Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSnijders, Lysanne
dc.contributor.authorGreggor, Alison L.
dc.contributor.authorHilderink, Femke
dc.contributor.authorDoran, Carolina
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-29T20:47:35Z
dc.date.available2020-04-29T20:47:35Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier2047-2382
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13750-019-0153-7
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12634/42
dc.description.abstractHuman–wildlife conflict (HWC), is currently one of the most pressing conservation challenges. We restrict ourselves here to wildlife behaviour that is perceived to negatively impact social, economic or cultural aspects of human life or to negatively impact species of conservation concern. HWC often involves wild animals consuming anthropogenic resources, such as crops or livestock, either out of necessity (loss of habitat and natural prey) or as consequence of opportunistic behaviour. A variety of interventions are undertaken to reduce HWC, differing in practicability, costs and social acceptance. One such non-lethal intervention is animal conditioning, a technique to reduce conflict by modifying the behaviour of ‘problem’ animals long-term. Conditioning changes associations animals have with resources or behaviours. Both via ‘punishment’ of unwanted behaviour and ‘rewarding’ of alternative behaviour, researchers aim to make expression of unwanted behaviour relatively less desirable to animals. Despite the potential, however, studies testing conditioning interventions have reported seemingly contradictory outcomes. To facilitate reduction of HWC via conditioning, we thus need to better understand if and when conditioning interventions are indeed effective. With this systematic map we intend to make the global evidence base for conditioning of free-ranging vertebrates more accessible to practitioners, to identify potential evidence clusters and effect modifiers for a subsequent systematic review and to highlight evidence gaps for future research.
dc.language.isoen
dc.relation.urlhttps://environmentalevidencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13750-019-0153-7
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectANIMAL-HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS
dc.subjectBEHAVIOR
dc.subjectCONDITIONING
dc.titleEffectiveness of animal conditioning interventions in reducing human–wildlife conflict: a systematic map protocol
dc.typeArticle
dc.source.journaltitleEnvironmental Evidence
dc.source.volume8
dc.source.issueS1
dc.source.beginpage10
refterms.dateFOA2020-04-29T20:59:41Z
html.description.abstractHuman–wildlife conflict (HWC), is currently one of the most pressing conservation challenges. We restrict ourselves here to wildlife behaviour that is perceived to negatively impact social, economic or cultural aspects of human life or to negatively impact species of conservation concern. HWC often involves wild animals consuming anthropogenic resources, such as crops or livestock, either out of necessity (loss of habitat and natural prey) or as consequence of opportunistic behaviour. A variety of interventions are undertaken to reduce HWC, differing in practicability, costs and social acceptance. One such non-lethal intervention is animal conditioning, a technique to reduce conflict by modifying the behaviour of ‘problem’ animals long-term. Conditioning changes associations animals have with resources or behaviours. Both via ‘punishment’ of unwanted behaviour and ‘rewarding’ of alternative behaviour, researchers aim to make expression of unwanted behaviour relatively less desirable to animals. Despite the potential, however, studies testing conditioning interventions have reported seemingly contradictory outcomes. To facilitate reduction of HWC via conditioning, we thus need to better understand if and when conditioning interventions are indeed effective. With this systematic map we intend to make the global evidence base for conditioning of free-ranging vertebrates more accessible to practitioners, to identify potential evidence clusters and effect modifiers for a subsequent systematic review and to highlight evidence gaps for future research.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Snijders_2019_Environmental ...
Size:
972.7Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Conservation Science Publications
    Works by SDZWA's Conservation Scientists and co-authors. Includes books, book sections, articles and conference publications and presentations.

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/