Data_Sheet_1_Social Effectiveness and Human-Wildlife Conflict: Linking the Ecological Effectiveness and Social Acceptability of Livestock Protection Tools.pdf

Human-wildlife interactions are embedded within socio-ecological systems (SES), in which animal behavior and human decision-making reciprocally interact. While a growing body of research addresses specific social and ecological elements of human-wildlife interactions, including conflicts, integrating these approaches is essential for identifying practical and effective solutions. Carnivore predation on livestock can threaten human livelihoods, weaken relationships among stakeholders, and precipitate carnivore declines. As carnivores have received greater protection in recent decades, researchers and managers have sought non-lethal tools to reduce predation and promote coexistence between livestock producers and carnivores. For these tools to be successful, they must effectively deter carnivores, and they must also be adopted by producers. Relatively few studies examine the practical and context-specific effectiveness of non-lethal tools, and even fewer simultaneously consider their social acceptability among producers. To address this gap, we suggest that a tool's ecological effectiveness and social acceptability be analyzed concurrently to determine its social effectiveness. We thus paired an experimental study of a carnivore predation deterrent called Foxlights® with qualitative interviews of livestock producers in Northern California. We placed camera traps in sheep pastures to measure the response of coyotes (Canis latrans) to experimentally deployed Foxlights and interviewed livestock producers before and after the experiment. Our experiment revealed weak evidence for reducing coyote activity with Foxlights, but interviews revealed that the potential adoption of tools had as much to do with their social acceptability and implementation feasibility as with evidence-based measurements of tool effectiveness. Interviewees viewed Foxlights as potentially effective components of husbandry systems, despite the data suggesting otherwise, demonstrating that scientific reductionism may lag behind producer practices of systems-thinking and that isolated demonstrations of a tool's ecological effectiveness do not drive tool adoption. Future empirical tests of non-lethal tools should better consider producers' perspectives and acknowledge that data-based tests of ecological effectiveness alone have a limited place in producer decision-making. Iteratively working with producers can build trust in scientific outputs through the research process itself.

人类与野生动物的互动嵌入于社会生态系统（socio-ecological systems, SES）之中，在此系统内动物行为与人类决策会产生双向互动。尽管已有越来越多的研究聚焦于人类与野生动物互动的特定社会与生态维度（包括冲突问题），但整合这些研究路径对于探寻切实可行的解决方案至关重要。食肉动物捕食家畜不仅会威胁人类生计，损害利益相关方之间的关系，还会加速食肉动物种群的衰退。近几十年来，随着各国对食肉动物的保护力度不断加大，研究人员与管理者一直在探索非致死性工具，以减少捕食事件并推动家畜养殖户与食肉动物的共存。要让这类工具发挥效用，既要能够有效威慑食肉动物，也必须获得养殖户的采纳。目前，专门探讨非致死性工具的实际应用与场景特异性效果的研究寥寥无几，而同时考量其在养殖户群体中社会接受度的研究更是少之又少。为填补这一研究空白，我们提出应同时分析工具的生态有效性与社会接受度，以此评估其社会效用。为此，我们针对名为Foxlights®的食肉动物捕食威慑工具开展了实验研究，并与北加利福尼亚州的家畜养殖户进行了质性访谈，将二者相结合。我们在绵羊牧场中布设了红外相机陷阱，用以监测郊狼（Canis latrans）对实验部署的Foxlights®的行为响应，并在实验前后分别对家畜养殖户进行了访谈。实验结果显示，Foxlights®降低郊狼活动的证据较为薄弱，但访谈结果表明，养殖户是否愿意采纳某类工具，既取决于基于实证的工具效果评估，也与其社会接受度及落地可行性密切相关。受访养殖户认为Foxlights®可作为畜牧养殖系统中潜在的有效组成部分，尽管实验数据并不支持这一点。这一现象表明，科学还原论或许滞后于养殖户的系统思维实践，而单独展示工具的生态有效性并无法推动其被采纳。未来针对非致死性工具的实证测试，应更好地兼顾养殖户的视角，并需认识到，仅依靠基于数据的生态有效性测试，在养殖户的决策过程中作用有限。通过在研究过程中与养殖户开展迭代式协作，能够逐步建立起科研成果的信任基础。