Book contents
- Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Conservation Biology
- Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Map
- 1 Human–Wildlife Conflicts and the Need to Include Coexistence
- 2 A Multilevel, Systems View of Values Can Inform a Move towards Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 3 Broadening the Aperture on Coexistence with Wildlife through the Lenses of Identity, Risk and Morals
- 4 Understanding Emotions As Opportunities for and Barriers to Coexistence with Wildlife
- 5 Tolerance for Wildlife
- 6 A Framework for Assessing and Quantifying Human–Wildlife Interactions in Urban Areas
- 7 Predators in Human Landscapes
- 8 Corridor of Conflict
- 9 A Collaborative Approach for Coexistence with Wildlife in Rural Regions of Japan
- 10 Towards Tolerance and Coexistence
- 11 Elephants and Bees
- 12 The Twin Challenges of Preventing Real and Perceived Threats to Human Interests
- 13 Conflict and Coexistence with Invasive Wildlife
- 14 Institutions for Achieving Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 15 Worldviews and Coexistence with Coyotes
- 16 Conservation Marketing As a Tool to Promote Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 17 Leaping Forward
- 18 Towards Human–Wildlife Coexistence through the Integration of Human and Natural Systems
- 19 Planning for Coexistence in a Complex Human-Dominated World
- 20 Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
7 - Predators in Human Landscapes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 April 2019
Book contents
- Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Conservation Biology
- Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface
- Map
- 1 Human–Wildlife Conflicts and the Need to Include Coexistence
- 2 A Multilevel, Systems View of Values Can Inform a Move towards Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 3 Broadening the Aperture on Coexistence with Wildlife through the Lenses of Identity, Risk and Morals
- 4 Understanding Emotions As Opportunities for and Barriers to Coexistence with Wildlife
- 5 Tolerance for Wildlife
- 6 A Framework for Assessing and Quantifying Human–Wildlife Interactions in Urban Areas
- 7 Predators in Human Landscapes
- 8 Corridor of Conflict
- 9 A Collaborative Approach for Coexistence with Wildlife in Rural Regions of Japan
- 10 Towards Tolerance and Coexistence
- 11 Elephants and Bees
- 12 The Twin Challenges of Preventing Real and Perceived Threats to Human Interests
- 13 Conflict and Coexistence with Invasive Wildlife
- 14 Institutions for Achieving Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 15 Worldviews and Coexistence with Coyotes
- 16 Conservation Marketing As a Tool to Promote Human–Wildlife Coexistence
- 17 Leaping Forward
- 18 Towards Human–Wildlife Coexistence through the Integration of Human and Natural Systems
- 19 Planning for Coexistence in a Complex Human-Dominated World
- 20 Human–Wildlife Interactions
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Summary
Attitudes toward large carnivores are often embedded in people’s understandings of the landscape, as much as in perceptions of the animals themselves. As can be seen in many places globally, predators stir controversy in areas where the impact of their presence is less than dramatic. In such areas, people who have no personal experience with these species may still be strongly involved in conflicts over them. These conflicts, while social in origin, may have serious consequences for wildlife and for a conservation agenda. Studies in Norway and India have shown that interpretations of landscape change exert a strong influence on willingness to accept large carnivores. Attitudes towards large carnivores are related to how people use the land and perceive the landscape in relation to the tasks that are performed in it. Ideal types of landscapes must 'match' social representations of animals. By focusing on how people relate to the landscape we demonstrate that behind conflicts that appear to be between humans and wildlife, there is a deep anxiety concerning changing land-use and core aspects of contemporary social change in general.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Human–Wildlife InteractionsTurning Conflict into Coexistence, pp. 129 - 149Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
7.6 References
Athreya, V., Odden, M., Linnell, J. D. C., Krishnaswamy, J. & Karanth, K. U. (2014). A cat among the dogs: Leopard Panthera pardus diet in a human-dominated landscape in western Maharashtra, India. Oryx, 50(1), 156–62.Google Scholar
Bender, B. (1998). Stonehenge: Making Space. New York: Oxford International Publishers.Google Scholar
Bjerke, T., Reitan, O. & Kellert, S. R. (1998). Attitudes toward wolves in south eastern Norway. Society & Natural Resources, 11(2), 169–78.Google Scholar
Brottveit, Å. & Aagedal, O. (1999). Jaktapåelgjaktkulturen (Hunting for the moose-hunting culture). Oslo: Abstraktforlag.Google Scholar
Bruskotter, J. T., Schmidt, R. H. & Teel, T. L. (2007). Are attitudes toward wolves changing? A case study in Utah. Biological Conservation, 139, 211–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calhoun, C. J., Gerteis, J., Moody, J., Pfaff, S. & Virk, I. (2007). Contemporary Sociological Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cronon, W. (1995). Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature. New York: W.W. Norton and Co.Google Scholar
Ericsson, G., Bosdet, G. & Kindberg, J. (2008). Wolves as a symbol of people’s willingness to pay for large carnivore conservation. Society & Natural Resources, 21, 294–309.Google Scholar
Ericsson, G. & Heberlein, T. A. (2003). Attitudes of hunters, locals and the general public in Sweden now that the wolves are back. Biological Conservation, 111(2), 149–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figari, H. & Skogen, K. (2011). Social representations of the wolf: A core of shared understanding. Acta Sociologica, 54(4), 317–32.Google Scholar
Fischer, A., Kereži, V., Arroyo, B., Mateos-Delibes, M., Tadie, D., Lowassa, A., Krange, O. & Skogen, K. (2013). (De-)legitimising hunting: Discourses over the morality of hunting in Europe and eastern Africa. Land Use Policy, 32, 261–70.CrossRefGoogle 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
Ghosal, S., Athreya, V. R., Linnell, J. D. C. & Vedeld, P. O. (2013). An ontological crisis? A review of large felid conservation in India. Biodiversity & Conservation, 22(11), 2665–81.Google Scholar
Ghosal, S. & Kjosavik, D. J. (2015). Living with leopards: Negotiating morality and modernity in Western India. Society & Natural Resources, 28(10), 1092–1107.Google Scholar
Ghosal, S., Skogen, K. & Krishnan, S. (2015). Locating human–wildlife interactions: Landscape constructions and responses to large carnivore conservation in India and Norway. Conservation & Society, 13(3), 265–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gusset, M., Maddock, A. H., Gunther, G. J., Szykman, M., Slotow, R., Walters, M. & Somers, M. J. (2008). Conflicting human interests over the re-introduction of endangered wild dogs in South Africa. Biodiversity Conservation, 17, 83–101.Google Scholar
Hedström, P. (2005). Dissecting the Social: On Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobsbawm, E. J. & Ranger, T. (1992). The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Inskip, C. & Zimmermann, A. (2009). Human–felid conflict: A review of patterns and priorities worldwide. Oryx, 41, 18–34.Google Scholar
Neumann, R. P. (1998). Imposing Wilderness: Struggles over Livelihood and Nature Preservation in Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Olwig, K. R. (1996). Recovering the substantive nature of landscape. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 86, 630–53.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, E. (2000). The reintroduction and reinterpretation of the wild. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 13, 145–65.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. N., Birckhead, J. L., Leong, K., Peterson, M. L. & Peterson, T. R. (2010a). Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlife conflict. Conservation Letters, 3, 74–82.Google Scholar
Peterson, R. B., Russel, D., West, P. & Brosius, P. J. (2010b). Seeing (and doing) conservation through cultural lenses. Environmental Management, 45, 5–18.Google Scholar
Philo, C. & Wilbert, C. (2000). Animal spaces, beastly places: New geographies of human–animal relations. An introduction. In Philo, C. & Wilbert, C., eds., Animal Spaces, Beastly Places: New Geographies of Human–Animal Relations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Proctor, J. (1998). The spotted owl and the contested moral landscape of the Pacific Northwest. In Wolch, J. & Emel, J., eds., Animal Geographies. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
Saberwal, V. K., Gibbs, J. P., Chellam, R. & Johnsingh, A. J. T. (1994). Lion–human conflict in the Gir forest, India. Conservation Biology, 8, 501–7.Google Scholar
Sjölander-Lindqvist, A. (2007). Local identity, science and politics indivisible: The Swedish wolf controversy deconstructed. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 10, 71–94.Google Scholar
Skogen, K. (2001). Who’s afraid of the big, bad wolf? Young people’s responses to the conflicts over large carnivores in Eastern Norway. Rural Sociology, 66(2), 203–26.Google Scholar
Skogen, K. & Krange, O. (2003). A wolf at the gate: The anti-carnivore alliance and the symbolic construction of community. Sociologia Ruralis, 43(3), 309–25.Google Scholar
Skogen, K., Krange, O. & Figari, H. (2017). Wolf Conflicts: A Sociological Study. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Skogen, K., Mauz, I. & Krange, O. (2008). Cry wolf! Narratives of wolf recovery in France and Norway. Rural Sociology, 73(1), 105–33.Google Scholar
Treves, A. & Karanth, K. U. (2003). Human–carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conservation Biology, 17, 1491–9.Google Scholar