Elsevier

Biological Conservation

Volume 201, September 2016, Pages 137-145
Biological Conservation

A wildlife tolerance model and case study for understanding human wildlife conflicts

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.002Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We present a Wildlife Tolerance Model to identify key factors driving tolerance towards animals

  • We tested the model using a case study of urban baboons and found support for the model

  • 60% of tolerance towards baboons was explained by perceptions of costs and benefits.

  • 30% of experience of baboons was explained by perceptions of costs and benefits

  • Intangible costs and benefits equally contributed to explaining tolerance but tangible costs had no significant effect.

Abstract

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is a complex conservation issue and acknowledging the human dimensions of the problem is critical. Here we propose the Wildlife Tolerance Model (WTM), a novel theoretical framework to identify key drivers of tolerance to living with damage-causing wildlife. The WTM proposes an outer model, where the extent to which a person experiences a species determines perceptions of costs relative to benefits of living with a species. This in turn determines tolerance. A second component, the inner model predicts eleven variables that may further drive perceptions of costs and benefits. In the current paper we test the outer model while in a forthcoming publication we test the inner model using a case study of human-baboon conflict in Cape Town, South Africa. Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling we found support for the outer model. Experience explained 30% of variance in costs and benefits and 60% of tolerance was explained by perceptions of costs and benefits. Intangible costs and intangible benefits equally contributed to driving tolerance but tangible costs had no significant effect on tolerance. Separating two dimensions of experience, (i) exposure to a species explained costs more than benefits, and (ii) positive experiences explained intangible costs and benefits more than tangible costs while negative experiences equally explained costs and benefits. We discuss management implications of the findings and conclude that the WTM could be a useful diagnostic tool and theoretical framework to inform management interventions and policies to mitigate HWC.

Introduction

Mammals are declining worldwide and while habitat loss, habitat degradation and harvesting pose the greatest threat to mammals (IUCN, 2008) these factors indirectly promote conflicts. As the declining wildlife habitats become smaller and fragmented, contact between people and wildlife increases. Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) is therefore recognized as a global priority (Manfredo, 2015) and an emerging research field (Cronin et al., 2014) as it can incur major costs to rural people's livelihoods and lives, as well as reduce support for conservation projects in general (Redpath et al., 2013). Initial research focused on finding technological solutions to mitigate the impacts of wildlife, assuming damage was the main driver of intolerance. However ongoing research revealed that “the causes of conflict are often complex and deep-seated, and a broader approach must be utilized in order to ameliorate such conflict fully in the long term” (Dickman, 2010). To address this complexity a focus on the human dimensions of wildlife conflicts is increasingly being acknowledged as critical (Decker et al., 2012, Redpath et al., 2013, Manfredo, 2015). Human wildlife conflicts can therefore be framed as occurring within Social Ecological Systems (SES) where interactions between ecosystems, biodiversity and people take place (Folk et al., 2004). Framing HWC within SES acknowledges HWC as a complex conservation problem that requires multidisciplinary and trans-disciplinary approaches (Game et al., 2014). We define Human wildlife conflicts (HWC) as a type of biodiversity conflict (Bennett et al., 2001) consisting of two components: (i) impacts that deal with direct interactions between humans and wildlife species (Young et al., 2010); and (ii) conflicts between humans themselves over how to manage the impacts between humans and wildlife.

The human dimensions of wildlife conflicts pose a number of challenges for wildlife managers. Firstly, determining the extent of a conflict and its impact. This is necessary to enable conservation managers to identify if, where and which interventions are needed. To achieve this, understanding diverse viewpoints of stakeholders is necessary. Democracy in wildlife management is increasingly being acknowledged as important to reduce conflict and ensure successful conservation outcomes (Decker et al., 2012, Woodroffe and Redpath, 2015). Obtaining a wider range of stakeholder views is particularly important so that those heard are not only the powerful individuals and those with extreme views, or institutions and specialized interest groups that are unrepresentative of stakeholders. Imbalances in stakeholder voices can increase the probability of species management based on non-representative views and may increase unsustainable wildlife practices, if a vocal or powerful minority favor these.

Secondly, what are the factors that determine variation in tolerance? There is sufficient evidence in the HWC literature to conclude that individuals differ widely in their attitudes and tolerance towards wildlife (Kansky et al., 2014). For example, some stakeholders remove wildlife species despite not encountering any problems, while others with problems will not remove species (Marker et al., 2003). Some stakeholders will implement mitigation measures to prevent or reduce damage, while others will not (Maclennan et al., 2009) and some farmers will forgo different numbers of livestock to different species of wildlife (Romanach et al., 2007). Determining the extent of stakeholder tolerance and the factors driving this tolerance is therefore critical (Treves and Bruskotter, 2014). To address these questions, quantitative randomized surveys may be best suited to determine the extent of a problem as perceived by communities living in close proximity to damage-causing wildlife and their tolerance towards the wildlife.

Research on stakeholder attitudes to living with wildlife is increasing and aims to understand factors explaining tolerant behavior (Kansky and Knight, 2014, Kansky et al., 2014). Individual case studies largely make up this research, and to date few quantitative syntheses of the outcomes of these studies are available (but see Williams et al., 2002, Dressel et al., 2015). Recently, we conducted meta-analyses of attitudes of people living with four groups of damage-causing mammals (carnivores, ungulates, elephants, primates) (Kansky et al., 2014, Kansky and Knight, 2014). These analyses identified several globally apparent drivers of tolerant attitudes. In this paper we build on these findings and propose the Wildlife Tolerance Model (WTM). The WTM presents an interdisciplinary theory for application to HWC research and management. It aims to incorporate the complexity inherent in human-wildlife social ecological systems (SES) and be a diagnostic tool to identify key factors driving tolerance of people towards damage-causing mammalian wildlife. This in turn can inform management interventions and policy design. We then test the utility of the WTM using a case study of human-baboon conflict in an urban environment on the Cape Peninsula, South Africa. The WTM consists of two components; an outer model with six variables and an inner model with 11 variables (Fig. 1). In the current paper we describe the WTM and test the outer model. In a forthcoming publication (and Kansky, 2015) we test the inner model.

Section snippets

Outer model

In the outer model, experience is the first variable and is operationalized using two variables; (i) recent Exposure to a species (ii) number of Meaningful Experiences a person has had with the species. Meaningful Experiences are strong emotionally charged experiences, which can be either positive (Positive Meaningful Experience) or negative (Negative Meaningful Experience) and are not time constrained, meaning they could have occurred at any time in a person's life. Exposure measures the

Primates and humans in conflict

Many primate species utilize human food, crops or waste to supplement their diet or as their main food source (Gautier and Biquand, 1994). Traits enabling exploitation of human-modified landscapes include: semi-terrestrial locomotion; large, complex social groupings; flexible, varied diets; intelligence; manual dexterity and agility; and “outgoing” temperaments (Strum, 1994, Knight, 1999). Foraging in human-modified landscapes presents primates with potential benefits and costs. Crops offer

Acknowledgements

Stellenbosch University ethics clearance number: DECS_Kansky2012. We thank the communities of Scarborough, Kommetjie, Capri, Welcome Glen and Tokai for participating in our survey and to Jackie Roche, Mereille Webb, Sian Smit, Holly Armstrong and Rammona Nuitjen for assistance with survey distribution.

References (75)

  • M. Sarstedt et al.

    Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): a useful tool for family business researchers"

    Journal of Family Business Strategy

    (2014)
  • E. Babbie et al.

    The Practice of Social Research

    (2007)
  • A. Bandura

    On the functional properties of self-efficacy revisited

    J. Manag.

    (2012)
  • E.K. Beamish

    Causes and Consequences of Mortality and Mutilation in the Cape Peninsula Baboon Population, South Africa. M.Sc. Thesis

    (2010)
  • S. Brownlie

    A policy and plan for managing baboons on the Cape Peninsula

    (2000)
  • L.H. Carpenter et al.

    Stakeholder acceptance capacity in wildlife management

    Hum. Dimens. Wildl.

    (2000)
  • D.T. Cronin et al.

    Where has all our research gone? A 20-year assessment of the peer-reviewed wildlife conservation literature

    Int. J. Comp. Psychol.

    (2014)
  • D.J. Decker et al.

    Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management

    (2012)
  • A.J. Dickman

    Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict

    Anim. Conserv.

    (2010)
  • E. Distefano

    Human-wildlife conflict worldwide: collection of case studies, analysis of management strategies and good practices

  • S. Dressel et al.

    A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976-2012

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2015)
  • A. El Alami et al.

    Differences in activity budgets and diet between semiprovisioned and wild-feeding groups of the endangered barbary macaque (Macaca sylvanus) in the Central High Atlas Mountains, Morocco

    Am. J. Primatol.

    (2012)
  • E.A.C. Erlanger et al.

    The relationship between empathy and personality in undergraduate students' attitudes toward nonhuman animals

    Soc. Anim.

    (2012)
  • A. Estrada et al.

    Agroecosystems and primate conservation in the tropics: a review

    Am. J. Primatol.

    (2012)
  • M. Fishbein et al.

    Predicting and Changing Behaviour: The Reasoned Action Approach

    (2010)
  • C. Folk et al.

    Regime shifts, resilience, and biodiversity in ecosystem management

    Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.

    (2004)
  • E.T. Game et al.

    Conservation in a wicked complex world: Challenges and solutions

    Conserv. Lett.

    (2014)
  • J.P. Gautier et al.

    Primate commensalism

    Rev. Ecol.

    (1994)
  • T.L. Goedeke

    Devils, angels or animals: the social construction of otters in conflict over management

  • J.F. Hair et al.

    A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM)

    (2014)
  • T.A. Heberlein

    Navigating Environmental Attitudes

    (2012)
  • J. Henseler et al.

    Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path modeling

    Comput. Stat.

    (2013)
  • C.M. Hill

    Conflict of interest between people and baboons: crop raiding in Uganda

    Int. J. Primatol.

    (2000)
  • C.M. Hill et al.

    Perceptions of nonhuman primates in human–wildlife conflict scenarios

    Am. J. Primatol.

    (2010)
  • D. Hodapp et al.

    Structural equation modeling approach to the diversity–productivity relationship of Wadden Sea phytoplankton

    Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser.

    (2015)
  • M.J. Hsu et al.

    Interactions between visitors and Formosan macaques (Macaca cyclopis) at Shou-Shan Nature Park, Taiwan

    Am. J. Primatol.

    (2009)
  • D. Hulme et al.

    Communities, wildlife and the ‘new conservation’ in Africa

    J. Int. Dev.

    (1999)
  • Cited by (151)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text