Reconciling farming and wild nature: Integrating human–wildlife coexistence into the land-sharing and land-sparing framework
Land has traditionally been spared to protect biodiversity; however, this approach has not succeeded by itself and requires a complementary strategy in human-dominated landscapes: land-sharing. Human–wildlife conflicts are rampant in a land-sharing context where wildlife co-occur with crops or livestock, but whose resulting interactions adversely affect the wellbeing of land owners, ultimately impeding coexistence. Therefore, true land-sharing only works if coexistence is also considered an end goal. We reviewed the literature on land-sharing and found that conflicts have not yet found their way into the land-sharing/sparing framework, with wildlife and humans co-occurring without coexisting in a dynamic process. To successfully implement a land-sharing approach, we must first acknowledge our failure to integrate the body of work on human–wildlife conflicts into the framework and work to implement multidisciplinary approaches from the ecological, economic, and sociological sciences to overcome and prevent conflicts. We suggest the use of Conflict Transformation by means of the Levels of Conflict Model to perceive both visible and deep-rooted causes of conflicts as opportunities to create problem-solving dynamics in affected socio-ecological landscapes. Reconciling farming and nature is possible by aiming for a transition to landscapes that truly share space by virtue of coexistence.
KeywordsCoexistence Conflict reconciliation Conflict resolution Human-dominated landscapes Land-sharing Wildlife-friendly farming
SJC is a fellow of the Chilean Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (CONICYT 63130184). We are grateful to three anonymous referees, whose helpful comments contributed towards enhancing the quality of the final manuscript. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- Canadian Institute for Conflict Resolution. 2000. Becoming a Third-Party Neutral: Resource Guide. Ridgewood Foundation for Community-Based Conflict Resolution (Int’l).Google Scholar
- Convention on Biological Diversity. 2010. Strategic plan for biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi targets. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal. Retrieved January 2018 from http://www.cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/targets/compilation-quick-guide-en.pdf.
- Crespin, S.J., and J.E. García-Villalta. 2014. Integration of land-sharing and land-sparing conservation strategies through regional networking: The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor as a lifeline for carnivores in El Salvador. Ambio 43: 820–824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0470-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Fischer, J., B. Brosi, G.C. Daily, P.R. Ehrlich, R. Goldman, J. Goldstein, D.B. Lindenmayer, A.D. Manning, et al. 2008. Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 380–385. https://doi.org/10.1890/070019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hanley, N., B. Shogren, and J.F. White. 2007. Environmental economics in theory and practice, 2nd ed, 464. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Lederach, J.P. 2003. Little book of Conflict Transformation. Good Books.Google Scholar
- Oriol-Cotterill, A., M. Valeix, L.G. Frank, C. Riginos, and D.W. MacDonald. 2015. Landscapes of coexistence for terrestrial carnivores: The ecological consequences of being downgraded from ultimate to penultimate predator by humans. Oikos 124: 1263–1273. https://doi.org/10.1111/oik.02224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Redford, K.H., and J.G. Robinson. 1991. Park size and the conservation of forest mammals in Latin America. In Latin American mammalogy: History, diversity, and conservation, ed. M.A. Mares, and D.J. Schimdly, 227–234. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
- Young, J.C., M. Marzano, R.M. White, D.I. McCracken, S.M. Redpath, D.N. Carss, C.P. Quine, and A.D. Watt. 2010. The emergence of biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: Characteristics and management strategies. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 3973–3990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9941-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar