Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Jul-Aug;15(4):e12886.
doi: 10.1111/conl.12886. Epub 2022 Jun 9.

Safeguarding human-wildlife cooperation

Affiliations
Review

Safeguarding human-wildlife cooperation

Jessica E M van der Wal et al. Conserv Lett. 2022 Jul-Aug.

Abstract

Human-wildlife cooperation occurs when humans and free-living wild animals actively coordinate their behavior to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome. These interactions provide important benefits to both the human and wildlife communities involved, have wider impacts on the local ecosystem, and represent a unique intersection of human and animal cultures. The remaining active forms are human-honeyguide and human-dolphin cooperation, but these are at risk of joining several inactive forms (including human-wolf and human-orca cooperation). Human-wildlife cooperation faces a unique set of conservation challenges, as it requires multiple components-a motivated human and wildlife partner, a suitable environment, and compatible interspecies knowledge-which face threats from ecological and cultural changes. To safeguard human-wildlife cooperation, we recommend: (i) establishing ethically sound conservation strategies together with the participating human communities; (ii) conserving opportunities for human and wildlife participation; (iii) protecting suitable environments; (iv) facilitating cultural transmission of traditional knowledge; (v) accessibly archiving Indigenous and scientific knowledge; and (vi) conducting long-term empirical studies to better understand these interactions and identify threats. Tailored safeguarding plans are therefore necessary to protect these diverse and irreplaceable interactions. Broadly, our review highlights that efforts to conserve biological and cultural diversity should carefully consider interactions between human and animal cultures. Please see AfricanHoneyguides.com/abstract-translations for Kiswahili and Portuguese translations of the abstract.

Keywords: animal culture; biocultural conservation; biodiversity conservation; dolphins; honeyguides; human–wildlife interactions; interspecies cooperation; mutualism; orcas; wolves.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Active and inactive forms of human–wildlife cooperation known to the scientific community or reported in detail by Indigenous peoples, and their locations (see Table S1 for references and Table S2 for additional potential cases). Solid dots indicate active locations, crossed dots indicate inactive locations (i.e., where cooperation is currently absent, but there is strong evidence for its presence in the past), and shaded areas indicate possible historical ranges. Human–dolphin illustration: original art by M.C.; human–honeyguide illustration: inspired by J. Solomon; human–orca illustration: inspired by C.E. Wellings; human–wolf illustration: inspired by D. Eskridge
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Human–wildlife cooperation faces particular conservation challenges, as it requires four components: (i) a motivated human partner, (ii) a motivated wildlife partner, (iii) a suitable environment, and (iv) compatible interspecies knowledge. We summarize the threats faced by each of these components (numbered according to sections in main text), whether these are driven by environmental and/or cultural change, and the causes of decline and loss for active and inactive forms of human–wildlife cooperation, respectively. See Table S3 for references
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
A flow‐chart to help researchers and conservation decision makers identify the weak component(s) of human–wildlife cooperation, with the associated suggested broad safeguarding approaches (numbering refers to sections in main text).

References

    1. Adams, M. S. , Carpenter, J. , Paquet, P. C. , & Darimont, C. (2014). Toward increased engagement between academic and indigenous community partners in ecological research. Ecology and Society, 19(3), 5. 10.5751/ES-06569-190305 - DOI
    1. Agrelo, M. , Daura‐Jorge, F. G. , Bezamat, C. , Silveira, T. C. L. , Volkmer de Castilho, P. , Rodrigues Pires, J. S. , & Simões‐Lopes, P. C. (2019). Spatial behavioural response of coastal bottlenose dolphins to habitat disturbance in southern Brazil. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 29(11), 1949–1958. 10.1002/aqc.3188 - DOI
    1. Barsh, R. L. , & Marlor, C. (2003). Driving bison and Blackfoot science. Human Ecology, 31(4), 571–593.
    1. Bezamat, C. , Castilho, P. V. , Simões‐Lopes, P. C. , Ingram, S. N. , & Daura‐Jorge, F. G. (2020). Reproductive parameters and factors influencing calf survival of bottlenose dolphins that engage in a unique foraging cooperation with fishermen. Marine Biology, 167(5), 1–12. 10.1007/s00227-019-3611-4 - DOI
    1. Bezamat, C. , Hammond, P. S. , Castilho, P. V. , Simões‐Lopes, P. C. , & Daura‐Jorge, F. G. (2021). Dolphin population specialized in foraging with artisanal fishers requires zero‐bycatch management to persist. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 31(11), 3133–3145.