Human–Wildlife Conflicts across Landscapes—General Applicability vs. Case Specificity

Abstract

Here, we address the question of if/to what extent human–wildlife conflict (HWC) can be reduced or mitigated by supra-regional or even global approaches, or whether case- and region-specific strategies are necessary. First, we try to shift the perspective from humans towards wildlife and regard modern era (near) extinctions of selected wildlife species as an ultimate expression of HWC. We then reflect on the legitimacy of ecosystem comparisons beyond the borders of biogeographical regions—an important prerequisite for global approaches. In the following, we present two case scenarios that exemplarily illustrate the topic from different perspectives: carnivore–livestock conflicts (classical view, human perspective) and wind turbine-induced mortality of bats (wildlife perspective, rarely regarded as a form of HWC). On this basis, we try to develop a framework that enables a global approach, while adequately considering case- and region-specificity. We think that a globally valid and generally approachable dimension can be defined, as long as there is a natural link: in the present case the established monophyly of the orders Carnivora and Chiroptera, i.e., representatives descending from common ancestors, thus sharing common ecological features. This natural relationship among all representatives of a systematic group (specification of the “wildlife” concept) is key for the development of an overarching strategy that can be adjusted to a specific case.