| Literature DB >> 29325579 |
Margarida Lopes-Fernandes1,2, Clara Espírito-Santo3,4, Amélia Frazão-Moreira5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ethnographic research can help to establish dialog between conservationists and local people in reintroduction areas. Considering that predator reintroductions may cause local resistance, we assessed attitudes of different key actor profiles to the return of the Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus) to Portugal before reintroduction started in 2015. We aimed to characterize a social context from an ethnoecological perspective, including factors such as local knowledge, perceptions, emotions, and opinions.Entities:
Keywords: Ethnoecology; Iberian lynx; Perceptions; Portuguese protected areas; Reintroduction
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29325579 PMCID: PMC5765628 DOI: 10.1186/s13002-017-0200-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ethnobiol Ethnomed ISSN: 1746-4269 Impact factor: 2.733
Fig. 1Study areas. a Iberian lynx distribution in 1990s (gray) and 2010s (black) with study area denoted. Adapted from Ward [79] with data from Delibes et al. [2] and Guzmán et al. [3]. b Sampling for social study in reintroduction area. Distribution of interviews in the study area
Number of interviews per key actor and geographical area
| Key actor | Moura-Barrancos | Guadiana | Malcata | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Land owners (including livestock breeders) | 9 | 9 | 5 | 23 |
| Local council representatives | 8 | 8 | 8 | 24 |
| Local nature conservation technicians (administration, NGOs, fiscalization) | 6 | 7 | 7 | 20 |
| Land and hunting managers | 6 | 8 | 2 | 16 |
| Hunting guards | 8 | 3 | 3 | 14 |
| Nature activity users and promoters (tourism, collectors, leisure) | 6 | 7 | 5 | 18 |
| Lynx observers | 9 | - | 7 | 16 |
| Total | 52 | 42 | 37 |
|
| Hunter | 26 | 19 | 15 | 60 |
| Non-hunter | 26 | 23 | 22 | 71 |
Percentage of opinions among informants about lynx reintroduction in Guadiana, Malcata, and Moura-Barrancos
| Opinion about reintroduction | Positive (%) | Ambivalence (%) | Negative (%) | Indifference or lack of opinion (%) | Indicates locations for reintroduction (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guadiana | 52 | 14 | 17 | 14 | 33 |
| Moura-Barrancos | 67 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 45 |
| Malcata | 89 | 0 | 8 | 3 | 92 |
Conditions for lynx presence indicated by interviewees (n) in the three geographical areas
| Conditions concerning reintroduction |
| Guadiana | Moura-Barrancos | Malcata | Key actors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher wild rabbit abundance | 55 | √ | √ | √a | Mainly land owners and local council representatives |
| Local awareness campaigns | 26 | √a | √ | √ | All key actors |
| Financial compensation | 22 | √a | √ | Not mentioned by lynx observers or nature activity users | |
| Reestablishment of agricultural practices for wild rabbit abundance | 20 | √ | √ | √a | |
| More suitable habitat for lynxes | 16 | √ | √ | √ | |
| Agreements with proprietors and hunters | 15 | √ | √ | √ | |
| No restrictions (to hunting and others) | 15 | √ | √ | √ | Not mentioned by land owners |
| Marketing of lynx as a tourist attraction | 4 | √ | √ | ||
| No hunting in lynx areas | 4 | √ | √ | ||
| Social acceptance | 3 | √ | √ | ||
| Hunting fee reduction | 2 | √ |
Absence of a tick signifies that the condition was not mentioned in the respective area
aThe condition was mentioned significantly more in that area (p < 0.05)
Fig. 2Knowledge about lynx’s diet, territory, and superpredator effect in the three different areas of study. In each graph, the categories more similar to scientific knowledge were “wild rabbit specialist or mainly rabbit” (diet), “≤ 5 km2” and “5–25 km2” (territory), and “knows that lynx has a superpredator effect” (superpredator effect)
Fig. 3Advantages and disadvantages of lynx reintroduction freely named by key actors. Frequency of occurrence and total number of answers indicated
Fig. 4Key actors’ impressions about protected areas. Percentages refer to occurrence of each opinion. Each key actor could express more than one opinion
Fig. 5Key actors’ impressions about conservation projects in their areas. Percentages refer to occurrence of each opinion. Each key actor could express more than one impression
Fig. 6Opinions about local participation in the process of reintroduction