Reimagining habituation: The case for a reciprocal and contextual understanding

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorDoney, Ethan D.
dc.contributor.authorFry, Tom
dc.contributor.authorDonfrancesco, Valerio
dc.contributor.authorPettersson, Hanna
dc.contributor.authorNijhawan, Sahil
dc.contributor.authorClark, Douglas A.
dc.contributor.authorDriessen, Clemens
dc.contributor.authorAmpumuza, Christine
dc.contributor.authorSandbrook, Chris
dc.date.accessioned2025-10-01T09:30:00Z
dc.date.available2025-10-01T09:30:00Z
dc.date.issued2025-08-06
dc.description.abstractAs the frequency and intensity of human–wildlife interactions continue to rise, the process and outcomes of habituation are becoming more important. Commonly defined as ‘…a waning of response to a repeated, neutral stimuli’ or of similar wording, we argue that these conceptualisations of habituation are too simplistic in the context of direct human–wildlife interactions. We argue that much of the habituation literature has been one-sided (i.e. focused only on the nonhuman) and detriment-focused, failing to grasp the deep complexities of the process and its implications. We conducted a brief scoping review of the habituation literature to show how the term is being used by whom, and in what context. We sought to explore habituation from a broad disciplinary range and therefore included literature from ethology, behavioural ecology and conservation biology as well as disciplines less represented in mainstream conservation such as multispecies anthropology, political ecology and more-than- human geography. Supported by the scoping review, we illustrate that habituation as an outcome of human–wildlife interactions is (1) a nuanced, reciprocal process that is both understood and practised in diverse ways, with potentially negative and positive impacts for both people and wildlife and (2) is shaped by cultural, historical and political–economic contexts. We share four case examples based on our own research that justify and reinforce our arguments for reframing our understanding of habituation. Adopting more reciprocal and contextual conceptualisations of habituation will improve our collective understanding of how it occurs and how to find ways to adapt and coexist. We urge future research to explore these ideas and understandings through different geographical and species contexts and apply additional disciplinary approaches to understanding and managing human–wildlife interactions.
dc.identifier.citationDoney, E. D., Fry, T., Donfrancesco, V., Pettersson, H., Nijhawan, S., Clark, D. A., ... & Sandbrook, C. (2025). Reimagining habituation: The case for a reciprocal and contextual understanding. People and Nature.
dc.identifier.issnDOI: 10.1002/pan3.70140
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12493/2960
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherPeople and Nature
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United Statesen
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/
dc.subjectanimal agency
dc.subjectcoexistence
dc.subjectconservation
dc.subjecthabituation
dc.subjecthuman-animal studies
dc.subjecthuman-wildlife interaction
dc.titleReimagining habituation: The case for a reciprocal and contextual understanding
dc.typeArticle

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
People and Nature - 2025 - Doney - Reimagining habituation The case for a reciprocal and contextual understanding.pdf
Size:
445.98 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download

Collections

Institute of Tourism