Title |
A conceptual framework for understanding illegal killing of large carnivores
|
---|---|
Published in |
Ambio, November 2016
|
DOI | 10.1007/s13280-016-0852-z |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Neil H. Carter, José Vicente López-Bao, Jeremy T. Bruskotter, Meredith Gore, Guillaume Chapron, Arlyne Johnson, Yaffa Epstein, Mahendra Shrestha, Jens Frank, Omar Ohrens, Adrian Treves |
Abstract |
The growing complexity and global nature of wildlife poaching threaten the survival of many species worldwide and are outpacing conservation efforts. Here, we reviewed proximal and distal factors, both social and ecological, driving illegal killing or poaching of large carnivores at sites where it can potentially occur. Through this review, we developed a conceptual social-ecological system framework that ties together many of the factors influencing large carnivore poaching. Unlike most conservation action models, an important attribute of our framework is the integration of multiple factors related to both human motivations and animal vulnerability into feedbacks. We apply our framework to two case studies, tigers in Laos and wolverines in northern Sweden, to demonstrate its utility in disentangling some of the complex features of carnivore poaching that may have hindered effective responses to the current poaching crisis. Our framework offers a common platform to help guide future research on wildlife poaching feedbacks, which has hitherto been lacking, in order to effectively inform policy making and enforcement. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 9 | 20% |
United Kingdom | 4 | 9% |
Canada | 2 | 4% |
Chile | 2 | 4% |
Germany | 2 | 4% |
Australia | 2 | 4% |
South Africa | 2 | 4% |
Bangladesh | 1 | 2% |
Kenya | 1 | 2% |
Other | 4 | 9% |
Unknown | 16 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 23 | 51% |
Scientists | 19 | 42% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 4% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
India | 1 | <1% |
Bulgaria | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 368 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 66 | 18% |
Researcher | 64 | 17% |
Student > Master | 60 | 16% |
Other | 22 | 6% |
Student > Bachelor | 21 | 6% |
Other | 69 | 18% |
Unknown | 71 | 19% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 112 | 30% |
Environmental Science | 108 | 29% |
Social Sciences | 19 | 5% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 3% |
Earth and Planetary Sciences | 6 | 2% |
Other | 33 | 9% |
Unknown | 85 | 23% |