brain basis of emotion: A meta-analytic review. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 35, 121–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchini, S. & Macdonald, D. W. (2012). Predicting ranchers’ intention to kill jaguars: Case studies in Amazonia. Biological Conservation, 147, 213–21.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, 687–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. R. B., Stoner, K. J., Cejtin, M. R., Meyer, T. K., Middleton, A. D. & Schmitz, O. J. (2016). Effectiveness of contemporary techniques for reducing livestock depredations by large carnivores. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 40, 806–15.Google Scholar
Morris, J. S., Öhman, A. & Dolan, R. J. (1999). A subcortical pathway to the right amygdala mediating ‘unseen’ fear. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96, 1680–5.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, S. (2010). The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Newing, H., Eagle, C. M., Puri, R. K. & Watson, C. W. (2011). Conducting Research in Conservation: Social Science Methods and Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Öhman, A. & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108, 483–522.Google Scholar
Ohrens, O., Treves, A. & Bonacic, C. (2016). Relationship between rural depopulation and puma–human conflict in the high Andes of Chile. Environmental Conservation, 43, 24–33.Google Scholar
Ohrens, O., Bonacic, C. & Treves, A. (2019). Non-lethal defense of livestock against predators: Flashing lights deter puma attacks in Chile. Frontiers in Ecology & the Environment.Google Scholar
Platt, J. R. (1964). Strong inference. Science, 146, 347–53.Google Scholar
Plumer, L., Talvi, T. N., Männil, P. & Saarma, U. (2018). Assessing the roles of wolves and dogs in livestock predation and suggestions for mitigating human–wildlife conflict and conservation of wolves. Conservation Genetics, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-017-1045–4Google Scholar
Powell, M., Dunwoody, S., Griffin, R. & Neuwirth, K. (2007). Exploring lay uncertainty about an environmental health risk. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 323–43.Google Scholar
Ramp, D. & Bekoff, M. (2015). Compassion as a practical and evolved ethic for conservation. BioScience, 65, 323–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., Amar, A., Lambert, R. A., Linnell, J. D. C., Watt, A. & Gutiérrez, R. J. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 28, 100–9.Google Scholar
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, 141, 2417–31.Google Scholar
Rust, N. A., Whitehouse-Tedd, K. M. & MacMillan, D. C. (2013). Perceived efficacy of livestock-guarding dogs in South Africa: Implications for cheetah conservation. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 37, 690–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santiago-Ávila, F., Cornman, A. M. & Treves, A. (2018a). Killing wolves to prevent predation on livestock may protect one farm but harm neighbours. PLoS ONE, 13, e0189729.Google Scholar
Santiago-Ávila, F., Lynn, W. & Treves, A. (2018b). Inappropriate consideration of animal interests in predator management: Towards a comprehensive moral code. In Hovardas, T., ed., Large Carnivore Conservation and Management: Human Dimensions. New York: Routledge, pp. 227–51.Google Scholar
Schlüter, M., Baeza, A., Dressler, G., Frank, K., Groeneveld, J., Jager, W., Janssen, M. A., McAllister, R. R. J., Müller, B., Orach, K., Schwarz, N. & Wijermans, N. (2017). A framework for mapping and comparing behavioural theories in models of social-ecological systems. Ecological Economics, 131, 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shivik, J., Treves, A. & Callahan, P. (2003). Nonlethal techniques for managing predation: Primary and secondary repellents. Conservation Biology, 17, 1531–7.Google Scholar
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–5.Google Scholar
Sponarski, C., Vaske, J. & Bath, A. (2015). The role of cognitions and emotions in human–coyote interactions. Human Dimensions Wildlife, 20, 238–54.Google Scholar
Starr, C. (1969). Social benefit versus technological risk. Science, 165, 1232–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
St John, F. A. V., Keane, A. M., Jones, J. P. G. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2014). Robust study design is as important on the social as it is on the ecological side of applied ecological research. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 1479–85.Google Scholar
Treves, A. & Bruskotter, J. (2014). Tolerance for predatory wildlife. Science, 344, 476–7.Google Scholar
Treves, A., Chapron, G., López-Bao, J. V., Shoemaker, C., Goeckner, A. R. & Bruskotter, J. T. (2015). Predators and the public trust. Biological Reviews, 92, 248–70.Google Scholar
Treves, A. & Karanth, K. U. (2003). Human–carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conservation Biology, 17, 1491–9.Google Scholar
Treves, A., Krofel, M. & McManus, J. (2016). Predator control should not be a shot in the dark. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14, 380–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treves, A. & Pizzagalli, D. (2002). Vigilance and perception of social stimuli: Views from ethology and social neuroscience. In Bekoff, M., Allen, C. & Burghardt, G., eds., The Cognitive Animal: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives on Animal Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 463–9.Google Scholar
Treves, A., Wallace, R. B., Naughton-Treves, L. & Morales, A. (2006). Co-managing human–wildlife conflicts: A review. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11, 383–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treves, A., Wallace, R. B. & White, S. (2009). Participatory planning of interventions to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts. Conservation Biology, 23, 1577–87.Google Scholar
van Eeden, L. M., Crowther, M. S., Dickman, C. R., Macdonald, D. W., Ripple, W. J., Ritchie, E. G. & Newsome, T. M. (2018a). Managing conflict between large carnivores and livestock. Conservation Biology, 32, 26–34.Google Scholar
van Eeden, L. M., Eklund, A., Miller, J. R. B., López-Bao, J. V., Chapron, G., Cejtin, M. R., Crowther, M., Dickman, C., Frank, J., Krofel, M., Macdonald, D. W., McManus, J., Meyer, T. K., Middleton, A. D., Newsome, T., Ripple, W. J., Ritchie, E. G., Schmitz, O. J., Stoner, K. J., Tourani, M. & Treves, A. (2018b). Carnivore conservation needs evidence-based livestock protection. PLoS Biology, 16(9), e2005577.Google Scholar
Wallach, A. D., Bekoff, M., Nelson, M. P. & Ramp, D. (2015). Promoting predators and compassionate conservation. Conservation Biology, 29, 1481–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whalen, P. J., Rauch, S. L., Etcoff, N. L., McInerney, S. C., Lee, M. B. & Jenike, M. A. (1998). Masked presentations of emotional facial expressions modulate amygdala activity without explicit knowledge. Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 411–18.Google Scholar
Wieczorek Hudenko, H. (2012). Exploring the influence of emotion on human decision making in human–wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 17, 16–28.Google Scholar
Woodroffe, R. & Ginsberg, J. R. (1998). Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science, 280, 2126–8.Google Scholar
Woodroffe, R. & Redpath, S. M. (2015). When the hunter becomes the hunted. Science, 348, 1312–14.Google Scholar
Zarco-González, M. M. & Monroy-Vilchis, O. (2014). Effectiveness of low-cost deterrents in decreasing livestock predation by felids: A case in Central Mexico. Animal Conservation, 17, 371–8.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×