Abstract

AbstractAs wild areas disappear and agricultural lands expand, understanding how people and wildlife can coexist becomes increasingly important. Human–wildlife conflicts (HWCs) are obstacles to coexistence and negatively affect both wildlife populations and the livelihood of people. To facilitate coexistence, a number of frameworks have been developed to both understand the drivers of conflict and then to find solutions that mitigate conflict. However, each framework has different foci and strengths in particular stages of analysis. Here, we propose an integrated framework that leverages the individual strengths of previously fairly isolated methodologies, allowing for holistic HWC analysis. The framework for participatory impact assessment (FoPIA) provides a toolset for developing wildlife scenarios, selecting assessment indicators and assessing the impact of different scenarios. The social‐ecological framework of ecosystem services and disservices (SEEDS) analyzes the ecosystem services trade‐offs related to scenarios, and the 3i stakeholder analysis approach, supports the identification of stakeholders and provides a mechanism to explore, in detail stakeholders' interests, relative influence, and how outcomes of research are likely to impact different stakeholders. We apply these approaches to eastern Germany, where the increase in several wildlife populations (i.e., wild boar, common crane, gray wolf, and European bison) has contributed to conflict with people. We demonstrate the complementarity of FoPIA, SEEDS, and 3i in identifying stakeholder needs and showing how wildlife dynamics may affect coexistence and create imbalanced ecosystem service and disservice distributions. The integrated framework introduced here provides guidelines for analyzing the multistage process of stakeholder participation and enables a comprehensive approach to the complex challenge of HWCs.

Highlights

  • Human–wildlife conflicts (HWCs) can be triggered when humans and wildlife compete for the same resources—be this food or space

  • We demonstrate the complementarity of FoPIA, SEEDS, and 3i in identifying stakeholder needs and showing how wildlife dynamics may affect coexistence and create imbalanced ecosystem service and disservice distributions

  • Human–wildlife systems are complex, and it is unlikely that a single conceptual framework can successfully address this complexity to identify and mitigate them

Read more

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

Human–wildlife conflicts (HWCs) can be triggered when humans and wildlife compete for the same resources—be this food or space. To illustrate our integrated framework, we assess the impact of growing populations of four species (wild boar, common crane, gray wolf, and European bison) which generally thrive well in agricultural landscapes in the state of Brandenburg (Germany). We conducted the stakeholder analysis by interviewing the same five stakeholders (organic farmer, NGO-conservationist, state-forester, private (wild boar) hunter, one semi transhumant shepherd) to (a) reflect on their individual “interest, influence, and impact” on HWC research and (b) assess the broader range of relevant (including potentially marginalized) stakeholders who are affected by, or influence HWCs in Brandenburg state In this way, we were able to identify leverage points in the system that could be used to manage HWC more effectively in the state. The approach asks three questions (in positive and negative forms) to structure the identification of stakeholders based on the three criteria (adapted to the HWC context): 1. Interest: Who is interested in HWC, and what is the nature of their interest? Who should be interested (based on their influence and/or impact), who is currently disinterested, and why are the latter not interested?

Impact
| CONCLUSION
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call