Predators in human landscapes
Abstract
Attitudes toward large carnivores are often embedded in people’s understandings of the landscape. Predators stir controversy in areas where their material impact is less than dramatic, and people who have no personal... [ view full abstract ]
Attitudes toward large carnivores are often embedded in people’s understandings of the landscape. Predators stir controversy in areas where their material impact is less than dramatic, and people who have no personal experience with these species may still be strongly involved in conflicts over them. These conflicts, while social in origin, may have serious consequences for wildlife. Studies in Norway and India have shown that interpretations of landscape change exert a strong influence on willingness to accept large carnivores. Attitudes are related to how people use the land and perceive the landscape in relation to the tasks that are performed – or not performed – in it. How the place of humans in the landscape is understood has an impact on how people see the place for animal species in the same landscape. Ideal types of landscapes must match social representations of animals. Taking Ingold’s concept of ‘taskscape’ as a point of departure, two ideal types of landscape perspective were identified. The ‘used landscape’ is centered on the idea that prudent utilization of resources is an obligation, benefitting humans, wildlife and the landscape itself, and that traces of human activities bestow meaning upon the landscape. This perspective includes a notion of harmony between humans, benign animals and plants. Large carnivores disturb this harmony, and therefore have only a limited place in the used landscape, or none at all. They may also symbolize land use changes associated with rural demise and destruction of the cultural landscape – e.g. through intentional or accidental rewilding. The ‘authentic landscape’ entails an ideal landscape with minimal traces of human activity, separate from the materialistic and intrinsically destructive human society. Large carnivores add value to this landscape, and help constitute it as authentic. This landscape interpretation, motivating an intentional return to a wilderness state, predominates in social groups without ties to a culture of harvesting resources. By focusing on how people relate to the landscape we demonstrate that behind conflicts that appear to be between humans and wildlife, there is a deep anxiety about changing land use and core aspects of contemporary social change in general.
Authors
-
Ketil Skogan
(Norwegian University of Life Sciences)
-
Sunetro Ghosal
(Stawa)
-
Silje Skuland
(National Institute for Consumer Research)
-
Siddhartha Krishnan
(Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment)
Topic Areas
Topics: Social-Ecological Systems/Coupled Human-Natural Systems , Topics: Human-Wildlife Conflict , Topics: Cognitive Research (Values, Attitudes, Behaviors)
Session
(01:00 - Thursday, 1st January)
Presentation Files
The presenter has not uploaded any presentation files.