Tolerance for wildlife: A psychological perspective

摘要: In the field of conservation, the term coexistence is generally employed as the antonym of conflict–as in Woodroofe et al.(2005)’s book, People and Wildlife, Conflict or Coexistence?. Indeed, research on human–wildlife conflict (hereafter, HWC) is generally motivated by the desire to provide humans with a means of avoiding conflicts, thereby paving the way for coexistence. The logic here is simple: humans will be less likely to kill animals that do not impinge upon human interests and activities (ie animals perceived to pose unacceptable risks, or cause unacceptable conflicts). Although this simple framework has both intuitive and practical appeal, it both oversimplifies how human beings respond to their social and biophysical environment, and limits the focus to conflict, thereby reducing the potential set of solutions (Frank 2016). In fact, a substantial proportion of research in HWC is not about human conflicts with wildlife at all, but rather, human conflicts over wildlife conservation issues (Redpath et al. 2015). Results from recent studies suggest that human intolerance of wildlife can be rooted in conflicts among human groups; our intolerance for one another plays out as intolerance for a species (Krange & Skogen 2011; Rust et al. 2016), even in places where levels of HWC are demonstrably low (Krange & Skogen 2011). Moreover, these acts occur within a broader socio-cultural context that shapes both cultural norms and values, as well as the incentives of individual actors (Skogen & Thrane 2007; Manfredo 2008). Starting with the premise that human behaviour, and therefore coexistence, is rooted partly in psychology (ie an individual’s thoughts …