Human-Wildlife Coexistence: Business as Usual Conservation or an Opportunity for Transformative Change?

Valentina Fiasco, Kate Massarella
{"title":"Human-Wildlife Coexistence: Business as Usual Conservation or an Opportunity for Transformative Change?","authors":"Valentina Fiasco, Kate Massarella","doi":"10.4103/cs.cs_26_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The term 'coexistence' is increasingly being used by academics and practitioners to reflect a re-conceptualisation of human-wildlife interactions (HWI). Coexistence has become a popular buzzword and is central to several proposals for transformative change in biodiversity conservation, including convivial conservation. Although ideas about how to achieve coexistence proliferate, critical exploration of the framing and use of the term is lacking. Through analysis of semi-structured interviews, webinars and online and offline documents, this paper critically interrogates how 'coexistence' is being conceptualised and translated into practice. We characterise coexistence as a boundary object that reflects a broadly agreed on 'hopeful mission', while being flexible enough to be meaningful for a wide range of actors. We identify three main framings of coexistence, which reflect the ways of knowing, values and approaches of different epistemic communities. We find that although the idea of coexistence has the potential to help facilitate transformative change in wildlife management, so far it largely manifests in practice as a positive-sounding label for standardised packages of tools and incentives. We argue that as the meaning of coexistence continues to be contested, there is an opportunity for activists, academics, and practitioners to reclaim its transformative roots. We identify a role for convivial conservation within this agenda: to re-politicise coexistence through the concept of 'meaningful coexistence'.","PeriodicalId":376207,"journal":{"name":"Conservation and Society","volume":"93 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_26_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The term 'coexistence' is increasingly being used by academics and practitioners to reflect a re-conceptualisation of human-wildlife interactions (HWI). Coexistence has become a popular buzzword and is central to several proposals for transformative change in biodiversity conservation, including convivial conservation. Although ideas about how to achieve coexistence proliferate, critical exploration of the framing and use of the term is lacking. Through analysis of semi-structured interviews, webinars and online and offline documents, this paper critically interrogates how 'coexistence' is being conceptualised and translated into practice. We characterise coexistence as a boundary object that reflects a broadly agreed on 'hopeful mission', while being flexible enough to be meaningful for a wide range of actors. We identify three main framings of coexistence, which reflect the ways of knowing, values and approaches of different epistemic communities. We find that although the idea of coexistence has the potential to help facilitate transformative change in wildlife management, so far it largely manifests in practice as a positive-sounding label for standardised packages of tools and incentives. We argue that as the meaning of coexistence continues to be contested, there is an opportunity for activists, academics, and practitioners to reclaim its transformative roots. We identify a role for convivial conservation within this agenda: to re-politicise coexistence through the concept of 'meaningful coexistence'.
人类与野生动物共存:一如既往的保护还是变革的机会?
学者和从业者越来越多地使用“共存”一词来反映人类与野生动物相互作用(HWI)的重新概念化。共存已经成为一个流行的流行语,并且是生物多样性保护变革的几个建议的核心,包括欢乐保护。尽管关于如何实现共存的想法层出不穷,但缺乏对该术语的框架和使用的批判性探索。通过对半结构化访谈、网络研讨会以及线上和线下文件的分析,本文批判性地探讨了“共存”是如何被概念化并转化为实践的。我们将共存描述为一个边界对象,它反映了广泛同意的“充满希望的使命”,同时足够灵活,对广泛的参与者有意义。我们确定了共存的三个主要框架,它们反映了不同认知社区的认识方式、价值观和方法。我们发现,虽然共存的想法有可能有助于促进野生动物管理的变革,但到目前为止,它在实践中主要表现为标准化工具和激励措施的一个听起来积极的标签。我们认为,随着共存的意义继续受到质疑,活动家、学者和实践者有机会重新找回其变革的根源。我们在这一议程中确定了欢乐保护的作用:通过“有意义的共存”的概念将共存重新政治化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信