Conservation In Practice |
Corresponding author: Adriana Consorte-McCrea ( adriana.consorte-mccrea@canterbury.ac.uk ) Academic editor: Klaus Henle
© 2019 Adriana Consorte-McCrea, Ana Fernandez, Alan Bainbridge, Andrew Moss, Anne-Caroline Prévot, Susan Clayton, Jenny Anne Glikman, Maria Johansson, José Vicente López-Bao, Alistair Bath, Beatrice Frank, Silvio Marchini.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Consorte-McCrea A, Fernandez A, Bainbridge A, Moss A, Prévot A-C, Clayton S, Glikman JA, Johansson M, López-Bao JV, Bath A, Frank B, Marchini S (2019) Large carnivores and zoos as catalysts for engaging the public in the protection of biodiversity. Nature Conservation 37: 133-150. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.37.39501
|
Addressing the biodiversity crisis requires renewed collaborative approaches. Large carnivores are ambassador species, and as such they can aid the protection of a wide range of species, including evolutionarily distinct and threatened ones, while being popular for conservation marketing. However, conflicts between carnivores and people present a considerable challenge to biodiversity conservation. Our cross disciplinary essay brings together original research to discuss key issues in the conservation of large carnivores as keystone species for biodiversity rich, healthy ecosystems. Our findings suggest the need to promote coexistence through challenging ‘wilderness’ myths; to consider coexistence/conflict as a continuum; to include varied interest groups in decision making; to address fear through positive mediated experiences, and to explore further partnerships with zoos. As wide-reaching institutions visited by over 700 million people/year worldwide, zoos combine knowledge, emotion and social context creating ideal conditions for the development of care towards nature, pro-environmental behaviors and long-term connections between visitors and carnivores. Based on current research, we provide evidence that large carnivores and zoos are both powerful catalysts for public engagement with biodiversity conservation, recognizing barriers and suggesting future ways to collaborate to address biodiversity loss.
conservation biology, human-wildlife conflict, large carnivores, ambassador species, zoos, biodiversity conservation
Awareness of biodiversity values and sustainable use are key concerns in mainstreaming biodiversity across society and halting its loss (Aichi Target 1 https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/rationale/target-1/default.shtml). Research indicates that biodiversity is not salient to people (
Research also indicates that social context and experience together with pro-environmental messaging can promote the development of a connection with nature and pro-environmental behaviors (
This paper offers a synthesis of contributions presented at the symposium “Large carnivores and zoos as catalysts for biodiversity conservation: how do we engage the public in the protection of biodiversity?” at the European Congress for Conservation Biology (ECCB), Finland 2018. Bringing together natural and social sciences, as well as psychology and education, it provides a rich multifaceted approach to the conservation of biodiversity by exploring the connections between people, large carnivores and zoos. We review research that addresses key challenges to the acceptance of large carnivores and examine the role of zoos in promoting connection to nature, exploring solutions, and suggesting future ways in which programs for the conservation of these charismatic species and zoos can collaborate to achieve public commitment towards biodiversity conservation.
Large carnivores are considered catalysts for the conservation of biodiversity due to their charisma, their role in regulating ecosystem dynamics and their rich cultural and historical heritage (
Changes in land use combined with widespread bounties on large carnivores since the middle ages, culminated in their steep decline across many countries (
Interactions between people and carnivores are interpreted differently by different people. These interactions can give rise to conflicts not only between people and large carnivores, but also between social groups. The first type of conflict often reflects concerns related to fears for own safety or that of others, or fear of loss of other favored species (
Due to continuous changes in land use, areas of healthy habitat and protected areas are usually small and fragmented and cannot sustain many wild carnivores. Therefore, local landowners and the general public become necessary partners in the survival of wild populations. Even more than a need for a pristine habitat, the success of conservation and recovery of carnivores, hence biodiversity, depends on the involvement of interest groups in the process, and public support (
One way of promoting coexistence requires rethinking the separation between human areas and wildlife areas. Large carnivores show capabilities to adapt to different human-dominated ecosystems across the world (
Addressing the challenge of human-large carnivore coexistence requires multiple steps at the individual, societal and institutional levels. For example: i) removing the symbolic value of large carnivores: nowadays large carnivores are symbolically linked to wilderness and remoteness, and the notion that these elements are important for their conservation has prevailed in many contexts, shaping the range of these species (
It is useful to look at both negative and positive aspects of human-carnivores interactions as part of a continuum. Conflict or coexistence are not just opposite terminologies used to define human-wildlife interactions; they also represent the lenses we choose to use when addressing any interaction between people and wildlife. Conceptualizing human-wildlife interactions as wildlife threatening human interests and livelihood may limit the understanding of the deep-rooted reasons behind conflicts, which are often better defined as human-human conflicts (
To better include coexistence in human-wildlife interaction discourses,
As the resolution of human-large carnivore conflict is often delegated to wildlife managers, the engagement of local people in decision making can be a rare occurrence. Traditional tools often fail to drive diverse interest groups to consensus and the resolution of conflicts. Methods such as the applied human dimensions facilitated workshop approach (AHDFWA) focus on building strong relationships and teams to solve current people-wildlife conflicts, achieving success in addressing challenges of living with wild carnivores across the globe (
Considering that the occurrence of predator attacks on humans is rare, tolerance of risks is affected by norms, culture, spiritual beliefs, cognitive and emotional factors, including risk perception (
Although most people in Sweden hold a positive attitude towards biodiversity conservation (
The diverse feelings evoked towards carnivores could partly be explained by people’s different appraisal of what an encounter with the species would be like. Individuals who think about such an encounter as a potential danger and think they would be unable to predict the animal’s behavior in the situation and consider their own reaction as uncontrollable, express stronger fear (
In the case of brown bears, the literature proposes four major groups of fear interventions: information and education, exposure to animal and habitat, collaboration and participation, and financial incentives (
To what extent the reduced feelings of fear also influence people’s attitudes towards brown bears remains to be seen, but they could strengthen a positive emotional connection with nature. In this next section we will take a closer look at the role of emotional connection and an understanding of care in the context of biodiversity.
Research points to lack of interest in nature and reduced commitment to biodiversity conservation as being linked to cognitive elements such as misconceptions and negative messages about wildlife in formative years (
People’s progressive amnesia of what the landscapes were like before large carnivores disappeared may result in acceptance of natural spaces devoid of carnivore species (see
Connection with nature can also relate to a sense of responsibility and stewardship towards it and concerns for future generations (
“I think for people with children, they’ve got to look at the future of their children as living as part of the planet. That if we introduce these [carnivores], it will benefit their children because there will be more forests and natural environments for our animals and show that as a positive thing for the adults of children [sic], that’s what they’re going to grow up with. It’s not going to be a major threat to your child, it’s going to be a positive step for them in the future.”
A moral purpose is necessary to motivate society to meet challenges such as the ones presented by biodiversity loss, shifting the focus from individual moral choices to “our collective ability to recognize, reflect upon, and reasonably address the value questions we face.” (
Zoos have been considered as catalysts for conservation, recognized as partners by the scientific community for their contributions in skills and expertise that span animal care, husbandry, public engagement, education and research (
Zoos and aquariums are some of the most-visited institutions, with around 700 million visits globally each year. Justifications for the continued existence of zoos have evolved since their inception in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and nearly all now position themselves as organizations focused on the conservation of biodiversity. Public education of visitors is seen as a central role in achieving this mission. Until relatively recently though, very little was known about the impacts of zoo-based education on visitors.
a) People tend to end their visit with a significantly greater understanding of what biodiversity is, and the ways that they personally can help protect it.
b) The links between these two knowledge strands were, however, found to be weaker than predicted, which leads us to question the significance of the role of knowledge in catalyzing human behavior change.
c) The wider implication of this research is that zoos and aquariums are helping to achieve global biodiversity targets; namely, UN Aichi Biodiversity Target 1.
A follow-up survey of 161 participants revealed a further possible ‘sleeper effect’ resulting in the long-term increase in knowledge of pro-biodiversity actions (
However, the positive effect of a zoo visit may be influenced by the way the public perceive care for animal welfare (
Support for the conservation of large carnivores and for biodiversity is more likely when people have an emotional appreciation for diverse species, not just understanding. Both aspects are likely to be enhanced by direct experiences, such as visits to zoos and aquariums that provide an increasingly important opportunity for contact with other species.
The direct experiences of nonhuman animals provided by zoos have two psychologically important characteristics: they are vivid and emotionally rich, and they are typically shared with others. Vivid, emotional experiences attract more attention and they are better remembered, contributing to understanding. Social interactions surrounding zoo animals are opportunities to create and communicate shared emotional experiences and values. It is important to recognize that experiences of nature are a process, socially facilitated (or discouraged), mediated, and interpreted (
Research in several Parisian zoos examined the experience of a zoo visit, to investigate the zoo’s ability to promote conservation concerns and to explore the complexity of such a visit, beyond the presumed connection among captive wild animals, visitors, and wildlife conservation issues (Figure
Visitors contemplating large carnivores, Menagerie du Jardin des Plantes, Paris (photo by M. SaintJalme).
Although people are attracted to the zoo to see wild animals, they are more likely to report visiting a zoo for social reasons than to learn about animals, and that their satisfaction with the visit is based in part on its success as a leisure experience. Visitors declared having felt more positive than negative emotions when exiting the zoo. However, the entertainment and educational aspects of the zoo can be mutually supporting: positive emotions were more reported by visitors who said they had learnt more (
There is much room for improvement in the ability of zoos to promote conservation. A single visit does not always increase visitors’ concern for wildlife conservation. In a telling example, participating in a zoo-based animal adoption program was found to be motivated more by animal charisma than by concern about endangered species (
Zoos are important places for conservation, but their impact may be primarily indirect: zoos are places where complex and shared experiences of nature can be promoted, to increase the sense of being connected to the natural world. It is important for them to demonstrate respect, and to encourage empathy and connection toward the nature presented at their sites.
Current trends indicate that the next chapter in people-wildlife interactions will see the expansion of wild populations, recolonization, conservation translocations and ‘rewilding’, side by side with human population increases. In this scenario, efforts to address potential conflicts and to promote coexistence and all its benefits become essential elements of biodiversity conservation. Large carnivores must occupy their rightful place in this picture and play a key role in biodiversity dynamics.
Fear of the unexpected and of the unknown are linked to conflict, while safe, mediated face-to-face experiences with large carnivores increase perception of control, reduce fear and may allow for a positive sense of excitement and amazement (see Johansson’s research,
While the need to act to reduce climate change and biodiversity loss are arguably the most pressing issues of our time, many people struggle to make connections between their actions and the often “depersonalized and distant” biodiversity crisis (
The value of individual species or groups, such as carnivores, considering the importance of interconnectedness and the interdependence of each species within whole functional ecosystems, remains uncertain (
This paper is an exploratory reflection and does not intend to exhaust the subject. It rather aims to provide a catalyst for discussion that targets underexplored cooperation between large carnivore conservation programs and zoo collections, to engage the public in the urgent need to arrest biodiversity loss. Future collaborations must include both the ecological and the social-cultural dimensions of conservation. As well as investing in ways to strengthen the relationship between people and wildlife, building a relationship of trust and dialogue between conservation initiatives and distinct interest groups is paramount, and requires interdisciplinary team work (
Education, even when carried out within zoo institutions, cannot be the panacea for all conservation problems as its power is limited due to a lack of direct connection between cause and effect (
Zoos also contribute to field conservation, promoting awareness and capacity building. They can help carnivore conservation programs with husbandry procedures, nutrition and veterinarian aspects, and this knowhow can help build capacity to support field conservation in different countries.
There is space for improvement. While zoos have focused visitor awareness on ex situ and in-situ conservation collaboration, messages about what visitors can do to contribute to biodiversity, including local biodiversity, through changing their behavior remain under-explored (
The focus of biodiversity conservation strategies must be to deliver long-term answers that benefit people as part of the living world (
Adriana Consorte-McCrea, Ana Fernandez and Alan Bainbridge would like to thank the Futures Initiative, CCCU, without whose funding and support the symposium “Large carnivores and zoos as catalysts for biodiversity conservation: how do we engage the public in the protection of biodiversity?” at ECCB 2018, which formed the basis for the development of this paper, wouldn’t have been possible. J.V.L.B. was supported by the Ramon & Cajal program (RYC-2015- 18932) from the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness.