Cross-Landscape Approaches to Human Wildlife Conflicts—Naïve or Necessary?
- Adopting a more balanced view and a stronger involvement of previously underrepresented organismic groups: As shown above, approaching the topic from a wildlife perspective seems promising. Although there is a large amount of literature on the overall topic of human–wildlife conflicts, certain organismic groups, such as invertebrates or plants, need more attention.
- Transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches are needed: It is possibly a result of the above-mentioned anthropocentric view that many studies dealing with human–wildlife conflicts look at how people perceive the conflicts rather than the potential threats arising for wildlife. Additionally, this SI features more contributions based on social scientific approaches when compared to classic ecological studies. However, a genuine combination of methods and approaches from different disciplines seems favorable.
- Urbanization and successful nature conservation could become even more important facilitators of conflicts in the future: The traditional perception sees wildlife as a threat or as a competitor concerning human land or resource requirements (e.g., wildlife as a threat to agricultural production systems or infrastructure). With a view to current developments and a greater awareness of the idea of the co-existence of humans and wildlife, the subject of human–wildlife conflict could be given more attention in the future in connection with urbanization or the successful further development of nature reserves.
Conflicts of Interest
- Epstein, D. Range: Why Generalists Triumph in a Specialized World; Penguin Group: New York, NY, USA, 2019; 339p. [Google Scholar]
- Burton, A.C. Variety—The spice of science as well as of life: The disadvantages of specialization. Annu. Rev. Physiol. 1975, 37, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davies, T.E.; Wilson, S.; Hazarika, N.; Chakrabarty, J.; Das, D.; Hodgson, D.J.; Zimmermann, A. Effectiveness of intervention methods against crop-raiding elephants. Conserv. Let. 2011, 4, 346–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerisoli, M.D.L.M.; Luengos Vidal, E.; Caruso, N.; Giordano, A.J.; Lucherini, M. Puma–livestock conflicts in the Americas: A review of the evidence. Mammal Rev. 2020, 51, 228–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michalski, F.; Boulhosa, R.L.P.; Faria, A.; Peres, C.A. Human–wildlife conflicts in a fragmented Amazonian forest landscape: Determinants of large felid depredation on livestock. Anim. Conserv. 2006, 9, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battisti, C.; Amori, G. Problem solving and decision-making in project management of problematic wildlife: A review of some approaches and conceptual tools. In Problematic Wildlife: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach; Angelici, F.M., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 109–122. [Google Scholar]
- Stenseth, N.C.; Leirs, H.; Skonhoft, A.; Davis, S.A.; Pech, R.P.; Andreassen, H.P.; Singleton, G.R.; Lima, M.; Machang’u, R.S.; Makundi, R.H.; et al. Mice, rats, and people: The bio-economics of agricultural rodent pests. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2003, 1, 367–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Starik, N.; Mbango, O.K.; Bengsch, S.; Göttert, T.; Zeller, U. Landscape Transformation Influences Responses of Terrestrial Small Mammals to Land Use Intensity in North-Central Namibia. Diversity 2020, 12, 488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Göttert, T.; Starik, N. Human–Wildlife Conflicts across Landscapes—General Applicability vs. Case Specificity. Diversity 2022, 14, 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Starik, N.; Göttert, T.; Zeller, U. Spatial Behavior and Habitat Use of Two Sympatric Bat Species. Animals 2021, 11, 3460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Starik, N.; Göttert, T. Bats adjust echolocation and social call design as a response to urban environments. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 10, 939408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coman, I.A.; Cooper-Norris, C.E.; Longing, S.; Perry, G. It Is a Wild World in the City: Urban Wildlife Conservation and Communication in the Age of COVID-19. Diversity 2022, 14, 539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fardell, L.L.; Pavey, C.R.; Dickman, C.R. Backyard Biomes: Is Anyone There? Improving Public Awareness of Urban Wildlife Activity. Diversity 2022, 14, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perry, G.; Boal, C.; Verble, R.; Wallace, M. "Good” and “bad” urban wildlife. In Problematic Wildlife II: New Conservation and Management Challenges in the Human-Wildlife Interactions; Angelici, F.M., Rossi, L., Eds.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 141–170. [Google Scholar]
- Tampakis, S.; Andrea, V.; Panagopoulos, T.; Karanikola, P.; Gkarmiri, R.; Georgoula, T. Managing the Conflict of Human–Wildlife Coexistence: A Community-Based Approach. Land 2023, 12, 832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perry, G.; Stone, L.A.; Obaid, O. Adapting US foreign assistance for a rapidly urbanizing world. Sci. Dipl. 2021, 10, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Khattak, R.H.; Teng, L.; Mehmood, T.; Ahmad, S.; Rehman, E.U.; Basak, S.M.; Liu, Z. A Perspective of the Human–Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) Conflicts in Kumrat Valley, Northern Pakistan. Diversity 2022, 14, 887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boronyak, L.; Jacobs, B.; Smith, B. Unlocking lethal dingo management in Australia. Diversity 2023, 15, 642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Göttert, T.; Perry, G. Going Wild in the City—Animal Feralization and Its Impacts on Biodiversity in Urban Environments. Animals 2023, 13, 747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Letnic, M.; Fillios, M.; Crowther, M.S. Could direct killing by larger dingoes have caused the extinction of the thylacine from mainland Australia? PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e34877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fillios, M.; Crowther, M.S.; Letnic, M. The impact of the dingo on the thylacine in Holocene Australia. World Archaeol. 2012, 44, 118–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeller, U.; Göttert, T. The relations between evolution and domestication reconsidered-implications for systematics, ecology, and nature conservation. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 20, e00756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sánchez-Villagra, M. The Process of Animal Domestication; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2022; 352p. [Google Scholar]
- Moran, L.L.K.; Dorr, B.S.; Hanson-Dorr, K.C.; Moore, R.J.; Rush, S.A. Space Use and Movements of Southeastern Breeding Double-Crested Cormorants (Nannopterum auritum) in the United States. Diversity 2023, 15, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chamberlain, D.E.; Austin, G.E.; Green, R.E.; Hulme, M.F.; Burton, N.H.K. Improved estimates of population trends of Great Cormorants Phalacrocorax carbo in England and Wales for effective management of a protected species at the centre of a human–wildlife conflict. Bird Study 2013, 60, 335–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dehnhard, N.; Langset, M.; Aglen, A.; Lorentsen, S.H.; Anker-Nilssen, T. Fish consumption by great cormorants in Norwegian coastal waters—A human-wildlife conflict for wrasses, but not gadids. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2021, 78, 1074–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Distefano, E. Human-Wildlife Conflict Worldwide: Collection of Case Studies, Analysis of Management Strategies and Good Practices; Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Sustainable Agriculture; Rural Development Initiative (SARDI): Rome, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Göttert, T.; Zeller, U. Das Etosha Pufferzonenprojekt—Ein Konzept zur Unterstützung der Bemühungen zur Anbindung des Etosha Nationalparks an das transnationale Netzwerk von Schutzgebieten im südlichen Afrika. Beitr. J. Wildf. 2008, 33, 282–293. [Google Scholar]
- Mannetti, L.M.; Göttert, T.; Zeller, U.; Esler, K.J. Identifying and categorizing stakeholders for protected area expansion around a national park in Namibia. Ecol. Soc. 2019, 24, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoldt, M.; Göttert, T.; Mann, C.; Zeller, U. Transfrontier Conservation Areas and Human-Wildlife Conflict: The Case of the Namibian Component of the Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA) TFCA. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 7964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luetkemeier, R.; Kraus, R.; Mbidzo, M.; Hauptfleisch, M.; Liehr, S.; Blaum, N. A Qualitative Exploration of Conflicts in Human-Wildlife Interactions in Namibia’s Kunene Region. Diversity 2023, 15, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dickman, A.J. Complexities of conflict: The importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Anim. Conserv. 2010, 13, 458–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Redpath, S.M.; Bhatia, S.; Young, J. Tilting at wildlife: Reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx 2015, 49, 222–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Göttert, T.; Schöne, J.; Hodges, J.K.; Böer, M. Habitat use and spatial organisation of relocated black rhinos in Namibia. Mammalia 2010, 74, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
© 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Göttert, T. Cross-Landscape Approaches to Human Wildlife Conflicts—Naïve or Necessary? Diversity 2023, 15, 653. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15050653
Göttert T. Cross-Landscape Approaches to Human Wildlife Conflicts—Naïve or Necessary? Diversity. 2023; 15(5):653. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15050653Chicago/Turabian Style
Göttert, Thomas. 2023. "Cross-Landscape Approaches to Human Wildlife Conflicts—Naïve or Necessary?" Diversity 15, no. 5: 653. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15050653