Bencin, Heidi Kioko, John and Kiffner, Christian 2016. Local people’s perceptions of wildlife species in two distinct landscapes of Northern Tanzania. Journal for Nature Conservation, Vol. 34, p. 82.
Carter, Neil H. and Allendorf, Teri D. 2016. Gendered perceptions of tigers in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Biological Conservation, Vol. 202, p. 69.
Di Minin, Enrico Slotow, Rob Hunter, Luke T. B. Montesino Pouzols, Federico Toivonen, Tuuli Verburg, Peter H. Leader-Williams, Nigel Petracca, Lisanne and Moilanen, Atte 2016. Global priorities for national carnivore conservation under land use change. Scientific Reports, Vol. 6, p. 23814.
Dorresteijn, Ine Milcu, Andra Ioana Leventon, Julia Hanspach, Jan and Fischer, Joern 2016. Social factors mediating human–carnivore coexistence: Understanding thematic strands influencing coexistence in Central Romania. Ambio, Vol. 45, Issue. 4, p. 490.
Inskip, Chloe Carter, Neil Riley, Shawn Roberts, Thomas MacMillan, Douglas and Goodrich, John 2016. Toward Human-Carnivore Coexistence: Understanding Tolerance for Tigers in Bangladesh. PLOS ONE, Vol. 11, Issue. 1, p. e0145913.
Khorozyan, Igor Lumetsberger, Tanja Ghoddousi, Arash Soofi, Mahmood and Waltert, Matthias 2016. Global patterns in biomass models describing prey consumption by big cats. Mammal Review,
Kiffner, C. Nagar, S. Kollmar, C. and Kioko, J. 2016. Wildlife species richness and densities in wildlife corridors of Northern Tanzania. Journal for Nature Conservation, Vol. 31, p. 29.
Koziarski, A. Kissui, B. and Kiffner, C. 2016. Patterns and correlates of perceived conflict between humans and large carnivores in Northern Tanzania. Biological Conservation, Vol. 199, p. 41.
Miller, Jennifer R. B. Jhala, Yadvendradev V. and Jena, Jyotirmay 2016. Livestock losses and hotspots of attack from tigers and leopards in Kanha Tiger Reserve, Central India. Regional Environmental Change, Vol. 16, Issue. S1, p. 17.
Miller, Jennifer R. B. Jhala, Yadvendradev V. Schmitz, Oswald J. and Umapathy, Govindhaswamy 2016. Human Perceptions Mirror Realities of Carnivore Attack Risk for Livestock: Implications for Mitigating Human-Carnivore Conflict. PLOS ONE, Vol. 11, Issue. 9, p. e0162685.
Skupien, Gregory M. Andrews, Kimberly M. and Larson, Lincoln R. 2016. Teaching Tolerance? Effects of Conservation Education Programs on Wildlife Acceptance Capacity for the American Alligator. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, Vol. 21, Issue. 3, p. 264.
Kahler, Jessica S. and Gore, Meredith L. 2015. Local perceptions of risk associated with poaching of wildlife implicated in human-wildlife conflicts in Namibia. Biological Conservation, Vol. 189, p. 49.
An, Li Zvoleff, Alex Liu, Jianguo and Axinn, William 2014. Agent-Based Modeling in Coupled Human and Natural Systems (CHANS): Lessons from a Comparative Analysis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 104, Issue. 4, p. 723.
Bruskotter, Jeremy T. and Wilson, Robyn S. 2014. Determining Where the Wild Things will be: Using Psychological Theory to Find Tolerance for Large Carnivores. Conservation Letters, Vol. 7, Issue. 3, p. 158.
Carter, Neil H. Riley, Shawn J. Shortridge, Ashton Shrestha, Binoj K. and Liu, Jianguo 2014. Spatial Assessment of Attitudes Toward Tigers in Nepal. AMBIO, Vol. 43, Issue. 2, p. 125.
Dorresteijn, Ine Hanspach, Jan Kecskés, Attila Latková, Hana Mezey, Zsófia Sugár, Szilárd von Wehrden, Henrik and Fischer, Joern 2014. Human-carnivore coexistence in a traditional rural landscape. Landscape Ecology, Vol. 29, Issue. 7, p. 1145.
Hayman, R. Blair Harvey, Rebecca G. Mazzotti, Frank J. Israel, Glenn D. and Woodward, Allan R. 2014. Who Complains About Alligators? Cognitive and Situational Factors Influence Behavior Toward Wildlife. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, Vol. 19, Issue. 6, p. 481.
Treves, A. and Bruskotter, J. 2014. Tolerance for Predatory Wildlife. Science, Vol. 344, Issue. 6183, p. 476.
Carter, Neil H. Gurung, Bhim Viña, Andrés Campa III, Henry Karki, Jhamak B. and Liu, Jianguo 2013. Assessing spatiotemporal changes in tiger habitat across different land management regimes. Ecosphere, Vol. 4, Issue. 10, p. art124.
Carter, N. H. Shrestha, B. K. Karki, J. B. Pradhan, N. M. B. and Liu, J. 2013. Reply to Goswami et al., Harihar et al., and Karanth et al.: Fine-scale interactions between tigers and people. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 110, Issue. 2, p. E111.
Conserving threatened carnivore species increasingly depends on the capacity of local people to cohabit with those species. To examine such capacity we developed a novel psychological framework for conservation in regions of the world where there are human–carnivore conflicts, and used the Endangered tiger Panthera tigris to explore the utility of this framework. Specifically, we tested three hypotheses in Chitwan National Park, Nepal, where increasing human–tiger conflicts potentially jeopardize long-term coexistence. We administered a survey to 499 individuals living < 2 km from the Park and in nearby multiple-use forest, to record preferred future tiger population size and factors that may influence preferences, including past interactions with tigers (e.g. livestock predation) and beliefs and perceptions about tigers. Over 17% of respondents reported that a tiger had attacked their livestock or threatened them directly. Results from a structural equation model indicated that respondents who preferred fewer tigers in the future were less likely to associate tigers with beneficial attributes, more likely to associate tigers with undesirable attributes, and more likely to believe that government officials poorly manage tiger-related risks and that people are vulnerable to risks from tigers. Our framework can help address current and future conservation challenges because it (1) integrates an expansive and generalized set of psychological concepts, (2) enables the identification of conservation interventions that foster coexistence between people and carnivores, and (3) is suitable for broad application.
This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
Abstract views reflect the number of visits to the article landing page.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 24th June 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.