Why so negative? Exploring the socio-economic impacts of large carnivores from a European perspective

被引:39
作者
Rode, Julian [1 ]
Flinzberger, Lukas [2 ]
Karutz, Raphael [3 ]
Berghoefer, Augustin [1 ]
Schroeter-Schlaack, Christoph [4 ]
机构
[1] UFZ Helmholtz Ctr Environm Res, Dept Environm Polit, Permoserstr 15, D-04318 Leipzig, Germany
[2] Univ Gottingen, Dept Agr Econ & Rural Dev DARE, Gottingen, Germany
[3] UFZ Helmholtz Ctr Environm Res, Dept Urban & Environm Sociol, Leipzig, Germany
[4] UFZ Helmholtz Ctr Environm Res, Dept Econ, Leipzig, Germany
关键词
Large carnivores; Socio-economic impacts; Conservation management; Human-wildlife conflict; NATURES CONTRIBUTIONS; VALUES; WOLF; BENEFITS; WOLVES; COSTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108918
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
With populations of wild carnivores growing in Europe, public debates on human-wildlife conflicts are becoming polarized around economic damages and risks to human safety. This article explores the state of knowledge on the broader socio-economic impacts of four European large carnivore species (wolf, bear, lynx and wolverine). We have developed a comprehensive categorization of the socio-economic impacts of large carnivore presence, combining impact assessment approaches from project planning with a conceptualization of biodiversity values (e.g. Nature's Contributions to People). We distinguish 19 impact categories grouped according to 1) economic impacts, 2) health and well-being impacts, and 3) social and cultural impacts. A review of the academic literature since 1990 identified 82 articles that assessed the socio-economic impacts of the four European large carnivore species, 44 of which focused on Europe and 33 on North America. Our analysis of these articles reveals a bias towards investigations of negative economic impacts, in most cases of wolves. To contrast the information provided by science with perspectives from conservation practice, we conducted a survey among expert practitioners to elicit relevance ratings for the impact categories. Several categories considered relevant by the survey respondents are underrepresented in the academic literature. These include, in particular, positive impacts: benefits from wildlife tourism and commercial activities, benefits from game population control by large carnivores, benefits from regional and product marketing, cultural heritage and identity, educational and research benefits, and social cohesion. This incongruity between supply and demand for scientific information likely reinforces biased public debates and the negative public perception of large carnivores. We recommend a stronger research focus on the socio-economic benefits of large carnivores, drawing on diverse impact metrics.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 41 条
  • [1] AGDEH, 2005, SOC IMP ASS TOOLK GU
  • [2] [Anonymous], 2011, The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2005, Ecosystems and human well-being: Desertification synthesis
  • [4] Widening the Evaluative Space for Ecosystem Services: A Taxonomy of Plural Values and Valuation Methods
    Arias-Arevalo, Paola
    Gomez-Baggethun, Erik
    Martin-Lopez, Berta
    Perez-Rincon, Mario
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES, 2018, 27 (01) : 29 - 53
  • [5] Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases
    Babcock, L
    Loewenstein, G
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, 1997, 11 (01) : 109 - 126
  • [6] Large carnivore damage in Europe: Analysis of compensation and prevention programs
    Bautista, Carlos
    Revilla, Eloy
    Naves, Javier
    Albrecht, Joerg
    Fernandez, Nestor
    Olszanska, Agnieszka
    Adamec, Michal
    Berezowska-Cnota, Teresa
    Ciucci, Paolo
    Groff, Claudio
    Harkonen, Sauli
    Huber, Djuro
    Jerina, Klemen
    Jonozovic, Marko
    Karamanlidis, Alexandros A.
    Palazon, Santiago
    Quenette, Pierre-Yves
    Rigg, Robin
    Seijas, Juan
    Swenson, Jon E.
    Talvi, Tonu
    Selva, Nuria
    [J]. BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION, 2019, 235 : 308 - 316
  • [7] Bentham J., 1789, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
  • [8] Evaluating and communicating cultural ecosystem services
    Cabana, David
    Ryfield, Frances
    Crowe, Tasman P.
    Brannigan, John
    [J]. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2020, 42
  • [9] Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment
    Chan, Kai M. A.
    Balvanera, Patricia
    Benessaiah, Karina
    Chapman, Mollie
    Diaz, Sandra
    Gomez-Baggethun, Erik
    Gould, Rachelle
    Hannahs, Neil
    Jax, Kurt
    Klain, Sarah
    Luck, Gary W.
    Martin-Lopez, Berta
    Muraca, Barbara
    Norton, Bryan
    Ott, Konrad
    Pascual, Unai
    Satterfield, Terre
    Tadaki, Marc
    Taggart, Jonathan
    Turner, Nancy
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2016, 113 (06) : 1462 - 1465
  • [10] Recovery of large carnivores in Europe's modern human-dominated landscapes
    Chapron, Guillaume
    Kaczensky, Petra
    Linnell, John D. C.
    von Arx, Manuela
    Huber, Djuro
    Andren, Henrik
    Vicente Lopez-Bao, Jose
    Adamec, Michal
    Alvares, Francisco
    Anders, Ole
    Balciauskas, Linas
    Balys, Vaidas
    Bedo, Peter
    Bego, Ferdinand
    Carlos Blanco, Juan
    Breitenmoser, Urs
    Broseth, Henrik
    Bufka, Ludek
    Bunikyte, Raimonda
    Ciucci, Paolo
    Dutsov, Alexander
    Engleder, Thomas
    Fuxjaeger, Christian
    Groff, Claudio
    Holmala, Katja
    Hoxha, Bledi
    Iliopoulos, Yorgos
    Ionescu, Ovidiu
    Jeremic, Jasna
    Jerina, Klemen
    Kluth, Gesa
    Knauer, Felix
    Kojola, Ilpo
    Kos, Ivan
    Krofel, Miha
    Kubala, Jakub
    Kunovac, Sasa
    Kusak, Josip
    Kutal, Miroslav
    Liberg, Olof
    Majic, Aleksandra
    Maennil, Peep
    Manz, Ralph
    Marboutin, Eric
    Marucco, Francesca
    Melovski, Dime
    Mersini, Kujtim
    Mertzanis, Yorgos
    Myslajek, Robert W.
    Nowak, Sabina
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2014, 346 (6216) : 1517 - 1519