Coexistence for Whom?

Simon Pooley

doi:10.3389/fcosc.2021.726991

Abstract

This perspective essay considers ethical and conceptual questions around who coexistence is for, who it affects, and who is to make it happen. The introduction considers some approaches to thinking about human-wildlife coexistence, debates on the utility of the concept and reasons for its current emergence into the mainstream. It next outlines the preliminary conception of coexistence informing this essay. The discussion considers challenges for a narrow conservation-oriented framing of human-wildlife coexistence, and offers insights from the literatures on stewardship and relational values for tackling these.

Highlights

This perspective essay considers approaches to, and debates about human-wildlife coexistence
The concept “coexistence” is neither novel nor recent, but it has emerged into the mainstream of conservation research over the past decade (Madden, 2004; Carter and Linnell, 2016; Nyhus, 2016; Frank and Glikman, 2019) as a significant orientation in thinking on human-wildlife interactions, itself a reframing which emerged a decade ago to recognize the limitations of a conflict framing (Peterson et al, 2013)
The English word “coexistence” is an arbitrary sign attached to a variety of conceptions of human-wildlife interactions, and actual scenarios of interaction

Summary

INTRODUCTION

This perspective essay considers approaches to, and debates about human-wildlife coexistence. Coexistence may be a more productive concept if it is not prematurely constrained by a strict definition It may be more usefully mobilized, for the time being, as a conceptual framework for investigating which ideas, approaches and stakeholders are relevant to holistically studying and facilitating human-wildlife coexistence. In parallel with recent developments in human-wildlife conflict studies (Pooley et al, 2017), there is an increasing reaction against anthropocentrism, albeit from different directions, e.g., strong ecocentrism based on ideas about universal principles and the rights of animals (Vucetich et al, 2018), and recognition of different cultural frameworks for valuing and interacting with the natural world (Chua et al, 2020; Nijhawan and Mihu, 2020; Nair et al, 2021; Oommen, 2021). Frameworks, principles and guidelines may have to suffice for the concept to evolve

DISCUSSION

CONCLUSION