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 (Woodroffe et al 2005; Ahmadi et al. 2014; Blackburn et al. 2016), which supports the idea that separation is not a necessary condition for large carnivore conservation (López-Bao et al. 2017). Evidence supporting the idea of coexistence with large carnivores can be found worldwide (e.g., Zimmermann et al. 2010; Morell 2013; Chapron et al. 2014; Alexander et al. 2016). The challenge remains whether human societies can accept and adapt to non-predator-free landscapes (Carter and Linnell 2016; López-Bao et al. 2017), and how to engage the public support of such a group of contentious species.

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 (López-Bao et al. 2017); ii) promoting adaptation of human behavior to reduce risks and costs of coexisting with large carnivores (Carter and Linnell 2016): appropriate livestock husbandry practices (e.g., protecting free-ranging livestock at night, Pimenta et al. 2017) and the implementation of interventions to decrease the likelihood of carnivore attacks (van Eeden et al. 2018) may contribute to make farming activities compatible with large carnivore presence; and iii) recognizing not only costs, but also the benefits of large carnivores (Bruskotter and Wilson 2014; López-Bao et al. 2017; O’Bryan et al. 2018).

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 (Young et al. 2010; Bhatia et al. 2016; Madden and McQuinn 2017). Moreover, by focusing on conflicts all the neutral to positive interactions between humans and wildlife can be overlooked, hiding the fact that often people and wildlife do coexist in a shared landscape.

To better include coexistence in human-wildlife interaction discourses, Frank (2016) introduced the conflict-to-coexistence continuum framework. This continuum addresses the entire range from negative to positive attitudes and/or behaviors toward wildlife, which encompasses the different degrees of conflict and coexistence that typify human-wildlife interactions. The type of interaction is context-laden and varies depending on an array of factors, from the costs and benefits of sharing the landscapes with wildlife to social and cultural context, including human-human interactions (Morzillo et al. 2014; Frank 2016; Yurco et al. 2017). Conflict-to-coexistence dispositions toward wildlife are dynamic and can change over time, across geographical scales, and in intensity, shifting along the continuum as interactions with wildlife evolve (Frank and Glikman 2019). Ultimately, human-wildlife interactions are not about the presence or absence of conflict or coexistence; they are about how the relationship shifts along the conflict-to-coexistence continuum over space and time and across species. The challenge is how to move the discourse toward more inclusive and positive relations with wildlife.

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 (Hazzah et al. 2017; Schulz et al. 2017). According to Alistair Bath, “it is important to take the time to effectively move beyond engagement to a committed relationship of trust to achieve consensus and conservation successes.”

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 (Carter and Linnell 2016; Bombieri et al. 2018; Struebig et al. 2018). Therefore, one of the priorities in large carnivore conservation must be to break down barriers by finding strategies to address and manage people’s fears and perceptions of risk. The following sections explore these points in greater detail.

Although most people in Sweden hold a positive attitude towards biodiversity conservation (Lindström et al. 2006) some may see the presence of large carnivores as a positive and rewarding experience, while others may respond with feelings of fear for themselves or their children and pets. These emotions must be taken into consideration in biodiversity conservation as they have implications for people’s quality of life (Flykt et al. 2013), and are associated with attitudes towards wildlife policy and acceptance of management measures (Johansson et al. 2012a; Jacobs et al. 2014; Frank et al. 2015)

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 (Johansson et al. 2012a, 2012b; 2016a).

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 (Johansson et al. 2016a). But the effects of these interventions on people’s feelings of fear are rarely evaluated. From a psychological point of view the intervention would only contribute to reduced feelings of fear if an encounter with the species is re-appraised in relation to coping strategies. Two such interventions were developed in collaboration with researchers in wildlife ecology, large carnivore information centers and wildlife parks in Sweden: information meetings, and guided walks close to radio-collared brown bears (Johansson et al. 2016b, 2017). Results suggested that both interventions can decrease fear of brown bears if there is an opportunity to re-appraise the potential consequences of a brown bear encounter. This suggests that both the design of information content, and the social and environmental contexts are important. Key aspects were a) a positive social interaction with a presenter or guide with personal experience of brown bear encounters who could serve as a role model for appropriate behavior in brown bear areas, and b) the opportunity to gain an understanding of how brown bears use the terrain. Therefore, guided walks in brown bear areas may be a more efficient approach than information meetings indoors. Similar experiences could be promoted in wildlife parks and zoos (Johansson et al. 2019).

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 (Velsor and Nilon 2006; Consorte-McCrea et al. 2017b) and to declining opportunities to engage with nature from childhood. This phenomenon has been described as the extinction of experience (Pyle 2002). While the biophilia hypothesis (Kellert and Wilson 1993) proposes we evolved an intrinsic emotional bond with other living organisms, there are suggestions that “learning, culture and experience” are necessary to strengthen this fragile bond (Kellert 2002; Hinds and Sparks 2008: 110).

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 Kahn and Kellert 2002; Steneck 2005). However, beyond their role in ecosystem dynamics, wild carnivores can help us connect with nature, “put some of the wild back into our lives”, and help us glimpse into the dynamics and interconnections that are at the essence of biodiversity (Linnell et al. 2005: 399; Boitani and Linnell 2015). Interestingly, research suggests that affective experiences provide important entry points for connection with large carnivores (Millar and Millar 1996; Kellert 2002; Roskaft et al. 2007). In rural Norway, positive attitudes towards wolves were associated with expectations of seeing them in the wild (and with the excitement derived from these encounters) (Roskaft et al. 2007).

Connection with nature can also relate to a sense of responsibility and stewardship towards it and concerns for future generations (Novacek 2008). Findings from focus groups carried out in the UK are in line with this argument (Consorte-McCrea et al. 2017a). Participants held strong views about collective responsibility:

“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.” (Clayton and Myers 2009: 53). The contribution of zoos to addressing these challenges is discussed in the next section.

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 (Clayton et al. 2017b). Thus, the impact of a zoo visit is determined not only by the visitor’s exposure to animals but by a social context that directs attention toward particular features, encourages conversation among the visitors, and endows the animals with socially-sanctioned value.

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 1). One study compared attitudes toward biodiversity among visitors to urban zoos with those of visitors to other urban parks, finding that zoo visitors reported higher concern about biodiversity, and that the frequency of zoo visits was correlated with concern (Colléony 2016). A separate study found that people also seemed to experience the zoo visit as an experience of nature: visitors express the feeling of “being away” when visiting the zoo, and they became more receptive to other components of biodiversity (e.g. common urban birds) in addition to the presented wildlife (Colléony et al. 2017). In a third study (Clayton et al. 2017b), zoo visitors scored higher on biodiversity concern and knowledge at the end of the visit than at the start, consistent with the findings reported by Moss et al. (2015).

Figure 1.

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 (Clayton et al. 2017b).

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 (Colléony et al. 2016). This finding could be interpreted in two ways: first, zoos may need to do more to articulate the value of endangered species, especially when soliciting donations; in addition, zoos may be able to capitalize on animal charisma to encourage more support for their conservation efforts.

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.

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 (Carter and Linnell 2016; Holland et al. 2018). Ecological research alone is not enough to slow down the loss of biodiversity. Collaborations between biology professionals, social scientists and human dimensions professionals, who are better equipped to work with people, must be better funded to fill some of the gaps to address biodiversity loss.

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 (Biesta 2010). Although the zoo may be a powerful facility, because of its cultural status, its impact is associated with the social context. Because of this, zoos can bring people together to talk and listen. Although the link between education with conservation and biodiversity may not be very powerful, what adults and children experience in the zoo is deep and concrete. People’s accounts of their visits refer to experiences that are emotional and social, and that reflect a sense of connection with nature, in people’s urbanized everyday life. Conservation initiatives should be informed by these experiences and try to build on this foundation.

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 (Ojalammi and Nygren 2018). Also, as pointed by Andrew Moss, zoos must recognize the importance of social sciences collaboration in conservation: “If we don’t sort out the human issues we will just be documenting the decline of biodiversity.”

The focus of biodiversity conservation strategies must be to deliver long-term answers that benefit people as part of the living world (Redpath et al. 2015). By bringing people and nonhuman nature together, zoos may be well placed to convey this vision. They may provide a space where field conservation and human dimensions can combine to foster a commitment between people, from all backgrounds, and the rest of the living world, and break down key barriers to biodiversity conservation, catalyzed by the charismatic keystone species housed within their facilities. J.V.L.B. was supported by the Ramon & Cajal program (RYC-2015- 18932) from the Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness.