Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:57:28.116Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 16 - Principles of Human–Bear Conflict Management in Challenging Environments

from Part III - Human–Bear Coexistence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2020

By
Özgün Emre Can
Edited by
Vincenzo Penteriani  and
Mario Melletti
Vincenzo Penteriani
Affiliation:
Spanish Council of Scientific Research (CSIC)
Mario Melletti
Affiliation:
WPSG (Wild Pig Specialist Group) IUCN SSC
Get access

Summary

Human–bear conflicts differ geographically across the range of eight bear species. First, a brief summary of how conflict studies started in international relationships and then entered to the field of wildlife conservation is given. Then, an overall picture of human–bear conflict management is provided and how current conflict management plans can be improved by considering them as logic models is discussed. Finally, 12 key factors for managing human–bear conflict in challenging environments are presented.

Keywords

human–bear conflictmanagementchallenging environmentsissue,
Type
Chapter
Information
Bears of the World
Ecology, Conservation and Management
 , pp. 227 - 238
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Artelle, K. A., Reynolds, J. D., Treves, A., et al. (2018). Hallmarks of science missing from North American wildlife management. Science Advances 4(3): eaao0167.Google Scholar
Balint, P. J., Stewart, R. E., Desai, A. & Walters, L. C. (2011). Wicked environmental problems: Managing uncertainty and conflict. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Baruch-Mordo, S., Breck, S. W., Wilson, K. R. & Broderick, J. (2011). the carrot or the stick? Evaluation of education and enforcement as management tools for human–wildlife conflicts. PLoS ONE 6(1): e15681.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. (2010, July 24). Lost in translation. The Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientific American, 4.Google Scholar
Brownstein, M. (2019). Implicit bias. Available from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicit-bias/ (accessed March 9, 2019).Google Scholar
Busjeet, G. (2013). Planning, monitoring, and evaluation: Methods and tools for poverty and inequality reduction programs. Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/16449Google Scholar
Can, Ö. E. & Macdonald, D. W. (2017). To protect everything, please click here: does a revolution in data collection guarantee one in conservation? Animal Conservation, 20(1): 1–2.Google Scholar
Can, Ö. E. & Macdonald, D. W. (2018). Looking under the bonnet of conservation conflicts: can neuroscience help? Biodiversity and Conservation 27(8): 2087–2091.Google Scholar
Can, Ö. E., Lise, Y. & Kandemir, İ. (2007). Bees and bears: a review of beekeeper-bear conflict in Black Sea Region, Turkey and recommendations for conflict resolution. American Bee Journal, July: 630–636.Google Scholar
Can, Ö. E., D’Cruze, N., Garshelis, D. L., Beecham, J. & Macdonald, D. W. (2014). Resolving human–bear conflict: a global survey of countries, experts, and key factors. Conservation Letters 7(6): 501–513.Google Scholar
Chandran, R. (2015, March 9). It’s broke, so fix it: humanitarian response in crisis. Available from https://cpr.unu.edu/its-broke-so-fix-it-humanitarian-response-in-crisis.html (accessed April 5, 2015).Google Scholar
Cohn, J. P. (2002). Environmental conflict resolution. BioScience 52(5): 400–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagleman, D. (2016). The brain: The story of you. Edinburgh: Canongate.Google Scholar
Editors. (1957). Approaches to the study of social conflict: introduction by the editors. Conflict Resolution 1(2): 105–110.Google Scholar
Elm, E. C. & Diener, M. K. (2007). The language of war in biomedical journals. The Lancet 369: 1.Google Scholar
Federal Aviation Administration. (2000). FAA system safety handbook. Retrieved from www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/risk_management/ss_handbook/Google Scholar
Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medin, D. & Shikaki, K. (2007). Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(18): 7357–7360.Google Scholar
Gippoliti, S., Brito, D., Cerfolli, F., et al. (2018). Europe as a model for large carnivores conservation: is the glass half empty or half full? Journal for Nature Conservation 41: 73–78.Google Scholar
Gore, M. L., Knuth, B. A., Curtis, P. D. & Shanahan, J. E. (2006). Education programs for reducing American black bear–human conflict: indicators of success? Ursus, 17(1): 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gore, M. L., Knuth, B. A., Scherer, C. W. & Curtis, P. D. (2008). Evaluating a conservation investment designed to reduce human–wildlife conflict: evaluating conservation investment. Conservation Letters 1(3): 136–145.Google Scholar
Gretzinger, J., Molak, M., Reiter, E., et al. (2019). Large-scale mitogenomic analysis of the phylogeography of the Late Pleistocene cave bear. Scientific Reports 9(1). doi:10.1038/s41598-019-47073-zGoogle Scholar
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859): 1243–1248.Google Scholar
Herrero, S., Higgins, A., Cardoza, J. E., Hajduk, L. I. & Smith, T. S. (2011). Fatal attacks by American black bear on people: 1900–2009. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75(3): 596–603.Google Scholar
Hristienko, H. & McDonald, J. E. (2007). Going into the 21st century: a perspective on trends and controversies in the management of the American black bear. Ursus 18(1): 72–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Institute of Medicine. (2009). On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research, 3rd edition. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
IUCN SSC BSG. (2019). Principles of human–bear conflict reduction. IUCN SSC Bear Specialist Group.Google Scholar
Knowlton, L. W. & Phillips, C. C. (2009). The logic model guidebook: Better strategies for great results. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Larson, B. M. (2005). The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 3(9): 495–500.Google Scholar
Lise, Y. (2011). Doğa Konuşmaları Yaban Hayat. Yesil Atlas, 8.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. (2014). Do no harm: Tales of life, death and brain surgery. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
Matt, C. (2012). 4th International Human–Bear Conflicts Workshop Summary. Available from www.bearbiology.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/4th-human-bear-conflict-workshop-summary.pdfGoogle Scholar
OED. (2015). Conflict. Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from www.oed.com/view/Entry/38898?result=1&rskey=uilnn5&Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, N. J., Teasdale, M. D., Mattiangeli, V., et al. (2016). A whole mitochondria analysis of the Tyrolean Iceman’s leather provides insights into the animal sources of Copper Age clothing. Scientific Reports 6(1). doi:10.1038/srep31279Google Scholar
Paquet, P. C. & Darimont, C. T. (2010). Wildlife conservation and animal welfare: two sides of the same coin. Animal Welfare 19(2): 177–190.Google Scholar
Paulus, M. P., Potterat, E. G., Taylor, M. K., et al. (2009). A neuroscience approach to optimizing brain resources for human performance in extreme environments. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 33(7): 1080–1088.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. N., Birckhead, J. L., Leong, K., Peterson, M. J. & Peterson, T. R. (2010). Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlife conflict. Conservation Letters 3(2): 74–82.Google Scholar
Peterson, M. N., Peterson, M. J., Peterson, T. R. & Leong, K. (2013). Why transforming biodiversity conservation conflict is essential and how to begin. Pacific Conservation Biology 19(2): 94.Google Scholar
Peyton, B. (1994). Conservation in the developing world: ideas on how to proceed. Bears: Their Biology and Management 9: 115.Google Scholar
Pooley, S., Barua, M., Beinart, W., et al. (2017). An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations: improving human–predator relations. Conservation Biology 31(3): 513–523.Google Scholar
Presnall, C. C. (1943). Wildlife conservation as affected by American Indian and Caucasian concepts. Journal of Mammalogy 24(4): 458–464.Google Scholar
Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T. & Miall, H. (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution, 3rd edition. Bristol: Polity.Google Scholar
Ratnayeke, S., Van Manen, F. T., Pieris, R. & Pragash, V. S. J. (2014). Challenges of large carnivore conservation: sloth bear attacks in Sri Lanka. Human Ecology 42: 467–479. doi:10.1007/s10745-014-9643-yGoogle Scholar
Reddy, S. M. W., Montambault, J., Masuda, Y. J., et al. (2017). Advancing conservation by understanding and influencing human behavior: human behavior and nature. Conservation Letters 10(2): 248–256.Google Scholar
Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., et al. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28(2): 100–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Redpath, S. M., Bhatia, S. & Young, J. (2015). Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx 49(2): 222–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rittel, H. W. J. & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences 4(2): 155–169.Google Scholar
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations, 4th edition. New York, NY: Free Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Sandermoen, K. (2019). Management consulting (is not) for dummies. Alosen, Switzerland: Sandermoen Publishing.Google Scholar
Shenhav, A. & Greene, J. D. (2014). Integrative moral judgment: dissociating the roles of the amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience 34(13): 4741–4749.Google Scholar
Spencer, R. D., Beausoleil, R. A. & Martorello, D. A. (2007). How agencies respond to human–black bear conflicts: a survey of wildlife agencies in North America. Ursus 18(2): 217–229.Google Scholar
Swaisgood, R. R. (2007). Current status and future directions of applied behavioral research for animal welfare and conservation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 102(3–4): 139–162.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 320–324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treves, A. & Bruskotter, J. (2014). Tolerance for predatory wildlife. Science 344(6183): 476–477.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Treves, A., Wallace, R. B., Naughton-Treves, L. & Morales, A. (2006). Co-managing human–wildlife conflicts: a review. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 11(6): 383–396.Google Scholar
UNDP. (2009). Handbook on planning, monitoring and evaluating for development results. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2004). World population to 2300 (No. ST/ESA/SER.A/236). New York, NY: United Nations.Google Scholar
Wilson, S. M. (2016). A guidebook to human–carnivore conflict: Strategies and tips for effective communication and collaboration with communities. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Slovenia Forest Service – LIFE DINALP BEAR project.Google Scholar
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). W.K. Kellogg Foundation 2004.pdf. Michigan, USA: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.Google Scholar
WSPA. (2009). Principles of human–bear conflict management. Istanbul: World Society for the Protection of Animals.Google Scholar
Zedrosser, A. (2019). The major challenges facing bears. International Bear News 28(2): 2.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×