Taxonomic bias and human–carnivore conflict 923
(Ogada et al., 2003; Woodroffe et al., 2007; Kissui, 2008). Therefore, interventions built upon understandings of cha- rismatic species may omit behaviours of more common depredators and consequently be limited in their ability to prevent livestock depredation. The taxonomic bias that we detected in research on live-
stock depredation by carnivores in sub-Saharan Africa is consistent with other patterns observed in the conservation literature (Clark & May, 2002; Lawler et al., 2006; Troudet et al., 2017; Tensen, 2018; Lozano et al., 2019). Conservation research tends to be biased towards vertebrates, with mam- mals and birds receiving a level of research effort dispropor- tionate to their prevalence in nature and, in many cases, to their level of extinction risk (Clark &May, 2002; Donaldson et al., 2017; Davies et al., 2018). These types of biases cor- relate with species charisma, resulting in the majority of research focusing on taxa that contain colourful, large, distinctive species (Bonnet et al., 2002; Clark & May, 2002; Lawler et al., 2006; Donaldson et al., 2017). For ex- ample, Brambilla et al. (2013) found that more appealing bird species in Italy received significantly more research attention, and Fleming & Bateman (2016) reported that unattractive Australian mammals were underrepresented in the literature. The consequences of such biases have been examined in the fields of climate change mitigation (Feeley et al., 2017), animal behaviour (Rosenthal et al., 2017), species reintroductions (Seddon et al., 2005) and con- servation more broadly (Clark & May, 2002; Lawler et al., 2006; Stroud et al., 2014; Di Marco et al., 2017). There is clear evidence that these biases limit the development of ecological theory and conservation management practices (Lawler et al., 2006; Fleming & Bateman, 2016). Thus, taxo- nomic bias is a potential driver of the research–implemen- tation gap in conservation (Seddon et al., 2005; Amori et al., 2008; Martín-López et al., 2009; Troudet et al., 2017). Another important component of taxonomic bias relates
to conservation funding, which tends to disproportionately support charismatic species (Stroud et al., 2014; Fleming & Bateman, 2016; Di Marco et al., 2017; Davies et al., 2018; Curtin&Papworth, 2020). Many of the largest conservation NGOs explicitly focus their funding efforts on charismatic species (Brockington & Scholfield, 2010a,b; Holmes et al., 2012). Prioritization of funding in conservation is deter- mined by both political agendas and social contexts (Martín-López et al., 2009; Stroud et al., 2014). Public inter- est in charismatic species motivates donations, which support further opportunities to study those same species (Davies et al., 2018). Furthermore, as reviewers and re- searchers are implicitly biased towards articles that empha- size their own study organisms, the literature continues to highlight the same subset of charismatic species (Bonnet et al., 2002; Wilson et al., 2007; Martín-López et al., 2009; Rosenthal et al., 2017). This bias is evident in carnivore conservation, with large felids consistently receiving more
funding and research effort than other species (Davies et al., 2018; Curtin & Papworth, 2020), which is particularly notable in Africa (Di Marco et al., 2017). For example, in 2017 the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation announced a USD 1 million seed donation to establish the Lion Recovery Fund in collaboration with the Wildlife Conservation Net- work. This effort was subsequently supported by a variety of additional sponsors, including the Disney Conservation Fund. Within its first year, the fund distributed c. USD 2.4 million across 28 research and conservation projects centred on the African lion (Lion Recovery Fund Progress Report, 2018). Similarly, National Geographic’s Big Cat Initiative had an open request for proposals, up to mid 2021, for re- search programmes examining lion conservation in 20 lion- specific priority areas. Through this initiative, up to USD 100,000 of support was awarded per project. These conser- vation funds are allocated across a geographical range where less charismatic spotted hyaenas co-occur and tend to be more problematic for livestock owners than African lions. It is possible that the negative effects of taxonomic bias
could be ameliorated by the flagship species concept, with conservation of co-occurring species aided by the focus of conservation attention on large, charismatic species (Andelman & Fagan, 2000; Roberge & Angelstam, 2004; Smith et al., 2012; Albert et al., 2018). Flagship species tend to be large-bodied mammals that are often described as beautiful or impressive (Albert et al., 2018). Conser- vation status can also contribute to species charisma (Martín-López et al., 2009; Albert et al., 2018). Species at greater risk of extinction, particularly those that are char- ismatic, tend to motivate conservation engagement and fundraising (Courchamp et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2012; Brambilla et al., 2013; Albert et al., 2018). The spotted hyaena is categorized as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List and thus carries little power for motivating conservation engage- ment from the perspective of species rarity. However, the African lion and leopard are categorized as Vulnerable and the African wild dog as Endangered. As the populations of these three species continue to decline, their value as con- servation flagships grows (Martín-López et al., 2009; Ripple et al., 2014; Wolf & Ripple, 2017). However, the extent to which the flagship species concept demonstrably supports the conservation of species other than the flagship is a source of debate (Andelman & Fagan, 2000; Caro et al., 2004). Recent studies have indicated the benefits of strategic pri- oritization of charismatic species to further broad-scale bio- diversity conservation (Smith et al., 2012; Bennett et al., 2015; McGowan et al., 2020). However, such an approach may have adverse effects on the development of practices in- tended to address human–carnivore conflict. We recognize that as our study focuses on large carnivores in sub-Saharan Africa, it could be considered to have its own bias. Nevertheless, we believe our critical assessment contributes
Oryx, 2022, 56(6), 917–926 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321000582
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
