This article explores a case of human–wildlife cohabitation in the Rodopi mountains of Bulgaria, wherein people and brown bears ( Ursus arctos) have adapted to living together in relative harmony. While this is due to a variety of factors, chief among these is the way both people and bears appear to pursue knowledge of one another and act on this knowledge so as to actively minimize potential for conflict. We draw on this case to contribute to growing discussion concerning how nonhumans should be understood and included within conservation policymaking. While conservation has conventionally been understood as something humans do on behalf of other species, a growing body of “more-than-human” research challenges this perspective as “anthropocentric” in arguing that nonhumans should be considered “co-constitutive actors” of the spaces they occupy. Based on this understanding, some go so far as to assert that a “multispecies ethics” demands that nonhumans be actively included in decision-making concerning such spaces’ governance. While our study indeed demonstrates that both humans and bears seem to mold their behavior in relation to their sensing of the other’s behavior, it also demonstrates that knowledge of bears’ behavior is ultimately always interpreted by humans in conservation management. Moreover, different groups of stakeholders hold different knowledge of bears that influence their attitudes and behavior towards the animals. The study thus raises important questions concerning how to incorporate bears (and other nonhumans) within conservation decision-making, and whose knowledge should be privileged in the process.
ROBUST DECISION-MAKING UNDER SEVERE UNCERTAINTY FOR CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT
