1
It’s all in the way we frame it We started looking at the literature and we found A few references http://www.nmmu.ac.za/sru 1. Sustainability Research Unit, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, George, South Africa. 2. South African Na@onal Parks, Skukuza, South Africa. P. Botes 1 , C. Wigley-Coetsee 1, 2 , C. Guerbois 1 & C. Fabricius 1 , Framing ‘Human-Wildlife Conflict’ Management: a proposed typology and research issues Research quesDons Proposed typology of frames Holling, C. S., and G. K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10:328–337. Ludwig, D. 2001. The era of management is over. Ecosystems 4:758–764. Peterson, M. N., Birckhead J. L., Leong K., Peterson M. J., & Peterson T. R. 2010. Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlife conflict. Conservation Letters 3:74–82. Redpath, S. M., S. Bhatia, and J. Young. 2015. Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx 49:222–225. Wilhelm-Rechmann, A., and R. M. Cowling. 2011. Framing biodiversity conservation for decision makers: insights from four South African municipalities. Conservation Letters 4:73–80. Peet Botes [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Conventional thinking: human-wildlife conflict is a problem that needs to be controlled”… Frames are “cognitive structures that help humans to make sense of the world by suggesting which component of a complex reality to consider” (Wilhelm-Rechmann et al. 2011).They influence thoughts, plans and practices. Analysing frames : raises awareness of different types of human-wildlife conflicts, situations & interventions, brings attention to research needs for human-wildlife coexistence strategies challenges what is ‘obvious’ seeks innovative solutions through dialogue A typology of frames provides the foundations for comparison 1. How is the management of ‘human-wildlife conflict’ framed? 2. What are the unintended consequences of different frames? Management implicaDons Any HWC interventions plan should consider feedbacks between Humans and Wildlife ‘Controlling’ frames are more prone to unintended consequences Payments-based HWC interventions tend to decouple people from wildlife/nature HWC interventions should be more explicitly linked to conservation objectives Crucial to implement long-term monitoring and document outcomes of interventions Research implicaDons Managing human-wildlife conflict is a wicked problem Requires a social-ecological systems frame – complexity thinking Disentangle opportunities & constraints across scales Explore proactive participatory processes of conflict mitigation Our quest: conditions for long term coexistence à context specific long-term approach to restore social-ecological connections, feedbacks and stewardship ANTHROPO- CENTRIC ADAPTIVE Stewardship Adaptive co-management Bio-mimicry? Participatory learning BIOCENTRIC ADAPTIVE Protected area design Habitat & food management Predator-prey management BIOCENTRIC CONTROLLING Guards Deterrents Barriers Aversion training Lethal control ANTHROPO- CENTRIC CONTROLLING Education Incentives & subsidies Political lobbying Fines Anthropocentric Biocentric Adap/ve Controlling Frame Approaches Unintended consequences on Wildlife Unintended consequences on Humans Wildlife focused Problem Animal Lethal Control Injuries, suffering, non-target animals Destabilize social stability of the group Trophic cascades (specially through snaring) New problema@c animals (seen on elephants and lions) Danger from injured animals Social tensions Virtual fencing Can be a source of stress for non targeted species Increased short term risks People focused Direct payments (insurance and compensa@on) In-migra@on into areas where compensa@on schemes exist Increased compe@@on over resources Adverse effects on wildlife Intensify poverty traps Perverse effect (increase of stocking rates) Stewardship programmes Reduc@on in facilita@on and incen@ves when most needed Table 1: Examples of unintended negaDve impacts of management. N=24 papers published since 1996 on conflict management between humans and lion or elephant or primates Fig 1: ScaUer-plot of different HWC management approaches. The size of the symbol is proporDonal to the numbers of research arDcles. The X axis represents a ‘target’ gradient. The Y axis represents a ‘problem percepDon’ gradient The way we frame human-wildlife interactions matters a lot Need to understand ecological, social, economic and political context Must re-think monitoring & adaptation programmes Encourage participatory processes: build on community’s existing strengths Low-cost, locally appropriate interventions Innovatively combine different frames What we learnt from this Brent Stapelkamp

Framing human wildlife conflict management

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Framing human wildlife conflict management

RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2012

www.PosterPresentations.com

It’sallinthewayweframeit

Westartedlookingattheliteratureandwefound

Afewreferences

http://www.nmmu.ac.za/sru

1.SustainabilityResearchUnit,NelsonMandelaMetropolitanUniversity,George,SouthAfrica.2.SouthAfricanNa@onalParks,Skukuza,SouthAfrica.

P.Botes1,C.Wigley-Coetsee1,2,C.Guerbois1&C.Fabricius1,

Framing‘Human-WildlifeConflict’Management:aproposedtypologyandresearchissues

ResearchquesDons

Proposedtypologyofframes

Holling, C. S., and G. K. Meffe. 1996. Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conservation Biology 10:328–337.

Ludwig, D. 2001. The era of management is over. Ecosystems 4:758–764.

Peterson, M. N., Birckhead J. L., Leong K., Peterson M. J., & Peterson T. R. 2010. Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlife conflict. Conservation Letters 3:74–82.

Redpath, S. M., S. Bhatia, and J. Young. 2015. Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx 49:222–225.

Wilhelm-Rechmann, A., and R. M. Cowling. 2011. Framing biodiversity conservation for decision makers: insights from four South African municipalities. Conservation Letters 4:73–80.

Peet Botes [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

[email protected]

•  Conventional thinking: “human-wildlife conflict is a problem that needs to be controlled”…

•  Frames are “cognitive structures that help humans to make sense of the world by suggesting which component of a complex reality to consider” (Wilhelm-Rechmann et al. 2011).They influence thoughts, plans and practices.

•  Analysing frames :

•  raises awareness of different types of human-wildlife conflicts, situations & interventions,

•  brings attention to research needs for human-wildlife coexistence strategies

•  challenges what is ‘obvious’

•  seeks innovative solutions through dialogue

•  A typology of frames provides the foundations for comparison

1.   How is the management of ‘human-wildlife conflict’ framed? 2.   What are the unintended consequences of different frames?

ManagementimplicaDons

•  Any HWC interventions plan should consider feedbacks between Humans and Wildlife

•  ‘Controlling’ frames are more prone to unintended consequences

•  Payments-based HWC interventions tend to decouple people from wildlife/nature

•  HWC interventions should be more explicitly linked to conservation objectives

•  Crucial to implement long-term monitoring and document outcomes of interventions

ResearchimplicaDons

•  Managing human-wildlife conflict is a wicked problem

•  Requires a social-ecological systems frame – complexity thinking

•  Disentangle opportunities & constraints across scales

•  Explore proactive participatory processes of conflict mitigation

•  Our quest: conditions for long term coexistence

à context specific long-term approach to restore social-ecological connections, feedbacks and stewardship

ANTHROPO-CENTRIC ADAPTIVE

Stewardship Adaptive co-management

Bio-mimicry? Participatory learning

BIOCENTRIC ADAPTIVE

Protected area design Habitat & food management Predator-prey management

BIOCENTRIC CONTROLLING

Guards Deterrents

Barriers Aversion training

Lethal control

ANTHROPO-CENTRIC

CONTROLLING Education

Incentives & subsidies Political lobbying

Fines

AnthropocentricBiocentric

Adap/ve

Controlling

Frame Approaches UnintendedconsequencesonWildlife

UnintendedconsequencesonHumans

Wildlifefocused

ProblemAnimalLethalControl

•  Injuries,suffering,non-targetanimals•  Destabilizesocialstabilityofthegroup•  Trophiccascades(speciallythrough

snaring)

•  Newproblema@canimals(seenonelephantsandlions)

•  Dangerfrominjuredanimals•  Socialtensions

Virtualfencing •  Canbeasourceofstressfornontargetedspecies

•  Increasedshorttermrisks

Peoplefocused Directpayments(insuranceandcompensa@on)

•  In-migra@onintoareaswherecompensa@onschemesexist

•  Increasedcompe@@onoverresources•  Adverseeffectsonwildlife

•  Intensifypovertytraps•  Perverseeffect(increaseofstocking

rates)

Stewardshipprogrammes

•  Reduc@oninfacilita@onandincen@veswhenmostneeded

Table1:ExamplesofunintendednegaDveimpactsofmanagement.N=24paperspublishedsince1996onconflictmanagementbetweenhumansandlionorelephantorprimates

Fig1:ScaUer-plotofdifferentHWCmanagementapproaches.ThesizeofthesymbolisproporDonaltothenumbersofresearcharDcles.TheXaxisrepresentsa‘target’gradient.TheYaxisrepresentsa‘problempercepDon’gradient

•  The way we frame human-wildlife interactions matters a lot

•  Need to understand ecological, social, economic and political context

•  Must re-think monitoring & adaptation programmes

•  Encourage participatory processes: build on community’s existing strengths

•  Low-cost, locally appropriate interventions

•  Innovatively combine different frames

Whatwelearntfromthis

BrentStapelkamp