Human-wildlife coexistence involves agreement between consenting individuals representing the human communities sharing a landscape with wildlife, to live so that the wildlife can persist, within the limits required by the land and its non-human inhabitants in order to flourish, and within what is acceptable (regarding actual and perceived negative impacts caused by wildlife) and desirable for the human communities.[1]
It emerged from from human-wildlife conflict studies, and involves more than tolerance or acceptance of wildlife, implying a positive choice to coexist with wildlife despite the occasional costs.[2] Various accounts are given to explain its emergence into the conservation mainstream in the late 2010s, including a desire for a more positive framing of human-wildlife interactions, advances in understanding animal behaviour and capacities for relationships, and the perception that as humans and wild animals increasingly share landscapes in the Anthropocene, conservation strategies focusing on separation of humans and wildlife, lethal control or removal of problem animals, and policing human behaviour, are proving inadequate.[3][4][5]
Definitions
While there is no agreed standard definition, certain core ideas have been established. Coexistence has been characterised as a sustainable though dynamic state. There is a degree of co-adaptation between humans and wildlife in shared landscapes. Effective institutions are required to govern human interactions in socially legitimate ways, to ensure wild animal populations persist, with tolerable levels of risk for humans.[6] Others offer similar characterisations, but see coexistence as a dynamic, evolving process[7] or a sustainable condition.[8] All emphasise the context-specific particularity (and diversity) of coexistence scenarios.[9]
Outcomes of successful coexistence include socially legitimate agreement on managing human-wildlife interactions that ensure wildlife can persist and flourish, within the limits required by the land and its non-human inhabitants, and within what is acceptable and necessary for the human communities.[10][11][12]
Characteristics of human-wildlife coexistence
The IUCN position document Perspectives on human-wildlife coexistence outlines key characteristics of coexistence as follows:[13]
Coexistence is not the opposite (or absence) of conflict. The focus is on how negative events and conflicts are understood and managed.
Coexistence requires consideration of positive and neutral interactions and relations, in addition to the negative.
Coexistence emphasises human-wildlife interactions in multi-use landscapes, including uncharismatic and introduced species.
Coexistence interventions aim for durable, workable coexistence not just at local scales, but also at the landscape level. This requires consideration of multiple species, diverse stakeholders, patterns and processes occurring at broad spatial and temporal scales, and context-specific management solutions.
Coexistence is ecologically and socially complex and context specific.
Coexistence is about relationships, human-human, and human-animal.
Ethnoprimatology, a subdiscipline of primatology, is the study of human coexistence with wild monkeys, apes, and other primates. The nexus of human-primate interactions is known as the "human-primate interface."[20]
Case study: Human-Crocodile Coexistence in Charotar
In central Gujarat State, in northwestern India, lies the region known as Charotar after its fertile soils. The rivers, wetlands and ponds are inhabited by mugger crocodiles (Crocodylus palustris). They are also settled and farmed, and communities share village-adjacent ponds (large dams) with mugger. Muggers figure in local folklore and are associated with the Hindu goddess Khodiyar, and despite occasional attacks including fatal ones, for the most part human-crocodile coexistence prevails. Both humans and crocodiles have learned to live alongside one another, both modifying their behaviour accordingly. When things go wrong, the crocodiles are not killed, but caught and removed, often to the Pariyej wetland.
After the daughter of a man from Traj village was killed by a crocodile in the village pond, the crocodile was caught and removed. The distraught father, Hemant Ode, did not turn against crocodiles, but became a mugger mitra (friend of the mugger) and dedicates time to educating other locals about how to live more safely alongside crocodiles.
At the village of Deva, a basking island has been built in the pond so the mugger can bask safely away from disturbance, also preventing people or livestock from being harmed after stumbling across them on the banks of the pond. Many villages also have crocodile exclusion enclosures built on their ponds.
At Malataj, it is believed that a local monk (commemorated in the local temple) put a spiritual injunction on the crocodiles of the pond never to harm a local. Apparently, this injunction has now held for 100s of years. Nevertheless, there is a prominent warning sign on the bank (pictured).
Further dimensions
Recent work studies coexistence from multi-species perspectives, considering the agency of both humans and wild animals, including work on brown bears in the Central Apennine Mountains in Italy,[21] and in the French Pyrenees.[22]
The cultural dimensions of human-wildlife coexistence requires interdisciplinary approaches in study[23][24][25][26] and can include considerations of coexisting with introduced and invasive plants and animals.[27]
Policy and management
Mainstreaming human-wildlife coexistence into conservation policy and management is a goal of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework[28] and requires enabling recognition, monitoring and evaluation of coexistence scenarios in the field. It also requires collaboration with those affected, involving ethical consideration of humans and wildlife.[29][30][12] Such collaboration requires interdisciplinary approaches to the study of humans, and wild animals. Environmental humanities and social sciences thinkers are contributing more holistic visions for sharing the planet with wild beings.[31][32] Social science coexistence thinking informs work on coping with the recovery of populations of potentially harmful wild species, including large carnivore recovery in Europe,[33] and the return of saltwater crocodiles in Australia.[34]
↑ Lenin, Janaki (2023-12-25). "Venomous Gods". Current Conservation. Retrieved 2025-08-11.
↑ Panggur M.; Wiyajanti A; Ardiantiono (2023-12-25). "Living in harmony with dragons". Current Conservation. Retrieved 2025-08-11.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
