PerspectiveA conceptual model for the integration of social and ecological information to understand human-wildlife interactions
Introduction
In his prescient work, Wilderness, Aldo Leopold (1949: 188) stated that “One of the anomalies of modern ecology is the creation of two groups, each of which seems barely aware of the existence of the other. The one studies the human community, almost as if it were a separate entity, and calls its findings sociology, economics and history. The other studies the plant and animal community and comfortably relegates the hodge-podge of politics to the liberal arts. The inevitable fusion of these two lines of thought will, perhaps, constitute the outstanding advance of this century.” This refrain has become common in the conservation sciences since Leopold's plea (e.g., Mascia et al., 2003), yet researchers and practitioners still struggle to work across disciplinary boundaries to achieve conservation success. Although there is growing recognition that approaches that integrate social and ecological knowledge should lead to more effective and sustained conservation solutions, difficulties in aligning data types, challenges of communicating across disciplines, and misperceptions about the quality and utility of social science information continue to plague these efforts (Fox et al., 2006; Pooley et al., 2014). Nonetheless, the potential for this integration remains a critical advance for the next century of conservation (Tallis and Lubchenco, 2014).
The need for social-ecological integration is readily apparent in the management of human-wildlife interactions (HWIs), defined as the spatial and temporal juxtaposition of human and wildlife activities where humans, wildlife, or both are affected (Leong, 2010; Peterson et al., 2010). Although HWIs are the direct result of human and/or animal behavior, numerous social and ecological factors contribute to the conditions shaping those behaviors, defying single-discipline explanations of causal mechanisms (Dickman, 2010). Understanding the complexity of drivers of HWIs is critical, as the value people place on these interactions ultimately provides the foundation for wildlife conservation and management, whether people want to see interactions enhanced (e.g., increased hunting opportunity, recovery of endangered species) or reduced (e.g., property damage; Riley et al., 2003).
Whereas a number of recent papers have called for integrated approaches to understanding HWIs, particularly in the context of human-wildlife conflict (e.g., Dickman, 2010; Redpath et al., 2013), progress in this area will be facilitated by a comprehensive framework to guide investigations of the diverse array of social and ecological drivers of HWIs. In response to this need, we propose a conceptual model of HWIs that adopts a social-ecological systems (SES) approach. SESs are systems of biophysical and social factors that interact at multiple spatial, temporal, and organizational scales and whose flow is regulated in dynamic and complex ways (Redman et al., 2004). Our model integrates theory from the social and ecological sciences, building upon recent advances applying a systems approach to understand the human dimensions of conservation (e.g., Manfredo et al., 2016). We add to existing frameworks aimed at addressing SES questions (Binder et al., 2013), including previous applications of SES concepts to HWIs (e.g., Morzillo et al., 2014; Carter et al., 2014), by treating social and ecological systems in equal depth, acknowledging the bidirectional influence of social and ecological processes, and considering both individual-level and broad, external influences on human and animal behavior. In doing so, we provide a heuristic framework to assist researchers and practitioners in understanding the relationship between social and ecological drivers of HWIs and foster interdisciplinary approaches to addressing them. We apply the model to our work on human-black bear (Ursus americanus) conflicts to illustrate the benefits of our approach and conclude with a set of lessons learned, offering guidance for applying integrated approaches to other human-wildlife systems.
Section snippets
SES model of human-wildlife interactions
In the simplest form, HWIs can be conceptualized as the result of two distinct, but interacting systems: social and ecological (Fig. 1a). Although human and animal behaviors are the proximate drivers of HWIs, the context shaping those behaviors is defined by multiple, nested levels of external social and ecological influences (Fig. 1b) and attributes of individual humans and animals (Fig. 1c). When viewed through a single disciplinary lens, these systems may appear to operate independently;
Background
Although interactions between humans and black bears can be positive, they often result in threats to human property and safety (e.g., bears breaking into vehicles), nuisances (e.g., spilled trash; Gore et al., 2006a), and increased bear mortality (e.g., lethal removal; Treves and Karanth, 2003). As human development has encroached on bear habitat, conflicts resulting from bears foraging for anthropogenic food near human development (e.g., garbage and fruit trees; Lewis et al., 2015) have
Lessons learned from the case study
Our Durango research team experienced several challenges in our attempts to execute an integrated SES investigation of human-bear conflicts. As research progressed, we realized that a conceptual framework could assist us in addressing many of these challenges, so we developed the model presented herein. As we modified and executed research plans to achieve a more fully integrated study, we identified ways that its application could help us in understanding the system and refined the model. The
Conclusions
The conceptual model presented herein offers an integrated, multilevel approach to understanding HWIs that acknowledges the critical role of both social and ecological drivers as well as feedbacks among system components. While a number of studies have investigated human-black bear conflicts (e.g., Don Carlos et al., 2009; Kretser et al., 2009; Merkle et al., 2011; Beckmann and Berger, 2003), prior efforts have largely focused on either the social or ecological aspects of conflict and rarely
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Anheuser-Busch Environmental Fellowship, and Hill Memorial Fellowship. We thank G. Wittemyer for his constructive review, which improved the quality of the manuscript. The survey and administration procedures were approved for use with human subjects prior to implementation (CSU IRB protocol 005-17H). Black bear care and handling procedures were approved for use with animals prior to implementation
Role of the funding source
This project was funded by Colorado Parks and Wildlife, USDA National Wildlife Research Center, Anheuser-Busch Environmental Fellowship, and Hill Memorial Fellowship. Researchers at Colorado Parks and Wildlife and USDA National Wildlife Research Center designed the study, conducted data collection and analysis, and interpreted data.
References (52)
- et al.
Use of patch selection models as a decision support tool to evaluate mitigation strategies of human–wildlife conflict
Biol. Conserv.
(2013) - et al.
Demographic consequences of anthropogenic influences: Florida black bears in north central Florida
Biol. Conserv.
(2009) - et al.
Shifting perceptions of risk and reward: dynamic selection for human development by black bears in the western United States
Biol. Conserv.
(2015) - et al.
Compounding effects of human development and a natural food shortage on a large carnivore population along a human development-wildland interface
Biol. Conserv.
(2018) - et al.
Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human-bear conflict mitigation
Ecosphere
(2015) Understanding and managing conservation conflicts
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2013)- et al.
Spatiotemporal distribution of black bear-human conflicts in Colorado
J. Wildl. Manag.
(2008) - et al.
A tool box half full: how social science can help solve human-wildlife conflict
Hum. Dimens. Wildl.
(2009) - et al.
The carrot or the stick? Evaluation of education and enforcement as management tools for human-wildlife conflicts
PLoS One
(2011) - et al.
Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: whatever happened to actual behavior?
Perspect. Psychol. Sci.
(2007)
Rapid ecological and behavioural changes in carnivores: the responses of black bears (Ursus americanus) to altered food
J. Zool.
Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation
Conserv. Biol.
Comparison of frameworks for analyzing social-ecological systems
Ecol. Soc.
No single solution: application of behavioural principles in mitigating human–wildlife conflict
Anim. Behav.
A Primer of Conservation Behavior
Determining where the wild things will be: using psychological theory to find tolerance for large carnivores
Conserv. Lett.
Coupled human and natural systems approach to wildlife research and conservation
Ecol. Soc.
An Introduction to Behavioural Ecology
Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict
Anim. Conserv.
Human-black bear conflict in urban areas: an integrated approach to management response
Hum. Dimens. Wildl.
Perceived barriers to integrating social science and conservation
Conserv. Biol.
Stakeholder perceptions of risk associated with human-black bear conflicts in New York's Adirondack Park campgrounds: implications for theory and practice
Wildl. Soc. Bull.
Education programs for reducing American black bear-human conflict: indicators of success?
Ursus
Conceptual models as tools for communication across disciplines
Conserv. Ecol.
Going into the 21(st) century: a perspective on trends and controversies in the management of the American black bear
Ursus
Human development and climate affect hibernation in a large carnivore with implications for human-carnivore conflicts
J. Appl. Ecol.
Cited by (0)
- 1
Current address: U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, 410 University Drive, Anchorage, AK, USA 99508.