As humanity’s population grows exponentially, so does our environmental impact, and there is a need to accommodate such a large global population. Human-wildlife conflicts are expected to increase dramatically, as will human encroachment on wildlife habitats. The negative impacts of human-wildlife conflicts with tigers can vary, from lethal encounters, threats, and killing of livestock; these can obviously foster negative attitudes towards an endangered species. Negative attitudes towards tigers can lead to retaliatory killings of tigers, habitat destruction, and non-compliance with wildlife regulations. As a result, this can contribute to the tiger population’s decline and hinder conservation efforts. This study aimed to evaluate the attitudes of locals in the direct proximity of Chitwan National Park in Nepal to prioritize targeted conservation strategies. This research is important not only within the regional context of Nepal but also in providing insight/strategies for human-tiger coexistence in other areas of the world.

Chitwan National Park is a large forest (~1000km^2) that provides critical habitat for the endangered tiger (Panthera tigris). The national park’s buffer zone is a part of Nepal’s community forestry, allowing locals to harvest resources sustainably, such as; firewood, medicinal plants, and grazing area. It is also important for the livelihood of the locals, supporting an ecotourism industry and subsistence grazing/agriculture. The study site of the article is the westernmost part of the Chitwan district in Nepal, which borders the national park; it was broken down into “wards” (small administrative units used by Nepal), and the wards that were in the immediate vicinity of the national park where surveyed.

A stratified sample was made through the wards, where 500 individuals were randomly selected to participate in the attitudes survey. The attitudes survey included demographic information (age, gender, and ethnicity/caste) and socioeconomic information (education level, occupation, and how many livestock their household owned). It also included their tiger-related risks, such as how long they had lived in Chitwan, how often they went into the forest, and negative experiences with tigers.

The study results showed that one’s position in society shaped their attitudes more than having direct negative experiences with tigers. The researchers hypothesized that this is due to the fact that those of higher castes are more likely to be involved in the ecotourism industry, seeing the direct monetary value of tigers, instead of lower castes who are more likely to be subsidence farmers/rely on the forest products of the Chitwan national forest. Those with greater education also show more positive attitudes towards tigers, possibly because it broadens their perspective of tiger conservation and their ecological value. Those in lower castes/marginalized ethnic groups showed greater negative attitudes due to the reliance on forest products, where the presence of tigers is threatening, and how the conservation of the national forest restricts access to forest products that their livelihoods depend upon. Women also tended to have greater negative attitudes towards tigers, as they were primarily responsible for agricultural tasks/resource gathering, constraining their perception of tigers to tangible negative consequences.

There is an obvious spatial relationship between previously discussed trends, education, gender, ethnicity, and tiger exposure. Digging into this research article has expanded my perspective on the complex relationships between social structure and economics and how an individual’s experience affects wildlife conservation. Attitudes are not solely dependent on one’s experience with tigers but are deeply embedded within the context of the social/economic system one lives in. This study highlights the importance of targeting conservation strategies to various social groups within their own needs and experiences.

Carter, Neil H., et al. “Spatial Assessment of Attitudes Toward Tigers in Nepal.” AMBIO, vol. 43, no. 2, Mar. 2014, pp. 125–37. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0421-7.

As the world becomes rapidly urbanized, wildlife habitats become more encroached upon, leading to greater wildlife colonization of urban habitats. This has led to a dramatic increase in human-wildlife conflicts (HWC), be it threats to human life, wildlife attacks on pets, vehicle collisions, or property damage. Attitudes and perceptions of people within urban areas directly impact how urban wildlife is managed; this highlights the importance of having a well-developed understanding of attitudes towards wildlife. The paper “Perceptions and Attitudes to Understand the human-wildlife Conflict in an Urban Landscape – A Systematic Review” explores that by reviewing many studies and drawing conclusions about the relationship between public opinion and wildlife management. 

The systematic review seeks to answer two questions: How were the perceptions or attitudes of urban residents used to understand urban HWC, and how does the inclusion of citizens’ perceptions or attitudes assist in reducing urban HWC? The authors utilized the PRISMA framework for their systematic review, which are academic standards and protocols to review large amounts of research articles that allow other researchers to reproduce their findings. It’s a transparent research methodology. The inclusion criteria of the paper can be summarized by the papers being relevant to the stated research question, the paper being published after the year 1999, the paper being written in English (which may be a limitation to the study, given its global applicability), the paper being peer-reviewed. The exclusion criteria of the paper can be summarized by relevance to public perception through questionnaires or surveys, non-wild species (such as domesticated animals), and studies conducted in rural areas or laboratory environments. Refer to Figure 1, a graphic representation of the PRISMA framework.

After the literature was screened, the data was extracted from them; several graphical representations were made to show the geographical distribution of the research and the frequency of keywords through word clouds. The country with the largest number of studies was the United States, with 43 research articles comprising 34.68% of the literature. Of that 43 articles, 52 species out of the 56 species mentioned in those papers were mammals and mainly predators (bears, grey wolves, coyotes, and cougars); this made me wonder if this was caused by the large controversy of reintroducing tertiary predators out west. If so, understanding public opinion in those communities would be important because it’s a divisive issue, with some communities being strongly opposed due to livestock predation, property damage, and generally posing a threat to human safety. On the other side of the debate, environmentalists strongly support the reintroduction of predators to restore ecological balance and control prey populations.

The takeaways the authors had for the reader were as follows. Frequent observations of wildlife boost tolerance levels among residents in urban areas, leading to more preference for less lethal wildlife management strategies to mitigate and control conflicts. A large limitation of the current literature on public perception and attitudes is that it fails to address more than one species on a longer time scale. There was a lack of longitudinal studies to study the changes in public perceptions, which should be a high priority among researchers given its impact on effective wildlife management. Addressing that research gap could provide valuable insights into how urban communities evolve in their understanding and acceptance of wildlife.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X23004612

As a rapidly urbanizing global society, there are more and more interactions between wildlife in urban areas. Urban ecology has been a relatively new field of study since its inception in the 1960s, with its initial focus on the negatives of human-wildlife interactions: disease transmission, nuisances, property damage, and direct conflicts resulting in injury or death. More modern research details the positives of urban wildlife interactions, such as keystone species and ecosystem services such as supporting, provisioning, regulating, and cultural). The perception of these interactions is greatly determined by the social and cultural factors within a given community. This paper summarizes the general body of research surrounding urban wildlife conflicts, detailing the extent to which they expand our understanding and the gaps and limitations of the studies. 

The paper’s overarching objective to demonstrate the effects of one’s societal context on perceptions of urban wildlife interactions was one of the largest takeaways I had from this critical review. The discrepancy between the perceived dangers and damage to property of urban wildlife interactions far exceeds the real likelihood, prompting many to eradicate species, hindering conservation efforts, and making poorly informed management decisions. Urban wildlife conflicts have more to deal with social and cultural factors than reality itself; the authors indicate the need for a more interdisciplinary framework in which urban wildlife conflicts are studied. More collaboration with economics, public health, sociology, psychology, and planning experts is necessary to gain a better understanding. 

In addition to improving the framework from which researchers approach urban wildlife conflicts, there is a need for better education about their true nature. A larger focus on the benefits of the interactions between wildlife, such as mental health benefits, is necessary. In a rapidly urbanizing world, people are becoming more detached and disenchanted from the natural world, which is associated with more mental health issues. An increasing body of research indicates the benefits of nature-based therapy, which public health officials overlook; they are more concerned about the individual’s lifestyle than the environment they are constrained to. Better education would midgate hysteria, increase the value society places on urban wildlife, and midgate poor management decisions.

Another takeaway from this paper was the unintended consequences of urban greening initiatives. Urban greening projects have the unintended consequence of creating a high disease hazard, even more so with projects to connect fragmented habitats through corridors. Improved green infrastructure can also increase the frequency of wildlife-vehicle collisions. The positive impacts of urban greening can not be overstated, but mitigating wildlife disease transmission and collisions should also be mitigated, which are not mutually exclusive. 

As a result of this critical review, my perspective on the body of research on urban wildlife interaction has broadened. I am more aware of the current gaps and limitations of existing research. In the same way, ecology seeks to unravel the complexities of the interactions between organisms. Still, urban ecology faces greater complexity as cities function as an ecosystem. An ecosystem with its own identity is influenced by countless factors such as culture, history, economy, and environmental interactions. This paper reinforces the importance of a multidisciplinary perspective within urban ecology. As a researcher, I find this paper incredibly helpful as it indicates research gaps that must be explored and expanded upon.

Source: Soulsbury, Carl D., and Piran C. L. White. “Human–Wildlife Interactions in Urban Areas: A Review of Conflicts, Benefits and Opportunities.” Wildlife Research, vol. 42, no. 7, July 2015, pp. 541–53. bioone.org, https://doi.org/10.1071/WR14229.

I utilized Grammarly during the completion of this assignment.