- Email: [email protected]
Dealing with conflicts between people and colonizing native predator species
Biological Conservation 209 (2017) 239–244
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bioc
Short communication
Dealing with conflicts between people and colonizing native predator species M Martínez-Jauregui a,b,⁎, O Linares c, J Carranza c, M Soliño a,b a b c
National Institute for Agriculture and Food Research and Technology (INIA), Forest Research Centre (CIFOR), Ctra. de La Coruña km. 7.5, 28040 Madrid, Spain Sustainable Forest Management Research Institute, University of Valladolid & INIA, Avda. de Madrid 57, 34004 Palencia, Spain Ungulate Research Unit, Cátedra de Recursos Cinegéticos y Piscícolas (CRCP), Universidad de Córdoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 11 October 2016 Received in revised form 10 January 2017 Accepted 19 February 2017 Available online xxxx Keywords: Contingent valuation Egyptian mongoose Human-wildlife conflict Hunters Landowners Lethal control Wildlife conservation Wildlife management
a b s t r a c t The conflicts associated with the return of flagship species and the consequences of exotic species invasion have been extensively assessed, but there is a lack of information about conflicts derived from the colonization of common native species. The present study aims to assess the perception of different profiles of stakeholders regarding the spread of a native medium-sized mammal found in Spain: the case of the Egyptian mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon L.), which can compromise the conservation of rabbit and red-legged partridge and the economic activity of rural areas. Using a sample of 116 landowners and 251 hunters and multiple bounded uncertainty choice data, we analyzed the stakeholders' perception of predators, the stakeholders' preferences of different management measures for predator control, and the role of local people for controlling the Egyptian mongoose. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Predators have strong regulatory effects on ecosystems, both indirectly, through controlling food webs and ecosystem functioning, and via direct effects on uses of the ecosystems, such as wildlife watching and hunting (i.e., Ripple et al., 2014). Predators include both species that humans have pushed to near-extinction and species with abundant populations that come into conflict with other human interests such as beehives, cattle, hunting, fishing or the health and physical integrity of human beings (Delibes-Mateos et al., 2013; Fernández-Gil et al., 2016; Graham et al., 2005; Kubo and Shoji, 2016; Piédallu et al., 2016; Reynolds and Tapper, 1996; Ripple et al., 2014; Villafuerte et al., 1998; Virgós and Travaini, 2005). In this context, the interests and perceptions of stakeholders cannot be left aside when planning schemes for the management and conservation of species, as the success of these programs depends largely on their prior acceptance (Johansson et al., 2016). Furthermore, the interests and perceptions within society vary among stakeholders and wildlife species (Dayer et al., 2016; García-Llorente et al., 2011; Kansky et al., 2014). Currently, climate change, the dynamics of land-use change, and some specific management measures are promoting the migration of ⁎ Correspondence author at: CIFOR-INIA, Carretera de La Coruña, Km 7.5, CP: 28040 Madrid, Spain. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Martínez-Jauregui).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.034 0006-3207/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
certain predators throughout the countryside, sometimes causing the emergence of conflicts. For example, there is evidence of the return of old conflicts arising from the recovery of large mammals that today are listed as endangered species in Europe and North America (Chapron et al., 2014). That is because the successful management efforts to promote populations of large predators have entailed more encounters with humans and domestic animals. Large populations of certain predators can renew the use of controversial tools for predator control either to preserve or to regulate their populations (Treves and Karanth, 2003). In the literature, we have found analyses of the perceptions of the return of these conflicts associated with flagship species (Piédallu et al., 2016). However, threatened species can skew perceptions toward the extremes, and conclusions cannot be transferred to common species (i.e., Delibes-Mateos et al., 2015; Kaltenborn and Brainerd, 2016). Conflicts related to exotic invasive species have also received attention in the literature (Vilà et al., 2011), and society already recognizes the associated important threats to biodiversity and global change (Bremner and Park, 2007; García-Llorente et al., 2011), but these results should not be directly applied to the case of a native species that migrates from one place to another. This fact is particularly important because native species can cause harmful ecological and economic impacts similar to those commonly associated with non-native invasive species (Carey et al., 2012), but stakeholders' perceptions and preferences of these two types of species might differ (Dayer et al., 2016).
240
M. Martínez-Jauregui et al. / Biological Conservation 209 (2017) 239–244
Thus, we have detected a lack of knowledge regarding the perceptions of conflicts derived from the colonization of common native species. This is important because migration of native species is a possible scenario currently and in the future due to various causes, such as adaptation to climate change (Levinsky et al., 2007), habitat loss and changes in resource availability (Flynn et al., 2009), and the disappearance of apex predators (Ritchie and Johnson, 2009). The present study aims to assess the perceptions of different stakeholders about a native medium-sized predator undergoing range expansion in the Iberian Peninsula. This particular case, the Egyptian mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon L.) in the Iberian Peninsula (Detry et al., 2011; Gaubert et al., 2011), will improve knowledge about the social perception of a native species that is colonizing a territory and that can damage the conservation of certain species and certain types of economic activity. With this species, we have tried to avoid extreme human reactions, either fascination or rejection of management actions, that can be derived from being a flagship species, an exotic species, a species in danger of extinction, or a species that induces a sense of danger to physical safety (DelibesMateos et al., 2015). Moreover, we analyzed the stakeholders' acceptance of predator control, the stakeholders' preferences of different management measures for control, including lethal predator control, and whether there is room for compensation between different stakeholders. In summary, this study provides clues for policy makers and managers about stakeholders' sensitivities on the expansion of mammals' ranges due to the success of conservation programs, to changes in land-use, or to the effects of the displacement of species by climate change. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Case study: Egyptian mongoose in Southern Europe The mongoose is a native small mammal that is widely distributed in Africa and in a small part of Europe, only in the southern part of the Iberian Peninsula, although there is much evidence of expansion of its range in the Iberian Peninsula (Balmori and Carbonell, 2012; Barros et al., 2015; Detry et al., 2011; Gaubert et al., 2011). Some causes of expansion are rural abandonment, which promotes larger and denser scrublands, a generalized decrease in the illegal use of tools for predator control, and the generalist nature of this species (Barros et al., 2015; Palomares, 1993; Recio and Virgós, 2010). In the Iberian Peninsula, the main conflict presented by the mongoose is predation on red-legged partridge (Alectoris rufa L.) and rabbit
(Oryctolagus cuniculus L.) (Palomares, 1993), which competes directly with the economic activity of hunting and with the necessary food of species in danger of extinction (e.g. Iberian lynx). The mongoose is not a game species in Spain (contrarily to Portugal), but there is a current debate about the possibility to turn this species in a game species. 2.2. Survey design and data Landowners and hunters were selected as the interested stakeholders regarding mongoose because this species directly affects both groups. Data for this study were obtained from two e-mail surveys conducted in March 2016 using the web platform www.tickstat.com. Landowners and hunters were contacted by the main landowners' and hunters' association in Andalusia. Fig. 1A shows the municipalities sampled according to the type of respondent, corresponding to the locations of the sampled landowners and the locations where the hunters spent most of their hunting journeys in the previous hunting season (2015– 2016). In addition to requesting demographic and socioeconomic information, we asked landowners to answer questions regarding their hunting estates and the hunting activity in the last year, and we asked hunters to answer questions about their small game hunting activity in the last year. Additionally, we asked respondents to answer questions regarding the following: (1) their attitudes, knowledge and beliefs about predators, (2) their attitudes, knowledge and beliefs about the Egyptian mongoose, and (3) their acceptance of predator control and preferences among different management measures for predator control. Finally, we asked both types of stakeholder to participate in an economic exercise to elucidate whether there is room for compensation between landowners and hunters. The questionnaire and database used for this analysis are available on request from the authors. 2.3. Analysis We used a multiple bounded uncertainty contingent valuation that allows respondents to express their level of uncertainty for a range of bids or money thresholds (Welsh and Poe, 1998). This approach allows respondents to state their preferences using the scale: “Definitely no”, “Probably no”, “Not sure”, “Probably yes”, and “Definitely yes” to indicate whether they would pay (or accept) every bid. Landowners were asked about their certainty levels of willingness to pay to cull mongoose in case there were changes in the law that would enable active management of this species in their region. Annual costs
Fig. 1. A) Municipalities sampled according to the type of respondent. B) Municipalities where the Egyptian mongoose has been reported according to the type of respondent.
M. Martínez-Jauregui et al. / Biological Conservation 209 (2017) 239–244
241
to cull mongoose were presented following an exponential function (from 1 to 300 euros per year). The participants were also aware that this payment should include the time spent by the hunters, vehicle fuel, ammunition, and other expenses. To evaluate whether there is room for compensation between landowners and hunters, hunters were asked about their certainty levels of willingness to pay to hunt mongoose in case there was a change in the law that would consider it a game species. Costs per mongoose hunted were presented following an exponential function (from 1 to 50 euros per mongoose). In case they responded with no willingness to pay, i.e., 0 €, they were asked about their certainty levels of willingness to accept a payment to hunt mongoose during their usual hunting journeys. The price payable for every mongoose hunted followed the above exponential function. 3. Results 3.1. Experiences with Egyptian mongoose In this study, landowners were asked if they have evidence of having consistently the Egyptian mongoose on their properties, and hunters were asked to identify the municipalities where the mongoose had been detected during the past five hunting seasons. In total, 93% of the landowners and 82% of the hunters declared that the Egyptian mongoose was present in Andalusia, giving the result that the mongoose is more concentrated in the western part of the region (Fig. 1B). We also gathered that this species is perceived to have an increasing population trend (65% of the landowners declared a perception of increasing mongoose on their properties, and both landowners (80.17%) and hunters (70.91%) declared a perception of increasing mongoose population trends in Andalusia). 3.2. Attitudes, knowledge and beliefs toward predators and Egyptian mongoose First, landowners and hunters were asked to identify the predators present in their territory (see Fig. 2). Both landowners and hunters consider the Egyptian mongoose to be as frequent as all the mustelids and other mesocarnivores (Herpestes ichneumon L., Genetta genetta L., Mustela putorius L., Meles meles L., Martes foina Erxleben, among others). Using a Likert scale from 1 (missing) to 5 (very frequent), we observed that the perception of the presence of mongoose in the region showed average values of 4.42 and 4.21 for the landowners and hunters, respectively. Frequency of predators is generally perceived at higher levels by hunters than by landowners, except in the cases of the crow family (Corvus corone L., Pica pica L., Corvus monedula L., among others) and mustelids and other mesocarnivores. Larger differences are observed for wildcats (Felis silvestris Schreber) and wild boar (Sus scrofa L.). Respondents were also asked about their perceptions of the consequences of predators for the ecosystems and for their economic activities (Fig. 3). These results were always negative. In general, landowners perceived predators more negatively than did hunters. Predators have the strongest negative effects on game species, with milder negative effects on crops and physical safety. In particular, the mongoose was compared with results for overall predators, demonstrating that both landowners and hunters were more worried about the negative influence on the equilibrium of ecosystems and less worried about physical safety from mongoose than from predators overall. The overall perception of the mongoose was that it is harmful, with 89.65% of landowners and 77.29% of the hunters explicitly responding with that perception. Because negative effects on game species resulted in the highest worries for both classes of stakeholders, we show in Fig. 4 the particular perception for every predator on their influence on rabbit and partridge populations, which are the main non-migratory species hunted as small game. Our results showed that foxes (Vulpes vulpes L.), mustelids, and
Fig. 2. Landowners' and hunters' average perceptions of the frequency of predators in the territory according to the type of predator. An average of the perception of overall predator frequency is also given in the figure (birds of prey: Accipiter gentilis L., Accipiter nisus L., Falco spp., among others; Crow family: Corvus corone L., Pica pica L., Corvus monedula L., among others; In danger predators: Lynx pardinus Temminck, Aquila adalberti C. L. Brehm, among others; Fox: Vulpes vulpes L.; Mustelids and other mesocarnivores: Herpestes ichneumon L., Genetta genetta L., Mustela putorius L., Meles meles L., Martes foina Erxleben, among others; Wild boar: Sus scrofa L.; Wildcat: Felis silvestris Schreber; Wolf: Canis lupus L.).
other mesocarnivores (including mongoose) garnered the most harmful perceptions and that even endangered species are considered to be negative influences on the populations of rabbits and partridge. 3.3. Preferences of different management measures for predator control Supporting tools to manage predators were also examined (Fig. 5). The management tools considered were as follows: i) Landowners capture alive using homologated tramps; ii) Government agents capture alive using homologated tramps; iii) Landowners cull predators using firearms; iv) Government agents cull predators using firearms; v) Hunters hunt predators using firearms; vi) Falconry; and vii) Indirect measures. Results of preferences for different management measures to control overall predators and Egyptian mongoose were very consistent. Government agents culling predators was the least popular management tool, followed by indirect measures. The management tools considered the best by both classes of stakeholders were landowners capturing predators alive and hunters hunting the species. Landowners
242
M. Martínez-Jauregui et al. / Biological Conservation 209 (2017) 239–244
Fig. 3. Landowners' and hunters' average perceptions regarding the functioning of ecosystems and the productive activity (reasons evaluated: (i) Game spp.: Predators affect game species; (ii) Endangered spp.: Predators affect endangered species; (iii) Equilibrium: Predators affect the ecosystem equilibrium; (iv) Cattle: Predators affect cattle; (v) Crops: Predators affect crops; (vi) Physical safety: Predators affect humans' physical safety).
4. Discussion
been used as flagship species (Woodroffe and Redpath, 2015). From the perspective of the ordinary management of a territory, the control of predators usually occurs in the interests of an economic activity (Graham et al., 2005; Reynolds and Tapper, 1996). In this case, the control measures mainly address species that are not in danger of extinction and, usually, species listed as game species. However, this measure of control of predators also may be extended to other nongame species when there is evidence of damage to economic activity or of risk to the conservation of species and habitats (i.e., exotic species). Our results suggest exploring the possibility of declaring the Egyptian mongoose, a common species that is expanding its distribution and that is currently coming into conflict with the interests of humans, to be a game species. If this species is declared to be a game species, a new hunting market could arise from this decision because this predator species is perceived negatively in territories with commercial hunting land uses (Fig. 4) and because hunters may perceive hunting mongoose as a new hunting opportunity. We conducted this research to examine the types of participation of both landowners and hunters in mongoose management and to elucidate the opportunity for compensation between landowners and hunters. That is, we attempted to elucidate whether landowners could take advantage of selling the mongoose to hunters instead of assuming a cost when removing them from their properties. We found that such costs could be partially offset.
4.1. Predator control
4.2. Lethal control
From the animal conservation perspective, predator control occurs when the population of predators is endangering the persistence of other species; for example, when the abundance of prey species has fallen into the “predator trap”, which prevents that the size of the population from exceeding certain thresholds of viability (for example: Smith et al., 2010), although some caution should be taken with the type of predator (Palomares et al., 1995; Ritchie and Johnson, 2009). This can be controversial in some cases, such as in those territories where this criterion begins to necessitate the control of predator species that today are still listed as endangered species and that until now have
Within the handling of predator species, one of the most widespread management and conservation measures is lethal predator control (i.e., culling), which is also a very controversial measure (Treves and Karanth, 2003; Reiter et al., 1999; Woodroffe and Redpath, 2015). On the one hand, it is controversial because from the perspective of ecological effectiveness it has been occasionally called into question (i.e., Graham et al., 2005; Alkama et al., 2005; Virgós and Travaini, 2005), and sometimes species have been legally or illegally and disproportionally hunted (Kaltenborn and Brainerd, 2016; Villafuerte et al., 1998). On the other hand, predator control is controversial
culling predator species was strongly appreciated by landowners but was less popular among hunters. 3.4. Economic solutions Most of the landowners (94%) were willing to pay to control the Egyptian mongoose populations. These results are shown in Table 1. Several thresholds for willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) can be specified based on the uncertainty levels. In this section, we consider as the reference uncertainty level the ‘Probably yes’ responses in the contingent valuation question. Results show that landowners would be willing to pay 587.58 € per year (standard error = 55.551) to cull mongoose on their lands. Among hunters, we found that the majority (71%) were not willing to pay to hunt mongoose. Nevertheless, 42% of the hunters were willing to hunt mongoose if an amount of money was offered. In this case, results showed that hunters were willing to accept with a certain probability an amount of 0.57 € per culled mongoose (Standard error = 0.097). The remainder of the sample of hunters (29%) were willing to pay to hunt mongoose during their hunting season, and they would pay with a certain probability an amount of 0.94 € per mongoose culled (Standard error = 0.115).
M. Martínez-Jauregui et al. / Biological Conservation 209 (2017) 239–244
243
al., 2016; Morzillo and Needham, 2015; Wittmann et al., 1998), by the gradual adoption of many regulations that will prevent animal suffering at an international scale (i.e., the agreements on International Humane Trapping Standards between the European Community and other countries such as Canada, or the United States of America in 1998), and by the proven possibilities for misunderstanding between stakeholders, given societal beliefs and the press coverage of management measures (Fernández-Gil et al., 2016). Our results showed that live capture by landowners was the most preferred management tool for controlling this non-game species. However, in our case, landowners and hunters do not strongly reject lethal control (culling), probably because both stakeholders are much linked to wildlife management and hunting (Bremner and Park, 2007). The findings from our data set indicate that landowners dislike the idea of intervention by the environmental agency on their lands and that hunters prefer, in cases of lethal control, to be the ones who cull/hunt the animals. Hunters also rank the landowners culling ahead of environmental agency capturing mongoose alive.
4.3. Human-wildlife conflict lessons derived from the spread of a native species
Fig. 4. Landowners' and hunters' average perceptions of the effects of different types of predators on rabbit and partridge populations (birds of prey: Accipiter gentilis L., Accipiter nisus L., Falco spp., among others; Crow family: Corvus corone L., Pica pica L., Corvus monedula L., among others; In danger predators: Lynx pardinus Temminck, Aquila adalberti C. L. Brehm, among others; Fox: Vulpes vulpes L.; Mustelids and other mesocarnivores: Herpestes ichneumon L., Genetta genetta L., Mustela putorius L., Meles meles L., Martes foina Erxleben, among others; Wild boar: Sus scrofa L.; Wildcat: Felis silvestris Schreber; Wolf: Canis lupus L.).
because there is increasing societal sensitivity toward animal suffering and animal mistreatment, as evidenced by research demonstrating that lethal control can be unacceptable (i.e., Lauber et al., 2007; Lute et
Landowners and hunters expressed concerns about the impacts caused by the colonization of the mongoose. They agree with the predator control, mainly because negative effects on hunting activity and the equilibrium of the ecosystem were perceived. It is well known that differences in preferences may exist with respect to stakeholders and the impacts of human-wildlife conflicts (García-Llorente et al., 2011; Morzillo and Needham, 2015; Wittmann et al., 1998), and previous studies have implemented the spatial dimension of this conflict (Karlsson and Sjöström, 2007; Piédallu et al., 2016). However, here, we introduced a spatio-temporal dimension of the problem by identifying an example of changes in preferences that go along with the expansion of the distribution of one species that comes into conflict with the interests of humans. Here, we present current perceptions and tools support regarding a colonizing species, but future research could analyze the temporal changes in those preferences because public attitudes are likely to change once people begin coexisting with those native species (Bruskotter et al., 2007; Dressel et al., 2015).
Fig. 5. Landowners' and hunters' average perceptions of management measures for controlling predators in general and Egyptian mongoose.
244
M. Martínez-Jauregui et al. / Biological Conservation 209 (2017) 239–244
Table 1 Landowners' and hunters' willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) compensation to control the Egyptian mongoose in their hunting estates, taking into account their level of certainty for a range of monetary thresholds (DY: “Definitely yes”, PY: “Probably yes”, UN: “Not sure”, and PN: “Probably no”). Standard error is shown in parentheses. Significance at the 1% (***) level is provided. Landowners' willingness to pay (euros per hunting estate)
DY PY UN PN
Hunters' willingness to accept (euros per mongoose)
Hunters' willingness to pay (euros per mongoose)
Mean
% yes
Weighted mean
% yes
Weighted mean
435.74 (34.790)*** 587.58 (55.551)*** 723.85 (87.808)*** 776.83 (109.363)***
25.90 29.08 29.88 29.88
0.95 (0.175)*** 0.57 (0.097)*** 0.48 (0.081)*** 0.272 (0.037)***
21.12 27.09 27.49 27.49
0.54 (0.069)*** 0.94 (0.115)*** 1.47 (0.203)*** 2.65 (0.426)***
Acknowledgements This study is framed within the project: “Percepción social de posibles medidas de gestión de la fauna silvestre (INIA-CON15-189)”, funded by the CRCP (University of Córdoba). We are grateful to ‘APROCA’ and ‘Federación Andaluza de Caza’ partners for their collaboration in the implementation of the questionnaires. References Alkama, J., Korpimäki, E., Arroyo, B., Beja, P., Bretagnolle, V., Bro, E., Kenward, R., Manosa, S., Redpath, S.M., Thirgood, S., Viñuela, J., 2005. Birds of prey as limiting factors of gamebird populations in Europe: a review. Biol. Rev. 80 (2), 171–203. Balmori, A., Carbonell, R., 2012. Expansion and distribution of the Egyptian mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon) in the Iberian Peninsula. Galemys 24, 83–85. Barros, T., Carvalho, J., Pereira, M.J.R., Ferreira, J.P., Fonseca, C., 2015. Following the trail: Factors underlying the sudden expansion of the Egyptian Mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon) in Portugal. PLoS One 10 (8), e0133768. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal. Bremner, A., Park, K., 2007. Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol. Conserv. 139 (3), 306–314. Bruskotter, J.T., Schmidt, R.H., Teel, T.L., 2007. Are attitudes toward wolves changing? A case study in Utah. Biol. Conserv. 139 (1), 211–218. Carey, M.P., Sanderson, B.L., Barnas, K.A., Olden, J.D., 2012. Native invaders–challenges for science, management, policy, and society. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10 (7), 373–381. Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J.D., Von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., López-Bao, J.V., Adamec, M., Álvares, F., Anders, O., Balčiauskas, L., 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe's modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346 (6216), 1517–1519. Dayer, A.A., Bright, A.D., Teel, T.L., Manfredo, M.J., 2016. Application of a stated choice approach to assessing public preferences for wildlife conservation funding. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 21 (5), 379–390. Delibes-Mateos, M., Díaz-Fernández, S., Ferreras, P., Viñuela, J., Arroyo, B., 2013. The role of economic and social factors driving predator control in small-game estates in central Spain. Ecol. Soc. 18 (2):28. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05367-180228. Delibes-Mateos, M., Mougeot, F., Arroyo, B., Lambin, X., 2015. Hunted predators: charisma confounds. Science 349 (6254), 1294. Detry, C., Bicho, N., Fernandes, H., Fernandes, C., 2011. The emirate of Córdoba (756– 929 AD) and the introduction of the Egyptian mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon) in Iberia: the remains from Muge, Portugal. J. Archaeol. Sci. 38 (12), 3518–3523. Dressel, S., Sandström, C., Ericsson, G., 2015. A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012. Conserv. Biol. 29 (2), 565–574. Fernández-Gil, A., Naves, J., Ordiz, A., Quevedo, M., Revilla, E., Delibes, M., 2016. Conflict misleads large carnivore management and conservation: brown bears and wolves in Spain. PLoS ONE 11 (3), e0151541. Flynn, D.F., Gogol-Prokurat, M., Nogeire, T., Molinari, N., Richers, B.T., Lin, B.B., Simpson, N., Mayfield, M.M., DeClerck, F., 2009. Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecol. Lett. 12 (1), 22–33. García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Nunes, P.A., González, J.A., Alcorlo, P., Montes, C., 2011. Analyzing the social factors that influence willingness to pay for invasive alien species management under two different strategies: eradication and prevention. Environ. Manag. 48 (3), 418–435. Gaubert, P., Machordom, A., Morales, A., López-Bao, J.V., Veron, G., Amin, M., Barros, T., Basuony, M., Djagoun, C.A.M.S., San, E.D.L., Fonseca, C., 2011. Comparative phylogeography of two African carnivorans presumably introduced into Europe: disentangling natural versus human-mediated dispersal across the Strait of Gibraltar. J. Biogeogr. 38 (2), 341–358. Graham, K., Beckerman, A.P., Thirgood, S., 2005. Human–predator–prey conflicts: ecological correlates, prey losses and patterns of management. Biol. Conserv. 122 (2), 159–171.
Johansson, M., Dressel, S., Kvastegård, E., Ericsson, G., Fischer, A., Kaltenborn, B.P., Vaske, J.J., Sandström, C., 2016. Describing human–wildlife interaction from a European perspective. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 21 (2), 158–168. Kaltenborn, B.P., Brainerd, S.M., 2016. Can poaching inadvertently contribute to increased public acceptance of wolves in Scandinavia? Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 62 (2), 179–188. Kansky, R., Kidd, M., Knight, A.T., 2014. Meta-analysis of attitudes toward damage-causing mammalian wildlife. Conserv. Biol. 28 (4), 924–938. Karlsson, J., Sjöström, M., 2007. Human attitudes towards wolves, a matter of distance. Biol. Conserv. 137 (4), 610–616. Kubo, T., Shoji, Y., 2016. Public segmentation based on the risk perception of brown bear attacks and management preferences. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 62 (2), 203–210. Lauber, B.T., Knuth, B.A., Tantillo, J.A., Curtis, P.D., 2007. The role of ethical judgments related to wildlife fertility control. Soc. Nat. Resour. 20 (2), 119–133. Levinsky, I., Skov, F., Svenning, J.C., Rahbek, C., 2007. Potential impacts of climate change on the distributions and diversity patterns of European mammals. Biodivers. Conserv. 16 (13), 3803–3816. Lute, M.L., Navarrete, C.D., Nelson, M.P., Gore, M.L., 2016. Moral dimensions of humanwildlife conflict. Conserv. Biol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12731. Morzillo, A.T., Needham, M.D., 2015. Landowner incentives and normative tolerances for managing beaver impacts. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 20 (6), 514–530. Palomares, F., 1993. Opportunistic feeding of the Egyptian mongoose. Herpestes ichneumon. Rev. Ecol. (Terre Vie) 48, 295–304. Palomares, F., Gaona, P., Ferreras, P., Delibes, M., 1995. Positive effects on game species of top predators by controlling smaller predator populations: an example with lynx, mongooses, and rabbits. Conserv. Biol. 9 (2), 295–305. Piédallu, B., Quenette, P.Y., Mounet, C., Lescureux, N., Borelli-Massines, M., Dubarry, E., Camarra, J.J., Gimenez, O., 2016. Spatial variation in public attitudes towards brown bears in the French Pyrenees. Biol. Conserv. 197, 90–97. Recio, M.R., Virgós, E., 2010. Predictive niche modelling to identify potential areas of conflicts between human activities and expanding predator populations: a case study of game management and the grey mongoose, Herpestes ichneumon, in Spain. Wildl. Res. 37 (4), 343–354. Reiter, D.K., Brunson, M.W., Schmidt, R.H., 1999. Public attitudes toward wildlife damage management and policy. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 746–758. Reynolds, J.C., Tapper, S.C., 1996. Control of mammalian predators in game management and conservation. Mammal Rev. 26 (2–3), 127–155. Ripple, W.J., Estes, J.A., Beschta, R.L., Wilmers, C.C., Ritchie, E.G., Hebblewhite, M., Berger, J., Elmhagen, B., Letnic, M., Nelson, M.P., Schmitz, O.J., 2014. Status and ecological effects of the world's largest carnivores. Science 343 (6167), 1241484. Ritchie, E.G., Johnson, C.N., 2009. Predator interactions, mesopredator release and biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Lett. 12 (9), 982–998. Smith, R.K., Pullin, A.S., Stewart, G.B., Sutherland, W.J., 2010. Effectiveness of predator removal for enhancing bird populations. Conserv. Biol. 24 (3), 820–829. Treves, A., Karanth, K.U., 2003. Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conserv. Biol. 17 (6), 1491–1499. Vilà, M., Espinar, J.L., Hejda, M., Hulme, P.E., Jarošík, V., Maron, J.L., Pergl, J., Schaffner, U., Sun, Y., Pyšek, P., 2011. Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 14 (7), 702–708. Villafuerte, R., Viñuela, J., Blanco, J.C., 1998. Extensive predator persecution caused by population crash in a game species: the case of red kites and rabbits in Spain. Biol. Conserv. 84 (2), 181–188. Virgós, E., Travaini, A., 2005. Relationship between small-game hunting and carnivore diversity in central Spain. Biodivers. Conserv. 14 (14), 3475–3486. Welsh, M.P., Poe, G.L., 1998. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 36 (2), 170–185. Wittmann, K., Vaske, J.J., Manfredo, M.J., Zinn, H.C., 1998. Standards for lethal response to problem urban wildlife. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 3 (4), 29–48. Woodroffe, R., Redpath, S.M., 2015. When the hunter becomes the hunted. Science 348 (6241), 1312–1314.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/bioc
Short communication
Dealing with conflicts between people and colonizing native predator species M Martínez-Jauregui a,b,⁎, O Linares c, J Carranza c, M Soliño a,b a b c
National Institute for Agriculture and Food Research and Technology (INIA), Forest Research Centre (CIFOR), Ctra. de La Coruña km. 7.5, 28040 Madrid, Spain Sustainable Forest Management Research Institute, University of Valladolid & INIA, Avda. de Madrid 57, 34004 Palencia, Spain Ungulate Research Unit, Cátedra de Recursos Cinegéticos y Piscícolas (CRCP), Universidad de Córdoba, 14071 Córdoba, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 11 October 2016 Received in revised form 10 January 2017 Accepted 19 February 2017 Available online xxxx Keywords: Contingent valuation Egyptian mongoose Human-wildlife conflict Hunters Landowners Lethal control Wildlife conservation Wildlife management
a b s t r a c t The conflicts associated with the return of flagship species and the consequences of exotic species invasion have been extensively assessed, but there is a lack of information about conflicts derived from the colonization of common native species. The present study aims to assess the perception of different profiles of stakeholders regarding the spread of a native medium-sized mammal found in Spain: the case of the Egyptian mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon L.), which can compromise the conservation of rabbit and red-legged partridge and the economic activity of rural areas. Using a sample of 116 landowners and 251 hunters and multiple bounded uncertainty choice data, we analyzed the stakeholders' perception of predators, the stakeholders' preferences of different management measures for predator control, and the role of local people for controlling the Egyptian mongoose. © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Predators have strong regulatory effects on ecosystems, both indirectly, through controlling food webs and ecosystem functioning, and via direct effects on uses of the ecosystems, such as wildlife watching and hunting (i.e., Ripple et al., 2014). Predators include both species that humans have pushed to near-extinction and species with abundant populations that come into conflict with other human interests such as beehives, cattle, hunting, fishing or the health and physical integrity of human beings (Delibes-Mateos et al., 2013; Fernández-Gil et al., 2016; Graham et al., 2005; Kubo and Shoji, 2016; Piédallu et al., 2016; Reynolds and Tapper, 1996; Ripple et al., 2014; Villafuerte et al., 1998; Virgós and Travaini, 2005). In this context, the interests and perceptions of stakeholders cannot be left aside when planning schemes for the management and conservation of species, as the success of these programs depends largely on their prior acceptance (Johansson et al., 2016). Furthermore, the interests and perceptions within society vary among stakeholders and wildlife species (Dayer et al., 2016; García-Llorente et al., 2011; Kansky et al., 2014). Currently, climate change, the dynamics of land-use change, and some specific management measures are promoting the migration of ⁎ Correspondence author at: CIFOR-INIA, Carretera de La Coruña, Km 7.5, CP: 28040 Madrid, Spain. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Martínez-Jauregui).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.034 0006-3207/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
certain predators throughout the countryside, sometimes causing the emergence of conflicts. For example, there is evidence of the return of old conflicts arising from the recovery of large mammals that today are listed as endangered species in Europe and North America (Chapron et al., 2014). That is because the successful management efforts to promote populations of large predators have entailed more encounters with humans and domestic animals. Large populations of certain predators can renew the use of controversial tools for predator control either to preserve or to regulate their populations (Treves and Karanth, 2003). In the literature, we have found analyses of the perceptions of the return of these conflicts associated with flagship species (Piédallu et al., 2016). However, threatened species can skew perceptions toward the extremes, and conclusions cannot be transferred to common species (i.e., Delibes-Mateos et al., 2015; Kaltenborn and Brainerd, 2016). Conflicts related to exotic invasive species have also received attention in the literature (Vilà et al., 2011), and society already recognizes the associated important threats to biodiversity and global change (Bremner and Park, 2007; García-Llorente et al., 2011), but these results should not be directly applied to the case of a native species that migrates from one place to another. This fact is particularly important because native species can cause harmful ecological and economic impacts similar to those commonly associated with non-native invasive species (Carey et al., 2012), but stakeholders' perceptions and preferences of these two types of species might differ (Dayer et al., 2016).
240
M. Martínez-Jauregui et al. / Biological Conservation 209 (2017) 239–244
Thus, we have detected a lack of knowledge regarding the perceptions of conflicts derived from the colonization of common native species. This is important because migration of native species is a possible scenario currently and in the future due to various causes, such as adaptation to climate change (Levinsky et al., 2007), habitat loss and changes in resource availability (Flynn et al., 2009), and the disappearance of apex predators (Ritchie and Johnson, 2009). The present study aims to assess the perceptions of different stakeholders about a native medium-sized predator undergoing range expansion in the Iberian Peninsula. This particular case, the Egyptian mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon L.) in the Iberian Peninsula (Detry et al., 2011; Gaubert et al., 2011), will improve knowledge about the social perception of a native species that is colonizing a territory and that can damage the conservation of certain species and certain types of economic activity. With this species, we have tried to avoid extreme human reactions, either fascination or rejection of management actions, that can be derived from being a flagship species, an exotic species, a species in danger of extinction, or a species that induces a sense of danger to physical safety (DelibesMateos et al., 2015). Moreover, we analyzed the stakeholders' acceptance of predator control, the stakeholders' preferences of different management measures for control, including lethal predator control, and whether there is room for compensation between different stakeholders. In summary, this study provides clues for policy makers and managers about stakeholders' sensitivities on the expansion of mammals' ranges due to the success of conservation programs, to changes in land-use, or to the effects of the displacement of species by climate change. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Case study: Egyptian mongoose in Southern Europe The mongoose is a native small mammal that is widely distributed in Africa and in a small part of Europe, only in the southern part of the Iberian Peninsula, although there is much evidence of expansion of its range in the Iberian Peninsula (Balmori and Carbonell, 2012; Barros et al., 2015; Detry et al., 2011; Gaubert et al., 2011). Some causes of expansion are rural abandonment, which promotes larger and denser scrublands, a generalized decrease in the illegal use of tools for predator control, and the generalist nature of this species (Barros et al., 2015; Palomares, 1993; Recio and Virgós, 2010). In the Iberian Peninsula, the main conflict presented by the mongoose is predation on red-legged partridge (Alectoris rufa L.) and rabbit
(Oryctolagus cuniculus L.) (Palomares, 1993), which competes directly with the economic activity of hunting and with the necessary food of species in danger of extinction (e.g. Iberian lynx). The mongoose is not a game species in Spain (contrarily to Portugal), but there is a current debate about the possibility to turn this species in a game species. 2.2. Survey design and data Landowners and hunters were selected as the interested stakeholders regarding mongoose because this species directly affects both groups. Data for this study were obtained from two e-mail surveys conducted in March 2016 using the web platform www.tickstat.com. Landowners and hunters were contacted by the main landowners' and hunters' association in Andalusia. Fig. 1A shows the municipalities sampled according to the type of respondent, corresponding to the locations of the sampled landowners and the locations where the hunters spent most of their hunting journeys in the previous hunting season (2015– 2016). In addition to requesting demographic and socioeconomic information, we asked landowners to answer questions regarding their hunting estates and the hunting activity in the last year, and we asked hunters to answer questions about their small game hunting activity in the last year. Additionally, we asked respondents to answer questions regarding the following: (1) their attitudes, knowledge and beliefs about predators, (2) their attitudes, knowledge and beliefs about the Egyptian mongoose, and (3) their acceptance of predator control and preferences among different management measures for predator control. Finally, we asked both types of stakeholder to participate in an economic exercise to elucidate whether there is room for compensation between landowners and hunters. The questionnaire and database used for this analysis are available on request from the authors. 2.3. Analysis We used a multiple bounded uncertainty contingent valuation that allows respondents to express their level of uncertainty for a range of bids or money thresholds (Welsh and Poe, 1998). This approach allows respondents to state their preferences using the scale: “Definitely no”, “Probably no”, “Not sure”, “Probably yes”, and “Definitely yes” to indicate whether they would pay (or accept) every bid. Landowners were asked about their certainty levels of willingness to pay to cull mongoose in case there were changes in the law that would enable active management of this species in their region. Annual costs
Fig. 1. A) Municipalities sampled according to the type of respondent. B) Municipalities where the Egyptian mongoose has been reported according to the type of respondent.
M. Martínez-Jauregui et al. / Biological Conservation 209 (2017) 239–244
241
to cull mongoose were presented following an exponential function (from 1 to 300 euros per year). The participants were also aware that this payment should include the time spent by the hunters, vehicle fuel, ammunition, and other expenses. To evaluate whether there is room for compensation between landowners and hunters, hunters were asked about their certainty levels of willingness to pay to hunt mongoose in case there was a change in the law that would consider it a game species. Costs per mongoose hunted were presented following an exponential function (from 1 to 50 euros per mongoose). In case they responded with no willingness to pay, i.e., 0 €, they were asked about their certainty levels of willingness to accept a payment to hunt mongoose during their usual hunting journeys. The price payable for every mongoose hunted followed the above exponential function. 3. Results 3.1. Experiences with Egyptian mongoose In this study, landowners were asked if they have evidence of having consistently the Egyptian mongoose on their properties, and hunters were asked to identify the municipalities where the mongoose had been detected during the past five hunting seasons. In total, 93% of the landowners and 82% of the hunters declared that the Egyptian mongoose was present in Andalusia, giving the result that the mongoose is more concentrated in the western part of the region (Fig. 1B). We also gathered that this species is perceived to have an increasing population trend (65% of the landowners declared a perception of increasing mongoose on their properties, and both landowners (80.17%) and hunters (70.91%) declared a perception of increasing mongoose population trends in Andalusia). 3.2. Attitudes, knowledge and beliefs toward predators and Egyptian mongoose First, landowners and hunters were asked to identify the predators present in their territory (see Fig. 2). Both landowners and hunters consider the Egyptian mongoose to be as frequent as all the mustelids and other mesocarnivores (Herpestes ichneumon L., Genetta genetta L., Mustela putorius L., Meles meles L., Martes foina Erxleben, among others). Using a Likert scale from 1 (missing) to 5 (very frequent), we observed that the perception of the presence of mongoose in the region showed average values of 4.42 and 4.21 for the landowners and hunters, respectively. Frequency of predators is generally perceived at higher levels by hunters than by landowners, except in the cases of the crow family (Corvus corone L., Pica pica L., Corvus monedula L., among others) and mustelids and other mesocarnivores. Larger differences are observed for wildcats (Felis silvestris Schreber) and wild boar (Sus scrofa L.). Respondents were also asked about their perceptions of the consequences of predators for the ecosystems and for their economic activities (Fig. 3). These results were always negative. In general, landowners perceived predators more negatively than did hunters. Predators have the strongest negative effects on game species, with milder negative effects on crops and physical safety. In particular, the mongoose was compared with results for overall predators, demonstrating that both landowners and hunters were more worried about the negative influence on the equilibrium of ecosystems and less worried about physical safety from mongoose than from predators overall. The overall perception of the mongoose was that it is harmful, with 89.65% of landowners and 77.29% of the hunters explicitly responding with that perception. Because negative effects on game species resulted in the highest worries for both classes of stakeholders, we show in Fig. 4 the particular perception for every predator on their influence on rabbit and partridge populations, which are the main non-migratory species hunted as small game. Our results showed that foxes (Vulpes vulpes L.), mustelids, and
Fig. 2. Landowners' and hunters' average perceptions of the frequency of predators in the territory according to the type of predator. An average of the perception of overall predator frequency is also given in the figure (birds of prey: Accipiter gentilis L., Accipiter nisus L., Falco spp., among others; Crow family: Corvus corone L., Pica pica L., Corvus monedula L., among others; In danger predators: Lynx pardinus Temminck, Aquila adalberti C. L. Brehm, among others; Fox: Vulpes vulpes L.; Mustelids and other mesocarnivores: Herpestes ichneumon L., Genetta genetta L., Mustela putorius L., Meles meles L., Martes foina Erxleben, among others; Wild boar: Sus scrofa L.; Wildcat: Felis silvestris Schreber; Wolf: Canis lupus L.).
other mesocarnivores (including mongoose) garnered the most harmful perceptions and that even endangered species are considered to be negative influences on the populations of rabbits and partridge. 3.3. Preferences of different management measures for predator control Supporting tools to manage predators were also examined (Fig. 5). The management tools considered were as follows: i) Landowners capture alive using homologated tramps; ii) Government agents capture alive using homologated tramps; iii) Landowners cull predators using firearms; iv) Government agents cull predators using firearms; v) Hunters hunt predators using firearms; vi) Falconry; and vii) Indirect measures. Results of preferences for different management measures to control overall predators and Egyptian mongoose were very consistent. Government agents culling predators was the least popular management tool, followed by indirect measures. The management tools considered the best by both classes of stakeholders were landowners capturing predators alive and hunters hunting the species. Landowners
242
M. Martínez-Jauregui et al. / Biological Conservation 209 (2017) 239–244
Fig. 3. Landowners' and hunters' average perceptions regarding the functioning of ecosystems and the productive activity (reasons evaluated: (i) Game spp.: Predators affect game species; (ii) Endangered spp.: Predators affect endangered species; (iii) Equilibrium: Predators affect the ecosystem equilibrium; (iv) Cattle: Predators affect cattle; (v) Crops: Predators affect crops; (vi) Physical safety: Predators affect humans' physical safety).
4. Discussion
been used as flagship species (Woodroffe and Redpath, 2015). From the perspective of the ordinary management of a territory, the control of predators usually occurs in the interests of an economic activity (Graham et al., 2005; Reynolds and Tapper, 1996). In this case, the control measures mainly address species that are not in danger of extinction and, usually, species listed as game species. However, this measure of control of predators also may be extended to other nongame species when there is evidence of damage to economic activity or of risk to the conservation of species and habitats (i.e., exotic species). Our results suggest exploring the possibility of declaring the Egyptian mongoose, a common species that is expanding its distribution and that is currently coming into conflict with the interests of humans, to be a game species. If this species is declared to be a game species, a new hunting market could arise from this decision because this predator species is perceived negatively in territories with commercial hunting land uses (Fig. 4) and because hunters may perceive hunting mongoose as a new hunting opportunity. We conducted this research to examine the types of participation of both landowners and hunters in mongoose management and to elucidate the opportunity for compensation between landowners and hunters. That is, we attempted to elucidate whether landowners could take advantage of selling the mongoose to hunters instead of assuming a cost when removing them from their properties. We found that such costs could be partially offset.
4.1. Predator control
4.2. Lethal control
From the animal conservation perspective, predator control occurs when the population of predators is endangering the persistence of other species; for example, when the abundance of prey species has fallen into the “predator trap”, which prevents that the size of the population from exceeding certain thresholds of viability (for example: Smith et al., 2010), although some caution should be taken with the type of predator (Palomares et al., 1995; Ritchie and Johnson, 2009). This can be controversial in some cases, such as in those territories where this criterion begins to necessitate the control of predator species that today are still listed as endangered species and that until now have
Within the handling of predator species, one of the most widespread management and conservation measures is lethal predator control (i.e., culling), which is also a very controversial measure (Treves and Karanth, 2003; Reiter et al., 1999; Woodroffe and Redpath, 2015). On the one hand, it is controversial because from the perspective of ecological effectiveness it has been occasionally called into question (i.e., Graham et al., 2005; Alkama et al., 2005; Virgós and Travaini, 2005), and sometimes species have been legally or illegally and disproportionally hunted (Kaltenborn and Brainerd, 2016; Villafuerte et al., 1998). On the other hand, predator control is controversial
culling predator species was strongly appreciated by landowners but was less popular among hunters. 3.4. Economic solutions Most of the landowners (94%) were willing to pay to control the Egyptian mongoose populations. These results are shown in Table 1. Several thresholds for willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) can be specified based on the uncertainty levels. In this section, we consider as the reference uncertainty level the ‘Probably yes’ responses in the contingent valuation question. Results show that landowners would be willing to pay 587.58 € per year (standard error = 55.551) to cull mongoose on their lands. Among hunters, we found that the majority (71%) were not willing to pay to hunt mongoose. Nevertheless, 42% of the hunters were willing to hunt mongoose if an amount of money was offered. In this case, results showed that hunters were willing to accept with a certain probability an amount of 0.57 € per culled mongoose (Standard error = 0.097). The remainder of the sample of hunters (29%) were willing to pay to hunt mongoose during their hunting season, and they would pay with a certain probability an amount of 0.94 € per mongoose culled (Standard error = 0.115).
M. Martínez-Jauregui et al. / Biological Conservation 209 (2017) 239–244
243
al., 2016; Morzillo and Needham, 2015; Wittmann et al., 1998), by the gradual adoption of many regulations that will prevent animal suffering at an international scale (i.e., the agreements on International Humane Trapping Standards between the European Community and other countries such as Canada, or the United States of America in 1998), and by the proven possibilities for misunderstanding between stakeholders, given societal beliefs and the press coverage of management measures (Fernández-Gil et al., 2016). Our results showed that live capture by landowners was the most preferred management tool for controlling this non-game species. However, in our case, landowners and hunters do not strongly reject lethal control (culling), probably because both stakeholders are much linked to wildlife management and hunting (Bremner and Park, 2007). The findings from our data set indicate that landowners dislike the idea of intervention by the environmental agency on their lands and that hunters prefer, in cases of lethal control, to be the ones who cull/hunt the animals. Hunters also rank the landowners culling ahead of environmental agency capturing mongoose alive.
4.3. Human-wildlife conflict lessons derived from the spread of a native species
Fig. 4. Landowners' and hunters' average perceptions of the effects of different types of predators on rabbit and partridge populations (birds of prey: Accipiter gentilis L., Accipiter nisus L., Falco spp., among others; Crow family: Corvus corone L., Pica pica L., Corvus monedula L., among others; In danger predators: Lynx pardinus Temminck, Aquila adalberti C. L. Brehm, among others; Fox: Vulpes vulpes L.; Mustelids and other mesocarnivores: Herpestes ichneumon L., Genetta genetta L., Mustela putorius L., Meles meles L., Martes foina Erxleben, among others; Wild boar: Sus scrofa L.; Wildcat: Felis silvestris Schreber; Wolf: Canis lupus L.).
because there is increasing societal sensitivity toward animal suffering and animal mistreatment, as evidenced by research demonstrating that lethal control can be unacceptable (i.e., Lauber et al., 2007; Lute et
Landowners and hunters expressed concerns about the impacts caused by the colonization of the mongoose. They agree with the predator control, mainly because negative effects on hunting activity and the equilibrium of the ecosystem were perceived. It is well known that differences in preferences may exist with respect to stakeholders and the impacts of human-wildlife conflicts (García-Llorente et al., 2011; Morzillo and Needham, 2015; Wittmann et al., 1998), and previous studies have implemented the spatial dimension of this conflict (Karlsson and Sjöström, 2007; Piédallu et al., 2016). However, here, we introduced a spatio-temporal dimension of the problem by identifying an example of changes in preferences that go along with the expansion of the distribution of one species that comes into conflict with the interests of humans. Here, we present current perceptions and tools support regarding a colonizing species, but future research could analyze the temporal changes in those preferences because public attitudes are likely to change once people begin coexisting with those native species (Bruskotter et al., 2007; Dressel et al., 2015).
Fig. 5. Landowners' and hunters' average perceptions of management measures for controlling predators in general and Egyptian mongoose.
244
M. Martínez-Jauregui et al. / Biological Conservation 209 (2017) 239–244
Table 1 Landowners' and hunters' willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept (WTA) compensation to control the Egyptian mongoose in their hunting estates, taking into account their level of certainty for a range of monetary thresholds (DY: “Definitely yes”, PY: “Probably yes”, UN: “Not sure”, and PN: “Probably no”). Standard error is shown in parentheses. Significance at the 1% (***) level is provided. Landowners' willingness to pay (euros per hunting estate)
DY PY UN PN
Hunters' willingness to accept (euros per mongoose)
Hunters' willingness to pay (euros per mongoose)
Mean
% yes
Weighted mean
% yes
Weighted mean
435.74 (34.790)*** 587.58 (55.551)*** 723.85 (87.808)*** 776.83 (109.363)***
25.90 29.08 29.88 29.88
0.95 (0.175)*** 0.57 (0.097)*** 0.48 (0.081)*** 0.272 (0.037)***
21.12 27.09 27.49 27.49
0.54 (0.069)*** 0.94 (0.115)*** 1.47 (0.203)*** 2.65 (0.426)***
Acknowledgements This study is framed within the project: “Percepción social de posibles medidas de gestión de la fauna silvestre (INIA-CON15-189)”, funded by the CRCP (University of Córdoba). We are grateful to ‘APROCA’ and ‘Federación Andaluza de Caza’ partners for their collaboration in the implementation of the questionnaires. References Alkama, J., Korpimäki, E., Arroyo, B., Beja, P., Bretagnolle, V., Bro, E., Kenward, R., Manosa, S., Redpath, S.M., Thirgood, S., Viñuela, J., 2005. Birds of prey as limiting factors of gamebird populations in Europe: a review. Biol. Rev. 80 (2), 171–203. Balmori, A., Carbonell, R., 2012. Expansion and distribution of the Egyptian mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon) in the Iberian Peninsula. Galemys 24, 83–85. Barros, T., Carvalho, J., Pereira, M.J.R., Ferreira, J.P., Fonseca, C., 2015. Following the trail: Factors underlying the sudden expansion of the Egyptian Mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon) in Portugal. PLoS One 10 (8), e0133768. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal. Bremner, A., Park, K., 2007. Public attitudes to the management of invasive non-native species in Scotland. Biol. Conserv. 139 (3), 306–314. Bruskotter, J.T., Schmidt, R.H., Teel, T.L., 2007. Are attitudes toward wolves changing? A case study in Utah. Biol. Conserv. 139 (1), 211–218. Carey, M.P., Sanderson, B.L., Barnas, K.A., Olden, J.D., 2012. Native invaders–challenges for science, management, policy, and society. Front. Ecol. Environ. 10 (7), 373–381. Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J.D., Von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., López-Bao, J.V., Adamec, M., Álvares, F., Anders, O., Balčiauskas, L., 2014. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe's modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346 (6216), 1517–1519. Dayer, A.A., Bright, A.D., Teel, T.L., Manfredo, M.J., 2016. Application of a stated choice approach to assessing public preferences for wildlife conservation funding. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 21 (5), 379–390. Delibes-Mateos, M., Díaz-Fernández, S., Ferreras, P., Viñuela, J., Arroyo, B., 2013. The role of economic and social factors driving predator control in small-game estates in central Spain. Ecol. Soc. 18 (2):28. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05367-180228. Delibes-Mateos, M., Mougeot, F., Arroyo, B., Lambin, X., 2015. Hunted predators: charisma confounds. Science 349 (6254), 1294. Detry, C., Bicho, N., Fernandes, H., Fernandes, C., 2011. The emirate of Córdoba (756– 929 AD) and the introduction of the Egyptian mongoose (Herpestes ichneumon) in Iberia: the remains from Muge, Portugal. J. Archaeol. Sci. 38 (12), 3518–3523. Dressel, S., Sandström, C., Ericsson, G., 2015. A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012. Conserv. Biol. 29 (2), 565–574. Fernández-Gil, A., Naves, J., Ordiz, A., Quevedo, M., Revilla, E., Delibes, M., 2016. Conflict misleads large carnivore management and conservation: brown bears and wolves in Spain. PLoS ONE 11 (3), e0151541. Flynn, D.F., Gogol-Prokurat, M., Nogeire, T., Molinari, N., Richers, B.T., Lin, B.B., Simpson, N., Mayfield, M.M., DeClerck, F., 2009. Loss of functional diversity under land use intensification across multiple taxa. Ecol. Lett. 12 (1), 22–33. García-Llorente, M., Martín-López, B., Nunes, P.A., González, J.A., Alcorlo, P., Montes, C., 2011. Analyzing the social factors that influence willingness to pay for invasive alien species management under two different strategies: eradication and prevention. Environ. Manag. 48 (3), 418–435. Gaubert, P., Machordom, A., Morales, A., López-Bao, J.V., Veron, G., Amin, M., Barros, T., Basuony, M., Djagoun, C.A.M.S., San, E.D.L., Fonseca, C., 2011. Comparative phylogeography of two African carnivorans presumably introduced into Europe: disentangling natural versus human-mediated dispersal across the Strait of Gibraltar. J. Biogeogr. 38 (2), 341–358. Graham, K., Beckerman, A.P., Thirgood, S., 2005. Human–predator–prey conflicts: ecological correlates, prey losses and patterns of management. Biol. Conserv. 122 (2), 159–171.
Johansson, M., Dressel, S., Kvastegård, E., Ericsson, G., Fischer, A., Kaltenborn, B.P., Vaske, J.J., Sandström, C., 2016. Describing human–wildlife interaction from a European perspective. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 21 (2), 158–168. Kaltenborn, B.P., Brainerd, S.M., 2016. Can poaching inadvertently contribute to increased public acceptance of wolves in Scandinavia? Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 62 (2), 179–188. Kansky, R., Kidd, M., Knight, A.T., 2014. Meta-analysis of attitudes toward damage-causing mammalian wildlife. Conserv. Biol. 28 (4), 924–938. Karlsson, J., Sjöström, M., 2007. Human attitudes towards wolves, a matter of distance. Biol. Conserv. 137 (4), 610–616. Kubo, T., Shoji, Y., 2016. Public segmentation based on the risk perception of brown bear attacks and management preferences. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 62 (2), 203–210. Lauber, B.T., Knuth, B.A., Tantillo, J.A., Curtis, P.D., 2007. The role of ethical judgments related to wildlife fertility control. Soc. Nat. Resour. 20 (2), 119–133. Levinsky, I., Skov, F., Svenning, J.C., Rahbek, C., 2007. Potential impacts of climate change on the distributions and diversity patterns of European mammals. Biodivers. Conserv. 16 (13), 3803–3816. Lute, M.L., Navarrete, C.D., Nelson, M.P., Gore, M.L., 2016. Moral dimensions of humanwildlife conflict. Conserv. Biol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12731. Morzillo, A.T., Needham, M.D., 2015. Landowner incentives and normative tolerances for managing beaver impacts. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 20 (6), 514–530. Palomares, F., 1993. Opportunistic feeding of the Egyptian mongoose. Herpestes ichneumon. Rev. Ecol. (Terre Vie) 48, 295–304. Palomares, F., Gaona, P., Ferreras, P., Delibes, M., 1995. Positive effects on game species of top predators by controlling smaller predator populations: an example with lynx, mongooses, and rabbits. Conserv. Biol. 9 (2), 295–305. Piédallu, B., Quenette, P.Y., Mounet, C., Lescureux, N., Borelli-Massines, M., Dubarry, E., Camarra, J.J., Gimenez, O., 2016. Spatial variation in public attitudes towards brown bears in the French Pyrenees. Biol. Conserv. 197, 90–97. Recio, M.R., Virgós, E., 2010. Predictive niche modelling to identify potential areas of conflicts between human activities and expanding predator populations: a case study of game management and the grey mongoose, Herpestes ichneumon, in Spain. Wildl. Res. 37 (4), 343–354. Reiter, D.K., Brunson, M.W., Schmidt, R.H., 1999. Public attitudes toward wildlife damage management and policy. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 746–758. Reynolds, J.C., Tapper, S.C., 1996. Control of mammalian predators in game management and conservation. Mammal Rev. 26 (2–3), 127–155. Ripple, W.J., Estes, J.A., Beschta, R.L., Wilmers, C.C., Ritchie, E.G., Hebblewhite, M., Berger, J., Elmhagen, B., Letnic, M., Nelson, M.P., Schmitz, O.J., 2014. Status and ecological effects of the world's largest carnivores. Science 343 (6167), 1241484. Ritchie, E.G., Johnson, C.N., 2009. Predator interactions, mesopredator release and biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Lett. 12 (9), 982–998. Smith, R.K., Pullin, A.S., Stewart, G.B., Sutherland, W.J., 2010. Effectiveness of predator removal for enhancing bird populations. Conserv. Biol. 24 (3), 820–829. Treves, A., Karanth, K.U., 2003. Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conserv. Biol. 17 (6), 1491–1499. Vilà, M., Espinar, J.L., Hejda, M., Hulme, P.E., Jarošík, V., Maron, J.L., Pergl, J., Schaffner, U., Sun, Y., Pyšek, P., 2011. Ecological impacts of invasive alien plants: a meta-analysis of their effects on species, communities and ecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 14 (7), 702–708. Villafuerte, R., Viñuela, J., Blanco, J.C., 1998. Extensive predator persecution caused by population crash in a game species: the case of red kites and rabbits in Spain. Biol. Conserv. 84 (2), 181–188. Virgós, E., Travaini, A., 2005. Relationship between small-game hunting and carnivore diversity in central Spain. Biodivers. Conserv. 14 (14), 3475–3486. Welsh, M.P., Poe, G.L., 1998. Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 36 (2), 170–185. Wittmann, K., Vaske, J.J., Manfredo, M.J., Zinn, H.C., 1998. Standards for lethal response to problem urban wildlife. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 3 (4), 29–48. Woodroffe, R., Redpath, S.M., 2015. When the hunter becomes the hunted. Science 348 (6241), 1312–1314.