4.6 Review

A conceptual framework for understanding illegal killing of large carnivores

Journal

AMBIO
Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages 251-264

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13280-016-0852-z

Keywords

Carnivores; Feedbacks; Gulo gulo; Panthera tigris; Poaching; Social-ecological systems

Funding

  1. National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) [DBI-1052875]
  2. Boise State University (NSF from the NSF Idaho EPSCoR Program) [IIA-1301792]
  3. Boise State University (National Science Foundation)
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences
  5. Div Of Biological Infrastructure [1639145] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences
  7. Div Of Biological Infrastructure [1052875] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available