The Carrot or the Stick? Evaluation of Education and Enforcement as Management Tools for Human-Wildlife Conflicts

Evidence-based decision-making is critical for implementing conservation actions, especially for human-wildlife conflicts, which have been increasing worldwide. Conservation practitioners recognize that long-term solutions should include altering human behaviors, and public education and enforcement of wildlife-related laws are two management actions frequently implemented, but with little empirical evidence evaluating their success. We used a system where human-black bear conflicts were common, to experimentally test the efficacy of education and enforcement in altering human behavior to better secure attractants (garbage) from bears. We conducted 3 experiments in Aspen CO, USA to evaluate: 1) on-site education in communal dwellings and construction sites, 2) Bear Aware educational campaign in residential neighborhoods, and 3) elevated law enforcement at two levels in the core business area of Aspen. We measured human behaviors as the response including: violation of local wildlife ordinances, garbage availability to bears, and change in use of bear-resistance refuse containers. As implemented, we found little support for education, or enforcement in the form of daily patrolling in changing human behavior, but found more support for proactive enforcement, i.e., dispensing warning notices. More broadly we demonstrated the value of gathering evidence before and after implementing conservation actions, and the dangers of measuring responses in the absence of ecological knowledge. We recommend development of more effective educational methods, application of proactive enforcement, and continued evaluation of tools by directly measuring change in human behavior. We provide empirical evidence adding to the conservation managers' toolbox, informing policy makers, and promoting solutions to human-wildlife conflicts

Pathways towards coexistence with large carnivores in production systems

Coexistence between livestock grazing and carnivores in rangelands is a major challenge in terms of sustainable agriculture, animal welfare, species conservation and ecosystem function. Many effective non-lethal tools exist to protect livestock from predation, yet their adoption remains limited. Using a social-ecological transformations framework, we present two qualitative models that depict transformative change in rangelands grazing. Developed through participatory processes with stakeholders from South Africa and the United States of America, the models articulate drivers of change and the essential pathways to transition from routine lethal management of carnivores towards mutually beneficial coexistence. The pathways define broad actions that incorporate multiple values in grazing systems including changes to livestock management practices, financial support, industry capacity building, research, improved governance and marketing initiatives. A key fnding is the new concept of ‘Predator Smart Farming’, a holistic and conscientious approach to agriculture, which increases the resilience of landscapes, animals (domesticated and wild) and rural livelihoods. Implementation of these multiple pathways would lead to a future system that ensures thriving agricultural communities, secure livelihoods, reduced violence toward animals, and landscapes that are productive and support species conservation and coexistence

Real-Time Associations Between Engaging in Leisure and Daily Health and Well-Being

BackgroundEngagement in leisure has a wide range of beneficial health effects. Yet, this evidence is derived from between-person methods that do not examine the momentary within-person processes theorized to explain leisure's benefits.PurposeThis study examined momentary relationships between leisure and health and well-being in daily life.MethodsA community sample (n = 115) completed ecological momentary assessments six times a day for three consecutive days. At each measurement, participants indicated if they were engaging in leisure and reported on their mood, interest/boredom, and stress levels. Next, participants collected a saliva sample for cortisol analyses. Heart rate was assessed throughout the study.ResultsMultilevel models revealed that participants had more positive and less negative mood, more interest, less stress, and lower heart rate when engaging in leisure than when not.ConclusionsResults suggest multiple mechanisms explaining leisure's effectiveness, which can inform leisure-based interventions to improve health and well-being

Social Correlates of and Reasons for Primate Meat Consumption in Central Amazonia

Traditionally, humans have consumed nonhuman primates in many places, including throughout the Amazon region. However, primate consumption rates are changing with rising urbanization and market access. We characterize primate consumption in central Amazonia using 192 qualitative interviews with inhabitants in three rural villages and in the city of Tefé. We used a generalized linear model to investigate how individual consumer characteristics, such as age and gender, and livelihoods affected primate consumption. We also used principal coordinate analysis (PCoA), and word clouds and network text analyses, to describe reasons people gave for eating or avoiding primates. Our results show that men were more likely to say that they eat primates than women, and that the probability that a person said that they eat primates correlated positively with the percentage of their life lived in rural areas. People gave sentiment and ethical reasons not to eat primates. Custom influenced whether people said they eat primates both positively and negatively, while taste positively influenced whether people said they eat primates. A preference for other wild meats in rural areas, and for domestic meats in cities negatively influenced whether people said they eat primates. People also cited the perceptions that primates have a human-like appearance and that primate meat is unhealthy as reasons not to eat primates. People in urban areas also cited conservation attitudes as reasons for not eating primates. Our findings provide an understanding of factors influencing primate consumption in our study area and will be useful for designing tailored conservation initiatives by reducing hunting pressure on primates in rural settings and increasing the effectiveness of outreach campaigns in urban centers