Addressing inequality and intolerance in human-wildlife coexistence.

Autor: Jordan NR; Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of BEES, University of New South Wales (UNSW Sydney), Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.; Taronga Institute of Science and Learning, Taronga Conservation Society Australia, Taronga Western Plains Zoo, Dubbo, NSW, 2830, Australia.; Botswana Predator Conservation, Maun, Botswana., Smith BP; Smith Human-Wildlife Coexistence Lab, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Adelaide, QLD, 5034, Australia., Appleby RG; Environmental Futures Research Institute, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD, 4111, Australia., van Eeden LM; Desert Ecology Research Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.; School of Forest and Environmental Sciences, The University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, U.S.A., Webster HS; Evolution, Behaviour and Environment, University of Sussex, Brighton, BN1 9RH, U.K.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology [Conserv Biol] 2020 Aug; Vol. 34 (4), pp. 803-810. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 May 14.
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13471
Abstrakt: Millennia of human conflict with wildlife have built a culture of intolerance toward wildlife among some stakeholders. We explored 2 key obstacles to improved human-wildlife coexistence: coexistence inequality (how the costs and benefits of coexisting with wildlife are unequally shared) and intolerance. The costs of coexisting with wildlife are often disproportionately borne by the so-called global south and rural communities, and the benefits often flow to the global north and urban dwellers. Attitudes and behaviors toward wildlife (tolerance versus intolerance) vary with social and cultural norms. We suggest more empathetic advocacy is needed that, for example, promotes conservation while appropriately considering those who bear the costs of conflict with wildlife. To achieve more equitable cost-sharing, we suggest limiting the costs incurred by those most affected or by sharing those costs more widely. For example, we advocate for the development of improved wildlife compensation schemes, increasing the scale of rewilding efforts, and preventing wildlife-derived revenue leaching out of the local communities bearing the costs of coexistence.
(© 2020 Society for Conservation Biology.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: