The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world
Open accessAbstract
Human–wildlife conflict (HWC) is a key topic in conservation and agricultural research. Decision makers need evidence‐based information to design sustainable management plans and policy instruments. However, providing objective decision support can be challenging because realities and perceptions of human–wildlife interactions vary widely between and within rural, urban, and peri‐urban areas. Land users who incur costs through wildlife argue that wildlife‐related losses should be compensated and that prevention should be subsidized. Supporters of human–wildlife coexistence policies, such as urban‐dwelling people, may not face threats to their livelihoods from wildlife. Such spatial heterogeneity in the cost and benefits of living with wildlife is germane in most contemporary societies. This Special Section features contributions on wildlife‐induced damages that range from human perspectives (land use, psychology, governance, local attitudes and perceptions, costs and benefits, and HWC and coexistence theory) to ecological perspectives (animal behavior). Building on current literature and articles in this section, we developed a conceptual model to help frame HWC and coexistence dimensions. The framework can be used to determine damage prevention implementation levels and approaches to HWC resolution. Our synthesis revealed that inter‐ and transdisciplinary approaches and multilevel governance approaches can help stakeholders and institutions implement sustainable management strategies that promote human–wildlife coexistence.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People
Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M., & Toulmin, C. (2010) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1185383 · Cited by 11,943
Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100
Sala, O. E., Stuart Chapin, F., III, Armesto, J. J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L. F., Jackson, R. B., et al. (2000) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.287.5459.1770 · Cited by 9,280
Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges
Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A. H., Gessner, M. O., Kawabata, Z., Knowler, D. J., Lévêque, C., Naiman, R. J., Prieur‐Richard, A., Soto, D., Stiassny, M. L. J., et al. (2006) · Biological Reviews · doi:10.1017/s1464793105006950 · Cited by 8,489
Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review
Reed, M. S. (2008) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014 · Cited by 4,237
Status and Ecological Effects of the World’s Largest Carnivores
Ripple, W. J., Estes, J. A., Beschta, R. L., Wilmers, C. C., Ritchie, E. G., Hebblewhite, M., Berger, J., Elmhagen, B., Letnic, M., Nelson, M. P., et al. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1241484 · Cited by 3,667
The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability
Turner, B. L., Lambin, E. F., & Reenberg, A. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0704119104 · Cited by 2,216
Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes
Chapron, G., Kaczensky, P., Linnell, J. D. C., von Arx, M., Huber, D., Andrén, H., López-Bao, J. V., Adamec, M., Álvares, F., Anders, O., et al. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1257553 · Cited by 1,868
Wolves influence elk movements: Behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park
Fortin, D., Beyer, H. L., Boyce, M. S., Smith, D. W., Duchesne, T., & Mao, J. S. (2005) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/04-0953 · Cited by 1,351 · cited 2×
“Wolves influence elk movements: behavior shapes a trophic cascade in Yellowstone National Park.”
BackgroundHuman–Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence
Nyhus, P. J. (2016) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085634 · Cited by 1,007
People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence?
(2005) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511614774 · Cited by 731
Cited by
Kansky, R., & Kidd, M. (2024) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2024.110588 · Cited by 20
Metadata
- Authors
- König, H. J., Kiffner, C., Kramer‐Schadt, S., Fürst, C., Keuling, O., & Ford, A. T.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-05-14
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 786-794
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W3024411896
- Cited by
- 489
- References
- 56
- FWCI
- 25.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/cobi.13513
- The paper
- König, H. J., Kiffner, C., Kramer‐Schadt, S., Fürst, C., Keuling, O., & Ford, A. T. (2020). Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13513
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.