USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · 70274568

Resilience thinking for human-wildlife coexistence: Bridging dynamic systems, archetypes, and transformations

Abstract

As human activities and wildlife increasingly overlap in the Anthropocene, conventional conservation paradigms focused on land-sparing are shifting toward strategies that support human–wildlife coexistence. However, achieving sustainable coexistence is often hindered by a limited understanding of the dynamic social–ecological processes that drive integrated human–wildlife systems. This Special Issue explores “resilience thinking” as a scientific framework to address these knowledge gaps. By bridging sustainability and wildlife sciences, we examine how concepts such as adaptive capacity, feedback loops, system archetypes, and tipping points can illuminate the conditions that facilitate stable coexistence or lead to persistent conflict. Through diverse global case studies ranging from carnivore management in Europe to primate interactions in Indonesia, contributions highlight how societal perceptions, governance, and co-adaptation shape system trajectories. Ultimately, we argue that fostering durable coexistence requires moving beyond incremental adaptation toward transformative governance that centers on equity, relationality, and proactive management.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Neil H. Carter, Erin K. Buchholtz, Jenny Anne Glikman, A. Sofía Nanni, Mahi Puri. 2026-03-12. Resilience thinking for human-wildlife coexistence: Bridging dynamic systems, archetypes, and transformations. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-026-02359-1

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Wicked problems in practice: Responding to ecological transformation in wilderness

Congressionally designated wilderness offers the highest level of land protection in the USA, comparable to category 1b wilderness as defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, yet wilderness areas face impacts of climate change. Researchers and managers increasingly recognize the immense challenge of stewarding wilderness in a changing climate. Although responding to climate change is considered a wicked problem, this framing has not been applied to wilderness contexts. We move theory into practice by using wicked problem framing and four illustrative cases to explore how the resist–accept–direct (RAD) framework can help untangle the wicked problem of addressing unprecedented ecological transformation in wilderness. The RAD framework clarifies a range of response options including resisting transformation, accepting it, or directing it toward preferred new conditions. As climate change continues to challenge wilderness managers, the RAD framework can help assess trade-offs and preserve wilderness character into the twenty-first century.

Ambio

Bridging social and ecological science to create spatially-explicit models of human-caused mortality of carnivores

Research indicates that human-caused mortality (HCM) is a key factor limiting numerous large carnivore populations. However, efforts to represent HCM in spatially explicit models have generally been limited in scope—often relying on proxies, such as road or human density. Yet such efforts fail to distinguish different sources of HCM, which can arise from different antecedent processes. We offer a systems-based conceptual framework for understanding the antecedents of HCMs that is grounded in theory from the social and behavioral sciences. Specifically, we first explain how HCMs are usefully distinguished into four types (e.g., accidental, harvest, illicit, control actions), then discuss how these different types tend to be driven by different sets of psychological and sociopolitical processes. We contend that improvements in understanding the spatial variation in HCMs would rise from more explicit attention to the various antecedent processes that precede each mortality type.

Ambio

The decision maker’s lament: If I only had some science!

Environmental decision makers lament instances in which the lack of actionable science limits confident decision-making. Their reaction when the needed scientific information is of poor quality, uninformative, unintelligible, or altogether absent is often to criticize scientists, their work, or science in general. The considerations offered here encourage decision makers to explore alternative approaches to alleviate their disappointment. Ironically, many researchers lament the lack of support for the science they wish to deliver and accuse decision makers of failing to realize the value of the scientific studies they propose. Both communities would benefit by remembering that producing actionable science for a pending decision requires knowing the context for that decision beforehand. They may also look inward. Only then will they find answers to the question: What can I do within my own capacity to ensure that the necessary actionable science becomes available and facilitate its use to inform decisions?

Ambio