Governing trade-offs in ecosystem services and disservices to achieve human–wildlife coexistence

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

DOI

  • Silvia Ceaușu
  • ,
  • Rose A. Graves, Boise State University
  • ,
  • Alexander K. Killion, Boise State University
  • ,
  • Jens Christian Svenning
  • Neil H. Carter, Boise State University

Sustaining wildlife populations, which provide both ecosystem services and disservices, represents a worldwide conservation challenge. The ecosystem services and Ostrom's social–ecological systems frameworks have been adopted across natural and social sciences to characterize benefits from nature. Despite their generalizability, individually they do not include explicit tools for addressing the sustainable management of many wildlife populations. For instance, Ostrom's framework does not specifically address competing perspectives on wildlife, whereas the ecosystem services framework provides a limited representation of the social and governance context wherein such competing perspectives are embedded. We developed a unified social–ecological framework of ecosystem disservices and services (SEEDS) that advances both frameworks by explicitly acknowledging the importance of competing wildlife perspectives embedded in the social and governance contexts. The SEEDS framework emulates the hierarchical structure of Ostrom's social–ecological systems, but adds subsystems reflecting heterogeneous stakeholder views and experiences of wildlife-based services and disservices. To facilitate operationalizing SEEDS and further broader analyses across human–wildlife systems, we devised a list of variables to describe SEEDS subsystems, such as types and level of services and disservices, cost and benefit sharing, and social participation of stakeholders. Steps to implement SEEDS involve engaging local communities and stakeholders to define the subsystems, analyze interactions and outcomes, and identify leverage points and actions to remedy unwanted outcomes. These steps connect SEEDS with other existing approaches in social–ecological research and can guide analyses across systems or within individual systems to provide new insights and management options for sustainable human–wildlife coexistence.

Original languageEnglish
JournalConservation Biology
Volume33
Issue3
Pages (from-to)543-553
Number of pages11
ISSN0888-8892
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2019

    Research areas

  • conflicto humano – fauna, conservación de fauna, human–wildlife conflict, manejo de fauna, manejo de recursos, resource management, sistemas socio-ecológicos, social–ecological systems, wildlife conservation, wildlife management, CONFLICT, MANAGEMENT, social-ecological systems, RISK, TIGERS, human-wildlife conflict, sistemas socio-ecologicos, CONSERVATION, SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS, conservacion de fauna, FRAMEWORK, IMPACTS, LIVESTOCK, conflicto humano - fauna, Humans, Social Environment, Ecosystem, Social Sciences, Animals, Wild, Animals, Conservation of Natural Resources

See relations at Aarhus University Citationformats

ID: 144931761