A review and synthesis of factors driving tolerance of people towards damage causing mammalian wildlife

Human Wildlife Conflict is increasing and recognized as a major priority as it can incur large costs to rural lives and livelihoods as well as decrease conservation support. While the main focus of research in human-wildlife... [ view full abstract ]

Human Wildlife Conflict is increasing and recognized as a major priority as it can incur large costs to rural lives and livelihoods as well as decrease conservation support. While the main focus of research in human-wildlife conflict has been finding technological and financial solutions to mitigating tangible impacts of wildlife for humans so as to increase tolerance towards wildlife, recent work suggests this approach may be an oversimplification of the problem and a focus on the human dimensions of the problem requires more attention. There is sufficient evidence in the Human Wildlife Conflict literature to conclude that individuals differ widely in their attitudes and tolerance towards wildlife. For example, some stakeholders remove wildlife species despite not encountering any problems, while others with problems will not remove species. And some stakeholders will implement mitigation measures to prevent or reduce damage, while others will not. Determining the extent of stakeholder tolerance and the factors driving this tolerance is therefore critical to design policies for HWC management, particularly in light of increased requirements for stakeholder participation in conservation management. Here we present a global review of the factors that were examined by researchers as drivers of tolerant behavior by people living with four groups of mammalian wildlife groups; carnivores, ungulates, elephants and primates. We then synthesize this body of work and present a Wildlife Tolerance Model that can be used as a diagnostic tool for conservation managers to understand the drivers of tolerance towards damage causing mammalian wildlife. Lastly, we apply this model to two case studies of contrasting social-ecological systems. A key finding is that contrary to conventional wisdom monetary costs are not always the main driver of tolerance. We conclude that more attention should focus on the intangible costs of living with wildlife.