Insights on human−wildlife coexistence from social science and Indigenous and traditional knowledge

Abstract

Much work on human−wildlife conflict focuses on safeguarding wildlife from humans and vice versa, protecting humans, their crops, livestock, and property from wildlife, and mitigating negative, sometimes lethal encounters. The emphasis is on conflict, a framing that reinforces human−nature dualisms and instills the notion of humans and wild animals as adversaries. Although human−wildlife interactions are sometimes negative, they can also be neutral, coadaptive, and mutually beneficial. They can demonstrate coexistence. Conservationists have tended to overlook or simplify such relations. They have either failed to define coexistence or characterized it as the outcome of externally driven conservation strategies. Conflict has been perceived as the norm, with coexistence a distant ideal. This way of seeing ignores the many ways people have coexisted with wildlife and coadapted with wild animals in multispecies landscapes for generations. We encourage greater attention to Indigenous and traditional experiences and knowledge, and seeing how coexistence can be a norm, which sometimes includes negative interactions and conflict. Scholars in geography, anthropology, animal studies, philosophy, Indigenous studies, and multispecies ethnography offer insights into how paying attention to coexistence can reshape understanding of human−wildlife interactions that decenters humans, and actively supports ethical conservation. Contributions from social scientists include focusing on relational ways of thinking and seeing that the lives of humans and other beings are intertwined and not governed solely by conflict.