Balancing competing land-use needs is a major conservation challenge in landscapes that are shared between humans and wildlife. Shared spaces play a vital role in connecting protected habitats that wildlife need to persist.
However, species utilizing these shared areas for dispersal increase the likelihood that they will come into conflict with humans, which can result in a loss of human livelihoods and reduced landscape connectivity. In extreme cases, conflict can lead to wildlife mortality.
Vasudev, D., Fletcher Jr, R.J., Srinivas, N., Marx, A.J. and Goswami, V.R. 2023. Mapping the connectivity–conflict interface to inform conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120: e2211482119.
Identifying corridors where humans and wildlife are likely to clash can be the first step in managing conflict, enabling landscape connectivity, and informing decisions on corridor placement. In a new study, researchers created a framework to better guide conflict management between humans and wildlife.
While other analyses map landscape connectivity by assuming that species will avoid areas based on landscape features and human presence, this study integrated the effects that conflict mortality has on connectivity. Using random-walk theory, connectivity was mapped by identifying frequently used corridors that led to lethal and nonlethal conflict.
The framework was illustrated with the endangered Asian elephant, a dispersing species that commonly comes into conflict with humans. By mapping elephant connectivity, researchers revealed that conflict-induced mortality and nonlethal conflict impacted elephant dispersal. These areas were identified as conflict hotspots, and were distinguished by having corridors where wildlife had either high visitation rates or low visitation rates.
Areas identified as conflict hotspots with high visitation require conservation strategies that maintain corridors while also addressing conflict. Current practices accomplish this by redirecting species movement to alternative corridors, but this may not always be an effective solution. However, conflict hotspots with low visitation rates may experience conflict infrequently, making one-time farmer subsidies a more appropriate solution.
Researchers argue that the framework can be applied to context-specific landscape planning, and can provide guidance for short and long term connectivity goals. In areas of low connectivity, conservation strategies should focus on encouraging species movement in these areas through habitat restoration. In areas of high connectivity, conservation strategies should focus on stakeholder engagement and education. Overall, targeting conflict management could lead to more effective land-use planning and engagement in community based solutions toward reducing conflict and maintaining connectivity.
Related Posts
Can human mobility data help improve landscape connectivity?
GPS data from smartphones has the potential to transform connectivity conservation by revealing when and where human presence actually disrupts wildlife movement, allowing managers to identify barriers, prioritize mitigation, and design landscapes that better sustain ecological connections.
Inclusive conservation can benefit wildlife connectivity
Directly involving local communities in conservation efforts can benefit connectivity for wildlife, especially large carnivores that require large landscapes to roam.
Incorporating human perspectives into identifying wildlife corridors
A framework developed for Asiatic black bears in Thailand can be used as a practical tool to include anthropogenic aspects along with animal ecology when identifying wildlife corridors.
