A Tool Box Half Full: How Social Science can Help Solve Human–Wildlife Conflict

There is a growing recognition among wildlife managers that focusing management on wildlife often provides a temporary fix to human–wildlife conflicts, whereas changing human behavior can provide long-term solutions. Human dimensions research of wildlife conflicts frequently focuses on stakeholders’ characteristics, problem identification, and acceptability of management, and less frequently on human behavior and evaluation of management actions to change that behavior. Consequently, little information exists to assess overall success of management. We draw on our experience studying human–bear conflicts, and argue for more human dimensions studies that focus on change in human behavior to measure management success. We call for help from social scientists to conduct applied experiments utilizing two methods, direct observation and self-reported data, to measure change in behavior. We are optimistic these approaches will help fill the managers’ tool box and lead to better integration of human dimensions into human–wildlife conflict management.

Weather Derivatives as a Potential Risk Management Tool for Irrigators

Irrigators in the Republican Basin and in parts of the North Platte Basin must learn to incorporate multiple year drought risk into their management plans, as they adapt to the limitations imposed by five-year pumping allocations. A major concern involves the implications of being water-short during the later years of the allocation period, because of an accumulative rainfall shortage or drought. Currently, producers can either ignore the risk of substantially lower incomes if their allocation is exhausted too soon, or reduce the risk by using less water early in the allocation period. The latter approach, however, may substantially reduce the present value of total net income over the five-year period. Alternatively, in the future it may be possible to use weather derivatives to manage income risk.