Cited by 20Wildlife Ecology and ConservationConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementRangeland and Wildlife Management

Putting yourself in an animal's shoes - empathy and intangible benefits drive tolerance towards wildlife in Namibian communal conservancies

Open access
Kansky, Ruth, Kidd, Martin·2024·Biological Conservation

Abstract

Many wildlife species are threatened due to persecution and intolerance of people to sharing landscapes with them, especially in mixed use landscapes where both people and wildlife struggle to thrive together. Understanding the factors that promote human tolerance is therefore critical, but progress is hindered by a lack systematic syntheses of studies. The Wildlife Tolerance Model (WTM) is one attempt to provide a framework based on a systematic synthesis of the large body of work in this field. Here we apply the WTM in communal conservancies in the Zambezi region of Namibia, an important wildlife corridor in the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area and one of the few case studies where communities receive monetary benefits from wildlife. Using path modeling, we examined the drivers of tolerance towards five problem species and compared these results with other WTM studies to examine the role of monetary benefits and whether some variables consistently drive tolerance across different species and contexts. Empathy and perceptions of intangible benefits towards a species emerge as consistent drivers of tolerance for all species in Namibia and most other WTM studies but are rarely measured in the literature. Monetary benefits are often presumed to promote tolerance for wildlife however we found only an indirect effect where monetary benefits drive intangible benefits and thus have a “crowding in” effect. These results are encouraging as they suggest tolerance can be promoted indirectly through monetary benefits but also that monetary benefits, for example from trophy hunting are not essential to promote tolerance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110588

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Case studies of geographic areas with human-wildlife conflict show that empathy for animals and intangible benefits related to their existence is a greater predictor of community tolerance for those animals than monetary costs or benefits.

    “case studies of geographic areas with human-wildlife conflict show that empathy for animals and intangible benefits related to their existence is a greater predictor of community tolerance for those animals than monetary costs or benefits (e.g., Kansky & Kidd, 2024; Saif et al., 2020).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 93 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kansky, R., & Kidd, M.
Affiliations
Stellenbosch University (ZA)
Corresponding author
Kansky, Ruth
Venue
Biological Conservation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-05
Volume
293
Pages
110588
ISSN
0006-3207 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4394779198
Cited by
20
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6
FWCI
5.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Biological Conservation (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
Volkswagen Foundation (92873)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Rangeland and Wildlife Management
Keywords
empathy, intangible benefits, communal conservancies, trophy hunting, community-based natural resource management, Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area, wildlife persecution

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review