Large carnivore conservation in human-dominated landscapes is a complex issue, often marked by the stark contrast between those who hold deep-rooted animosity towards these animals and those who welcome their presence. The survival of the Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx in Europe relies on effective coexistence with humans in multi-use areas. We explored the experiences and perceptions of local hunters and pastoralists regarding the return of the lynx to the Giffre Valley, France, and mapped lynx distribution based on the probability of site use while accounting for detection probability. We conducted in-depth interviews with 29 respondents to gather data on lynx sightings, rationale for hunting and pastoralism, and perceptions of lynxes. We found that 45% of respondents had detected lynxes in the last 40 years, with an estimated site use of 0.66 ± SE 0.33 over the last decade, indicating there was a 66% probability of lynxes using the sites during that time period. Our results suggest that hunting and pastoralism in the region are rooted in a desire to carry on local traditions and connect with the natural world. Respondents generally tolerated the presence of lynxes, perceiving few threats to their livelihoods and activities, and expressing a willingness to coexist peacefully. However, some identified future challenges that could arise with the return of large carnivores to the valley and highlighted scenarios that could lead to a decline in tolerance. This study emphasizes the valuable knowledge of local hunters and pastoralists and their potential role in lynx population monitoring and conservation. Integrating stakeholder values in decision-making processes is crucial for inclusive and sustainable responses to promote biodiversity.

Khata Corridor forest, which serves as a border crossing for wildlife between Nepal and India, is one of the areas in Nepal with the highest incidence of human–wildlife conflict. In recent years both the tiger Panthera tigris tigris and human populations in this region have increased, leading to more frequent conflict. We aimed to determine whether increased conflict risk was primarily from tigers entering human settlements or whether there are additional drivers associated with human use of forested areas. We conducted the study in four settlements that varied in socio-economic status and distance from Bardiya National Park, through field visits and household surveys. Tiger records (sightings, pug marks and attacks) were most frequent far from Bardiya National Park, in settlements without benefits from tiger-based tourism and nearer the periphery of forest, and were rarely associated with the interior of settlements. Human visitation into forests was also highest in the most remote settlement. Our findings suggest that conflict risk is driven by the extent of human activity in forested areas, reflecting an unequal distribution of the conservation benefits of tourism amongst settlements. In the long-term, continued coexistence between people and tigers will depend on minimizing conflict risk across settlements through establishing an equitable distribution of conservation benefits. In the short term, we recommend raising public awareness of tiger behaviour to emphasize that tigers are highly unlikely to enter and occupy the interior of human settlements, mitigating negative perceptions of conflict risk.

Recreational activities may have negative effects on wildlife, but there are very few studies specifically on the effects of free-flight activities (i.e., hang-gliders, paragliders and their powered derivatives) on wildlife. We review the existing scientific studies on this issue in order to identify the gaps in knowledge at the taxonomic-group level in order to develop guidelines to minimize the impacts of recreational free-flight on wildlife. We found that studies mainly concerned the effects on four ungulate species (chamois, red deer, roe deer and Alpine ibex) and, to a lesser extent, on raptors such as the golden eagle and two vulture species (bearded vulture and cinereous vulture). The studies have generally been carried out in high mountain areas (e.g., the European Alps). Data show that free-flight activities create disturbances and have negative effects on wildlife, resulting in increased energy expenditure, reduction of feeding time, abandonment of feeding areas, reduced breeding output, loss of body condition, increased predation risk and harm from flight accidents. However, the lack of studies on many species and areas, along with the small number of long-term studies, prevents proper assessment of the current situation regarding the impact of this activity on wildlife. We provide recommendations to improve the regulation of this activity.

In Latin America, the jaguar Panthera onca is one of the most persecuted and hunted carnivores as a result of its depredation of livestock. In north-west Ecuador jaguar populations are highly threatened, and the largest known population (20–30 individuals) is in El Pambilar Wildlife Refuge, a wet tropical forest surrounded by degraded forests and an agricultural matrix. As the killing of jaguars is one of the main threats to this population, its conservation depends on the perceptions and behaviour of the people living in this region. We interviewed people from 159 households (64% of the total) in eight communities in the buffer zone of the Wildlife Refuge, to examine people's perceptions of any harm caused by jaguars, and to determine the factors that influence these perceptions. In general, people perceived that jaguars caused little harm to their domestic animals or to themselves. However, our models showed that young people with a low level of formal education are the demographic group most likely to hold negative attitudes towards the jaguar, suggesting this group could potentially benefit from involvement in environmental education and awareness programmes.

In areas where farmland borders protected areas, wildlife may be attracted to crops and cause substantial financial damage for farmers. Elephants, in particular, can destroy a year's harvest in a single night, and can also cause damage to buildings and other farm structures. Few studies have examined whether damage caused by wild elephants increases social inequalities in farmer communities. We interviewed settlement leaders and subsistence rice farmers living in the buffer zone of Bardiya National Park, Nepal, to examine (1) the variation and spatial distribution of wealth within the farmer community, (2) the severity and spatio-temporal distribution of damage inflicted by Asian elephants Elephas maximus, and (3) the willingness to insure against such damage. We investigated whether particular societal strata are disproportionally affected by negative interactions with elephants. We found that farmers near the boundary between agricultural and wilderness areas were significantly poorer and had smaller landholdings than those further into the cultivated lands. Concomitantly, damage to crops and houses was more frequent nearer the wilderness–agriculture boundary than further away from it. Hence, in the buffer zone of Bardiya National Park, farmers near the wilderness–cultivation boundary, with small landholdings, had a relatively higher cost of elephant damage, yet were less willing to pay for an insurance scheme. We infer that in areas where both social inequality and damage caused by wildlife are spatially structured, conservation success may cause economic hardship for the local community, particularly for the poorer class. We discuss causes of the current lack of communal mitigation measures against the damage caused by elephants in the Park, and potential solutions.

Negative interactions with humans resulting from livestock predation is a major factor influencing the decline of African lion Panthera leo populations across Africa. Here we investigate lion depredation within two Maasai communities in southern Kenya where people and lions coexist in the absence of any formal protected areas. We explore the factors that increase the frequency and severity of lion attacks on pastoralists and their livestock and assess the effectiveness of livestock guarding to reduce damage. Finally, we examine in which circumstances lion depredation triggers retaliation by people. Over a period of 26 months, lions attacked livestock 29 times, resulting in 41 livestock deaths and 19 injuries. There were also two attacks on people. Lions preferred cattle over the more numerous sheep and goats. Attacks on livestock occurred mostly during the dry season and were not affected by changes in prey density or variation in pastoral settlement that brought livestock into closer proximity with lions. Livestock were guarded during 48.2% of lion attacks. Active guarding at pasture disrupted the majority of lion attacks, resulting in lower mortality rates. Passive guarding in corrals at night also disrupted attacks but did not lead to lower livestock mortality.

Managing interactions between humans and wild elephants is a complex problem that is increasing as a result of agricultural and urban expansion into and alongside protected areas. Mitigating negative interactions requires the development of new tools to reduce competition and promote coexistence. Many studies have tested various mitigation techniques across elephant ranges in Africa and Asia, with varying levels of success. Recently, strobe lights have been suggested as a potential mitigation strategy in deterring African lions Panthera leo from kraals or bomas, but this technique has to date not been tested to reduce negative human–elephant interactions. Over a 2-year period (November 2016–June 2018), we tested the effectiveness of solar-powered strobe light barriers in deterring African elephants Loxodonta africana, in collaboration with 18 farmers in a community adjacent to the Chobe Forest Reserve and Chobe National Park in northern Botswana. Although elephants were more likely to pass by fields with solar-powered strobe light barriers (which was probably a result of selection bias as we focused on fields that had previously been damaged by elephants), they were less likely to enter these treatment fields than control fields without such barriers. Our findings demonstrate the efficacy of light barriers to reduce negative human–elephant interactions in rural communities.

Negative interactions between guanacos Lama guanicoe and ranchers have recently intensified in central Chile because guanacos are perceived to be competing with livestock for pasture resources. We examined this conservation conflict with a novel approach that considers ranchers' subjective theories, to better understand the origins of the conflict and to identify effective conservation measures based on the participants' explanations. Our findings indicate that ranchers see the source of the current problem in a shift towards increasingly arid conditions associated with climate change. We suggest the ranchers’ perceived problems are not only caused by interspecific resource competition arising from this climatic shift, but also by reported difficulties in negotiating with governmental institutions. This study adds to knowledge of human–wildlife interactions by exploring a further dimension of the complex ecological and social interactions taking place on livestock farms. We recommend identifying effective, acceptable solutions by considering and understanding the everyday knowledge of the conflict's protagonists and their potential for change.

The Vulnerable fosa Cryptoprocta ferox is the largest native carnivore in Madagascar, fulfilling a unique ecological niche in the island's remaining forests. Negative interactions with humans threaten the long-term viability of most remaining fosa populations across Madagascar. Threats to the fosa include habitat loss and persecution by humans resulting from perceived predation on domestic animals. We used GPS collars to record space use and activity patterns of five fosas in Ankarafantsika National Park, Madagascar, during the dry seasons of 2016 and 2017. The results, with up to 2,110 recorded locations per individual, indicated fosas’ home ranges and movements were not limited to the forest, and all collared individuals used networks of habitat patches and corridors to navigate deforested areas. The fosas studied in Ankarafantsika National Park had significantly larger home ranges than those reported in previous studies in other protected areas. They were rarely found within village boundaries and appeared to avoid areas of human habitation, suggesting that during the study period livestock was not a significant component of the fosas’ diet in this Park. Our results suggest that fosas have some flexibility that enables them to adapt to living near deforested and human-dominated areas by altering their space-use patterns, but they are compensating by increasing their home range size.

Humans have lived alongside and interacted with wild animals throughout evolutionary history. Even though wild animals can damage property, or injure humans and domesticated animals, not all interactions between humans and wildlife are negative. Yet, research has tended to focus disproportionately on negative interactions leading to negative outcomes, labelling this human–wildlife conflict. Studies have identified several factors, ranging from gender, religion, socio-economics and literacy, which influence people's responses to wildlife. We used the ISI Web of Knowledge database to assess quantitatively how human–wildlife interactions are framed in the scientific literature and to understand the hypotheses that have been invoked to explain these. We found that the predominant focus of research was on human–wildlife conflict (71%), with little coverage of coexistence (2%) or neutral interactions (8%). We suggest that such a framing is problematic as it can lead to biases in conservation planning by failing to consider the nuances of people's relationships with wildlife and the opportunities that exist for conservation. We propose a typology of human responses to wildlife impacts, ranging from negative to positive, to help moderate the disproportionate focus on conflict. We suggest that standardizing terminology and considering interactions beyond those that are negative can lead to a more nuanced understanding of human–wildlife relations and help promote greater coexistence between people and wildlife. We also list the various influential factors that are reported to shape human–wildlife interactions and, to generate further hypotheses and research, classify them into 55 proximate (correlates) and five ultimate (mechanisms) factors.

In the western Serengeti of Tanzania, African elephant Loxodonta africana populations are increasing, which is rare across the species’ range. Here, conservation objectives come into conflict with competing interests such as agriculture. Elephants regularly damage crops, which threatens livelihoods and undermines local support for conservation. For damage reduction efforts to be successful, limited resources must be used efficiently and strategies for mitigation and prevention should be informed by an understanding of the spatial and temporal distribution of crop damage. We assessed historical records of crop damage by elephants to describe the dynamics and context of damage in the western Serengeti. We used binary data and generalized additive models to predict the probability of crop damage at the village level in relation to landscape features and metrics of human disturbance. During 2012–2014 there were 3,380 reports of crop damage by elephants submitted to authorities in 42 villages. Damage was concentrated in villages adjacent to a reserve boundary and peaked during periods of crop maturity and harvest. The village-level probability of crop damage was negatively associated with distance from a reserve, positively with length of the boundary shared with a reserve, and peaked at moderate levels of indicators of human presence. Spatially aggregated historical records can provide protected area managers and regional government agencies with important insights into the distribution of conflict across the landscape and between seasons, and can guide efforts to optimize resource allocation and future land use planning efforts.

Non-lethal mitigation of crop use by elephants Loxodonta africana is an increasingly important part of protected area management across Africa and Asia. Recently, beehive fences have been suggested as a potential mitigation strategy. We tested the effectiveness of this method in a farming community adjacent to Udzungwa Mountains National Park in southern Tanzania. Over a 5.5-year period (2010–2016) a beehive fence was introduced and subsequently extended along the Park boundary. The probability that one or more farms experienced crop loss from elephants on a given day was reduced in the presence of the fence and was reduced further as the fence was extended. The number of hives occupied by bees along the fence was the best predictor of elephants’ visits to farms. Farms closest to the fence experienced a greater likelihood of damage, particularly during the initial period when the fence was shorter. The number of farms affected by elephants declined when the fence was extended. There was a higher probability of damage on farms that were closer to the Park boundary and further from a road. Our mixed results suggest that the shape, length and location of fences need to be carefully planned because changes in a farm's long-term susceptibility to elephant damage vary between individual farms; fences need to be long enough to be effective and ensure that decreasing crop loss frequency is not outweighed by an increasing number of farms damaged per visit.

Crop loss to foraging elephants is one of the most significant causes of conflict between people and elephants in areas where wild elephants share resources with people. Effective solutions to reduce the effects of human–elephant conflict on local livelihoods are thus essential to foster coexistence between elephants and people. We assessed the effectiveness of chilli-briquettes (bricks made of dry chilli, elephant dung and water) in altering elephants use of space in the eastern Okavango Panhandle, Botswana. We burned > 600 briquettes during the night over a 2-month period to test five treatments: frequent burning of (1) chilli and (2) chilli-free briquettes, occasional burning of (3) chilli and (4) chilli-free briquettes, and (5) a control treatment. Using camera traps and footprint surveys we assessed the number of elephants that used experimental sites, and the times at which they did so. We found elephants changed their movement behaviour from predominantly nocturnal to diurnal in areas where chilli-briquettes were burned throughout the night; however, there was no difference in the mean numbers of individuals between treatments with and without chillies. In other words, chilli-briquettes had a repellent but not a deterrent effect on elephants, keeping them away only at times when chilli-briquettes were smouldering. Based on these findings we recommend the use of chilli-briquettes as a method to deter elephants in the short term. In the long term, chilli-briquettes should be applied in combination with other larger-scale mitigation approaches, such as land management and cooperative community-based tools.

Wild ungulates, and particularly deer, can cause severe damage to commercial plantations, resulting in reduced tolerance of their presence by forestry producers. The marsh deer Blastocerus dichotomus, categorized as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List, is declining throughout South America. A population of c. 500 individuals survive within a matrix of commercial plantations in the lower delta of the Paraná River, the southernmost stronghold for the species. Local forestry producers usually report that damage to plantations is attributable to marsh deer, thus justifying persecution of the species. Seventy-six forestry producers (representing c. 33% of the total plantation area of the lower delta) were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire to assess perceived levels of tree damage, associated economic losses, and attitudes towards the deer. Simultaneously, plantation stands were surveyed to quantify the actual tree damage caused by this ungulate. Seventy-six percent of producers reported damage to trees by deer (i.e. browsing, fraying caused by antler rubbing) but most of them perceived low levels of damage per property (median < 0.2%), with negligible economic effects. However, 5% of producers (all of them with ≤ 2 km2 in production, usually family enterprises) perceived high levels of damage and economic losses, and supported deer hunting as a management option. Field surveys indicated that damage caused by deer could be more severe than perceived by producers, although spatially confined within the landscape. Monitoring of damage perception by forestry producers, and compensation schemes to assist small producers are necessary for adequate management of this threatened marsh deer population.

Despite increasing support for conservation efforts, humans exert strong negative forces on nature and disagree over the management of these effects. Conflicts over conservation policy may reflect evolving opinions about how people ought to conserve species and whether to intervene in various processes. To understand public preferences for conservation in the USA, we measured support for various strategies in five case studies, where we pitted one species against another in simplified but realistic scenarios. Among our online convenience sample of 1040 participants, we found the majority of participants favoured habitat protection in all but one case, and there was little acceptance of lethal control across all cases. The results reveal that habitat protection preferences positively relate to considerations of moral principles and ecosystems and negatively relate to economic and practical considerations. Older, conservative and male participants were less likely to support habitat protection and more likely to support no action. The results suggest broad support for holistic nature conservation that benefits both people and nature and highlight areas where current wildlife management may not align with public preferences. Controversy may continue until wildlife management policies are consistent with societal values and address moral and ecosystem considerations at multiple levels.

We examined the presence of the jaguar Panthera onca, and human–jaguar interactions, in a community-dominated montane tropical forest landscape with formally recognized indigenous/community conserved areas in the Sierra Norte of Oaxaca state, Mexico. We used camera traps to detect jaguars, and social data were collected through informal interviews and 46 semi-structured and 106 structured interviews with community leaders and members. During June 2007–June 2008 camera traps registered two jaguars in the four study communities after 1,164 trap nights, with a photo-capture rate of 7.8 jaguar captures per 1,000 trap nights. Interviews documented 86 jaguar sightings since 1990. Despite some history of livestock predation, 68% of the interviewed farmers indicated jaguar presence was positive, 20% that jaguar presence was both positive and negative, and 12% thought jaguars were a negative presence. All of the respondents with negative attitudes had either owned cattle previously or lost cattle to predation. Despite ongoing risks to jaguars the emergence of community-conserved areas, local conservation initiatives, and a community-imposed hunting ban are supported by 93% of community members. An emerging culture of conservation in the study communities suggests there is an opportunity for jaguar conservation on community lands that should be explored elsewhere in jaguar range countries.