Summary
Authors identify two motivators for international human-wildlife conflict (HWC): coexistence inequality and intolerance. Coexistence inequality is attributed to the disparity which those in the so-called global south disproportionately face where wildlife unproportionately affects their livelihoods (e.g. agriculture, occupation and conservation efforts made by the global north.) Wildlife intolerance is influenced through social and cultural norms. Moving forward, the authors suggest a more empathetic attitude needs to be advocated through considering those who bear the costs of HWC the most (e.g developing a wildlife compensation scheme for the communities who bear the cost.) However such implications are limited due to the lack of recognition of effort needed to tackle social intolerance of wildlife.
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.