[Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Wednesday, December 21, 2022, IP: 90.164.51.133] Conservation and Society 20(4): 345-357, 2022 Research Article Environmentalities of Coexistence with Wolves in the Cantabrian Mountains of Spain Agnese Marinoa,b,c,*, Juan Carlos Blancod, Jose A. Cortes-Vazqueze, José Vicente López-Baof, Anna Planella Boschg, Sarah M. Duranta a Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London, UK b Anthropology Department, University College London, London, UK c Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Consultores en Biologia de la Conservación, Madrid, Spain d e Department of Sociology and Communication, University of A Coruña, Coruña, Spain f Biodiversity Research Institute (CSIC–Oviedo University–Principality of Asturias), Mieres, Spain g Research Unit of Biodiversity, Oviedo University, Mieres, Spain * Corresponding author. E-mail: agnese.marino@uab.cat Abstract Coexistence between humans and large carnivores is mediated by diverse values and interactions. We focus on four sites in the Cantabrian Mountains of Spain with a history of continuous wolf presence to examine how perceptions of coexistence vary across contexts. We conducted semi-structured and informal interviews with livestock farmers (n = 271), hunters (n = 157), and local community members (n = 60) to collect quantitative and qualitative data on people’s experiences of coexistence with wolves. We use an environmentality framework to analyse approaches to wolf governance across sites and explore how local resource users perceive, negotiate, and respond to different governance approaches. Our analysis is firstly structured around coexistence subjectivities associated with pastoralist and hunter cultures. These encompass ambivalent and multi-layered relations founded on notions of reciprocity with nature and on resource users’ roles as producers and land stewards. Secondly, we explore encounters between local cultures, interests, and environmental regulations in the context of different site-based environmentalities. The framework we adopt enables coexistence to be conceived as a space of competing knowledges and practices, arising from everyday embodied interactions with wolves and the cultural politics through which local communities negotiate different ways of governing, knowing, and relating to nature. Keywords: Large Carnivores, Wolves, Canis lupus, Environmentality, Coexistence, Human-wildlife Conflict INTRODUCTION Access this article online Among a growing body of literature analysing ways in which Quick Response Code: nature is constructed and contested (Brosius 1999; Robbins 2012), Website: there has been a recent upsurge in interest in the application of www.conservationandsociety.org.in Michel Foucault’s post-structural theory of governmentality (2007; 2008) to the governance of people’s relations with DOI: nature (Fletcher and Cortes-Vasquez 2020). Seminal work 10.4103/cs.cs_66_21 by Luke (1999), Agrawal (2005), and Fletcher (2010) has laid the groundwork on which many other studies have Copyright: © Marino et al. 2022. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and distribution of the article, provided the original work is cited. Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow, Mumbai | Managed and supported by the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Bangalore. For reprints contact: WKHLRPMedknow_reprints@wolterskluwer.com [Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Wednesday, December 21, 2022, IP: 90.164.51.133] 346 / Marino et al. explored the relationships between environmental governance, management. The study was carried out before the species social change, and the creation of environmental subjects. was protected in all of Spain in 2021, when wolf management The theory of green governmentality or ‘environmentality’ was diverse and decentralised. We begin by presenting the (Luke 1999; Agrawal 2005) has been used to investigate conceptual debates surrounding the theory of environmentality how people perceive, relate to, and care about their and its critiques. We then explore different constellations of natural environment by focusing on encounters between environmentalities within existing formal wolf management different conservation regimes, local interests, and culture. systems across our four study sites. Next, we characterise To date, environmentality frameworks have primarily an informal, culturally-rooted mode of environmentality been applied to protected areas or ecotourism initiatives related to local farmer and hunter relations with the natural (Agrawal 2005; Erb 2012; Bluwstein 2017; Cortes-Vazquez and environment and their roles as producers and stewards of Ruiz-Ballesteros 2018). Here, instead, we apply the theory to the the local landscape. Finally, we explore local coexistence field of human-animal studies, focusing specifically on relations subjectivities resulting from the encounter between culture, between people and wolves under different management interests, and environmental regulations. In doing so, we aim regimes. Our analysis builds on Fletcher’s (2017) framework of to reveal the tensions and synergies that manifest as different multiple environmentalities whereby local culture and interests, environmentality approaches interact with each other and along with different systems of wolf management, contribute to with communities on the ground. By couching resource users’ shape local perceptions of coexistence with wolves. expressions of care and control towards wolves in a broader set Historically, in landscapes dedicated to livestock rearing, of livelihood practices, environmental relations, and political coexistence between people and wolves involved elaborate negotiations, we provide an understanding of local coexistence systems of livestock husbandry and wolf population control, that is often tense and ambivalent, but that nonetheless exhibits usually carried out by local communities or professional elements of conviviality. hunters. State intervention was generally limited, although parts of Europe and North America used significant THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK state-sanctioned bounties to promote wolf population control (Marvin 2012). This widespread persecution resulted in the Literature on the human dimensions of wildlife generally eradication of wolves throughout most of their historical interrogates the efficacy of policies and management tools range (Chapron et al. 2014). However, a growing international aimed at mitigating conflicts around carnivore presence by awareness of global environmental destruction during the measuring their impact on local attitudes. Research within second half of the twentieth century gave birth to national, this field often adopts quantitative scales to differentiate sub-, and supranational institutions that now govern relations between positive and negative attitudes (Treves et al. 2013; between people and nature to various extents (Luke 1999). Browne-Nuñez et al. 2015) focussing on the psychological and Thus, wolf management in some parts of the world has cognitive structures that form a linear pathway from beliefs changed from being a largely de-centralised eradication through to attitudes and behaviours (Zinn et al. 2000). Some regime to being an increasingly centralised conservation of this research has attempted to make sense of nature value regime. Its consolidation as an object of government by systems by placing them on an ecocentric-anthropocentric public institutions at different scales has been operationalised scale (Vaske and Donnely 1999) to describe whether nature through a range of species and habitat conservation policies, has intrinsic value or whether its value depends on how damage compensation schemes, and incentivised changes it benefits humans, or a mutualistic-dominionistic scale to livestock herding (e.g. Chapron et al. 2014). Meanwhile, (Dietsch et al. 2016) to discriminate between attitudes of care in Europe, agrarian structural changes have resulted in the and affiliation and attitudes of control and domination of nature. gradual abandonment of many rural areas. As the material, On the other hand, anthropological approaches that interrogate cultural, and political influence of rural practices and the role of culture in defining relations with the environment lifestyles declined, many landscapes underwent a process of problematise the application of prescriptive scales that originate ecological transformation. Together, these changes have led outside of the system under study and tend to enforce a dualistic to the recovery and expansion of wolves in many parts of vision of human-nature relations (Peterson et al. 2010). Europe (Cimatti et al. 2021), where communities who have Ethnographic approaches attempt to document human-nature traditionally coexisted with wolves and communities where relations from the point of view of local communities and on wolves have recently returned have had to negotiate new their own terms through the observation of everyday material ways of relating to the predator under the growing influence and discursive practice. Research following this approach has of external and evolving interests. facilitated an understanding of local relations with wildlife Here, we apply the theory of environmentality to examine as multi-layered and situated within a wider set of cultural how perceptions of coexistence with wolves are influenced by practices and belief systems concerning the nature and order current environmental regulations, local culture, and interests. of reality and humans’ role within it (Goldman et al. 2010; Our study takes place in four sites in the Cantabrian Mountains Pooley 2021; Montes et al. 2020). of Spain, characterised by historical coexistence with wolves Building on such approaches, studies in political ecology but different systems of environmental governance and wolf have focused on exploring the conflicting knowledges, [Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Wednesday, December 21, 2022, IP: 90.164.51.133] Environmentalities of wolf coexistence / 347 narratives, and meanings attributed to nature that underlie with wolves and the local landscape, our approach extends conservation conflicts (Adams 2015; Skogen et al. 2008). beyond a purely post-structural one, and aligns with literature Within such approaches, the concept of governmentality that adopts a phenomenological perspective to understand (Foucault 2007, 2008) or environmentality, when applied to the socio-ecological relations (Ingold 2000; Cortes-Vasquez and environment (Robbins 2012), has been used to trace the effects Ruiz-Ballesteros 2018; Fry 2020). In this context, there has of environmental regimes on local socio-ecological relations. been a recent spurt in studies focused on affective labour In its initial conception, governmentality was understood as and ecologies (Singh 2013, 2018), resonating with literature a form of disciplinary action intended to affect individuals, on convivial conservation that advocates for the cultivation extending into people’s intimate lives, subjectivities, and of intimate connections and engagements with nature practices. However, in his later work, Foucault (2008) (Büscher and Fletcher 2020). expanded this theory to include diverse modes of government. Our paper therefore attempts to bridge theories of As elaborated by Fletcher (2010, 2017) these have been applied environmentality and human-wildlife coexistence. It does so to define different ways of governing people’s relations with the by contributing an understanding of coexistence as rooted environment. The first approach, ‘sovereign environmentality’, in longstanding interactions between people and nature as is a top-down, fortress conservation or fences and fine approach well as negotiations between local resource users and wider (Brockington 2002). ‘Disciplinary environmentality’ aligns conservation regulations. The framework enables coexistence with the original conception of governmentality theory, to be conceived as an arena of competing knowledges and referring to policies that compel subjects to internalise practices (Montes et al. 2020). It expands notions of “what environmental values and ethics and to self-regulate, for counts as ‘political’” (Wang 2015, 323), by exploring example through awareness raising campaigns, or forms of wolf coexistence subjectivities through the constitutive participation in environmental management which infuse role of knowledge generated by higher-level governance environmental consciousness into everyday practices structures and institutions (i.e. ‘biopower from above’), and (Agarwal 2005). They may include economic incentives knowledge generated from embodied practices, local culture, if these are intended to change environmental values. and community governance arrangements (i.e. ‘biopower ‘Neoliberal, market, or incentive-driven environmentality’ is from below’). understood as a system of external incentive structures that motivate human behaviour without changing people’s views MATERIALS AND METHODS (Fletcher and Breitling 2012). It is based on a vision of humans as inherently self-interested and rational actors who behave to The Cantabrian Mountains, in northwest Spain, encompass maximise their economic opportunities (Büscher et al. 2012) deciduous forests, meadows, high pastures, and valleys. Whilst and refers to processes aimed at privatising or commodifying the largest towns in the mountain range have a history of coal nature, such as ecotourism and trophy hunting, but also refers to mining, the majority of settlements are small and interspersed welfare-based approaches such as agricultural or protected area throughout the landscape. Our four study sites, the private subsidies. Finally, ‘truth or culturally-rooted environmentality’ hunting grounds (PHGs) of León, the Regional Hunting Reserve is perhaps the least explored in current literature but has been (RHR) of Riaño, Cangas del Narcea, and Somiedo, span across associated with the cultural practices and belief systems two Autonomous Regions (the former two in Castile and León uncovered by anthropological enquiries into people’s spiritual, and the latter two in Asturias; Supplementary Materials 1). religious, and emotional attachment to nature, and into Local communities historically relied on mixed subsistence traditional ecological knowledge (Montes et al. 2020). A fifth farming of crops and livestock for both meat and dairy. This approach, developed from critiques that the environmentality involved seasonal herding of livestock from valleys to higher framework discounted agency (Cepek 2011; Fletcher and pastures and, in some cases, seasonal herding across longer Cortes-Vasquez 2020), is akin to a ‘community-driven distances (Arango Fernández 2011). A transition into more environmentality’ where local people have a participatory specialised meat cattle production began in the mid-twentieth or self-mobilising role in environmental governance century and was consolidated after Spain joined the European (Fletcher 2010). Multiple environmentalities may be at play Union in 1986. These changes resulted in a significant within any given conservation initiative (Fletcher 2017). They reduction in the number of livestock farmers but an overall may be in competition with each other, creating tensions on increase in cattle herd size, and the near disappearance of the ground, or they may be in synergy, enhancing one another. long-distance herding (Arango Fernández 2011). Environmentality theory has been critiqued for giving too In Cangas del Narcea and the PHGs of León, livestock little scope to history and affective and material connections farming became a secondary activity during the coal mining with the environment (Fletcher and Cortes-Vasquez 2020). boom but was revived in the 1990s as the mines were shut Our research falls within the environmentality literature that down, whilst in Somiedo and the RHR of Riaño, livestock focuses on the agency of local resource users and how they farming was always the main livelihood activity, only recently respond to conservation interventions (Cepek 2011). By being paralleled by the growth of the tourism sector. Somiedo understanding wolf coexistence subjectivities as both socially is an established UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, renowned for constructed and shaped by everyday material interactions brown bear tourism, while parts of Cangas and the RHR of [Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Wednesday, December 21, 2022, IP: 90.164.51.133] 348 / Marino et al. Riaño exist within protected areas. A gradual and relentless decentralised, and wolves in our study sites could be either process of depopulation at all four sites has resulted in an hunted or culled, provided the population remained within aging population and the abandonment of many small villages favourable conservation status (Trouwborst 2014). Spain’s (Arango Fernández 2011). Local communities have always Autonomous Regions are responsible for developing wolf coexisted with wolves, and wolf packs are present across all management plans, determining damage compensation, four study sites (MAPAMA 2014). allocating damage prevention funds, and determining rule Our study takes a mixed-method approach (Bernard 2011) to enforcement. At the time in which our study took place and explore resource users’ perceptions of coexistence with wolves specifically in the case of our field sites (Trouwborst 2014), across different environmental and wolf management regimes. Autonomous Regions were also responsible for deciding if We based our findings on data collected across these four study wolves were a game species (northern Castilla y León) or sites, consisting of: a survey of livestock owners (n = 271) were culled by rangers (Asturias), and setting hunting/culling and hunters (n = 157); semi- and unstructured interviews quotas. Some aspects of wolf governance further vary within with administrators, hunters, farmers, and other community regional territories, between protected areas, and regional and members (n = 70); happenstance conversations and participant private hunting reserves. observation. The latter was conducted by accompanying We used the environmentality framework to identify farmers as they herded and tended to livestock, grew, picked, differences in governance between the study sites, as well slaughtered, prepared, and consumed food. It also involved as areas of overlap and potential conflict between different participating in hunting social gatherings and other community approaches (Figure 1 and Supplementary Materials 1). celebrations and events. Each survey and interview lasted Elements of sovereign, disciplinary, market/incentive-driven, between 20 minutes and 1.5 hours. Fieldwork lasted a total of culturally-rooted, and community-driven environmentalities 15 months between 2015 and 2017. The surveyed livestock are present in each site but may be differentially prevalent. farmers were selected through a random and geographically For example, the PHGs of León exhibit strong elements of stratified sample based on the public registry of the Common market/incentive-driven environmentality, whereby damage Agricultural Policy (Supplementary Materials 2). Hunters compensation functions only through private insurance, and other members of the community were selected through licences to hunt wolves and other species used to be privately opportunistic snowball sampling. acquired, and there is limited government involvement in The survey consisted of multiple choice and Likert scale enforcing hunting rules. Somiedo, on the other hand, exhibits responses as well as open-ended questions. The qualitative strong elements of disciplinary environmentality. There, a data collected in the survey and interviews and the research public damage compensation system, additional subsidies for fieldnotes were analysed thematically (Braun and Clarke 2006). farmers, and the protected area’s promotion of ecotourism are Owing to discrepancies in official data (Marino et al. 2018), intended to promote more tolerant perceptions of wildlife. we relied on farmers’ assessments of livestock lost to wolves in the full two years before the interview for our assessments Culturally-Rooted Environmentalities of livestock depredations (Supplementary Materials 2). The following sections provide an analysis of, firstly, the different In line with other scholarship, we understand ‘truth’ or environmentality approaches present in each study site based culturally-rooted environmentalities as encompassing forms of on information collected in policy documents and interviews; traditional ecological knowledge and broader systems of beliefs secondly, resource users’ culturally-rooted relations with and cultural practice regarding the order of nature and humans’ nature based on data collected in interviews and participant place within it (Erb 2012; Montes et al. 2020). Resource observation; and finally, common and place-specific wolf users from across our study sites viewed their landscape as coexistence subjectivities based on the quantitative and a bountiful environment, moulded and made productive by qualitative data collected in the surveys and interviews. centuries of human activity and labour. Livestock farming was considered a defining element of the local ecology, RESULTS giving the landscape shape, meaning, and purpose. Human engagements with the environment encompassed relations of Environmentality Approaches Present in the Study care, production, extraction, and control, performed through Areas everyday sensorial and embodied practices of pastoral labour and stewardship. Wolf management in Spain is regulated by regional management The daily tasks of care carried out by farmers towards plans and national laws, as well as supranational regulations their livestock included herding and checking on them in such as the Bern Convention (ratified by Spain in 1986) and high pastures, feeding and sheltering livestock in the winter, the EU Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC), which nurturing the young and sick, and delivering births through require healthy wolf populations to be maintained. In 2021, long hours in the night-time. Farmers also fertilised soils to following a ministerial decree, wolves became a protected grow cattle feed and cultivated vegetable gardens, fruit trees, species in all of Spain (TED/980/2021), but at the time of and beehives. Alongside these acts of care, there exist also our field research (2015–2017), management was heavily practices that restrain, control, inflict pain, and kill livestock. [Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Wednesday, December 21, 2022, IP: 90.164.51.133] Environmentalities of wolf coexistence / 349 Figure 1 Summary of wolf environmentality approaches present in each study site in 2015–2017. Darker greys represent a stronger prevalence of the respective approaches. *PA: Protected Area; **RA: Regional Administration Farmers separated calves from the herd and constrained Hunting was believed by some to protect vulnerable game their movement for priming, and they transported livestock from carnivores, control disease, reduce consanguinity, and to faraway places through arduous journeys or slaughtered prevent undesirable behaviours such as infanticide: “Before, and consumed them at home. Although resource users nature used to control itself. But from the moment man often differentiated between wild and domestic spaces, and became sedentary and put his hands on nature, species no lamented when wildlife transgressed barriers, acts of pastoral longer control themselves. Nature must be managed now.” care and control extended beyond domestic livestock to also (hunter in Cangas). encompass wildlife and landscape management. Hunting, tree Humans were, for the most part, understood as the most felling, and shrub burning were mostly seen as ecologically important actors in the local environment but in no way viewed beneficial interventions. Fire was often understood to have themselves as separate from it. Rather, they engaged in daily regenerative qualities, and managed forests to be healthier reciprocal relations with nature. Pastures and forests should not than those untouched by humans. On some occasions, be left to waste: “one must take advantage of (aprovechar) the hunters were known to provide supplementary feeding to pastures” (farmer in RHR of Riaño); while at the same time, game during harsh winters, and overall viewed hunting as livestock carcasses were believed to have been an important a necessary form of population control for many species. food source for large carnivores in the past, used as a way of [Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Wednesday, December 21, 2022, IP: 90.164.51.133] 350 / Marino et al. “taming” wolves (farmer in PHGs of León) and enabling a The wolf’s contribution to maintaining an ecological balance more peaceful coexistence. in the landscape was not necessarily denied (Figure 2d) but Social memories of past hardships, scarcity, and perseverance was considered secondary to the role played by humans. were reflected in farmers’ accounts of the current crisis of the “Here wild animals don’t maintain the natural balance because livestock breeding sector. Declining agricultural subsidies humans control wild animals…. (but later says) wolves do us and stalling sale prices were considered primary threats to a favour because they keep disease in check” (farmer in RHR viable livelihoods for small-scale farmers. In the context of of Riaño). ‘Conservation through control’ generally referred to structural disadvantage and an aging and dwindling local maintaining the damages caused by wolves at acceptable levels, population, resource users saw themselves as inhabiting a space but some informants alluded to a level of control that would of historical and contemporary marginality. Land abandonment most likely reduce the population to unsustainable levels. Some and depopulation dominated resource users’ perceptions of mentioned that wolves should be conserved in enclosures or their surroundings and were seen to negatively affect the social that they should be completely eradicated. and environmental quality of the landscape. Reasons behind negative attitudes toward wolves were primarily associated with damages to livestock. Wolves were Common Coexistence Subjectivities perceived as a threat to livestock by the majority of farmers in most field sites and by a slight minority in the PHGs of León Resource users’ views about coexistence with wolves in many (Figure 2e). Wolf depredations varied considerably across ways reflected how they viewed their place in the landscape. the study sites: 71% of farmers claimed to have suffered Across all study sites, farmers overwhelmingly believed damages over the past two years in Somiedo, 66% in the that wolves belong to the nature of their area (Figure 2c) RHR of Riaño, 51% in Cangas, and 38% in the PHGs of León but were divided over the importance of conserving them (Supplementary Materials 2). On average, in 2015, farmers (Figure 2a). Overall, farmers who did not believe it is claimed to have lost between 0.31–1.89 livestock heads and important to conserve wolves were in a slight majority between 0.13–1.53 meat cattle heads at each site. Farmers (Figure 2a), as were those who felt that wolves do not help spoke of the economic impacts of wolves and the burden that maintain nature’s equilibrium (Figure 2d). Hunters’ attitudes wolves placed on their herding practices. towards wolf conservation were instead predominantly Farmers also spoke of the emotional effect of losing or positive: most either agreed or were neutral regarding the witnessing injury to livestock and lamented the government’s importance of conserving wolves (Figure 1a in Supplementary and urban environmentalists’ reluctance to take responsibility Materials 4) and felt that wolves enriched their experience for depredations by compensating damages fairly or through of nature (Figure 1b in Supplementary Materials 4). Positive wolf population control (Figures 2m and 2n). Finally, wolves attitudes toward wolves were sometimes expressed in terms of the joy experienced in seeing and knowing they exist but, more were portrayed both as a cause and as a symbol of depopulation often, informants referred to their longstanding coexistence owing to their perceived threat to local farming practices. The with wolves as evidence of their tolerance. perceived increase in wolf numbers (Figure 2j) was reported Habituation to wolves meant that their presence was not as causing some farmers to abandon livestock keeping. But viewed as extraordinary, but rather, informants who showed even more powerful was the metaphor of wild wolves taking tolerance towards wolves saw them as just another animal: over once populated and productive landscapes. Despite these “It’s not important to have wolves, but they have always narratives, the field sites exhibit cautious evidence of a type of existed” (farmer in Somiedo); “I can hear wolves howling coexistence laden with conflict yet not entirely defined by it. at night (Do you enjoy it?) I don’t hate it” (hunter in PHGs The majority believed that wolves had a place in the landscape of León). Some also expressed tolerance for a certain and that their presence could be tolerated if their management level of damage, claiming that “(wolves) too must eat” were made compatible with the local vision of an ordered and (farmer in Somiedo). Farmers’ habituation to wolf presence productive landscape (Figure 2f). was often reflected in their livestock herding practices and damage prevention measures. Although farmers have Place-based Coexistence Subjectivities abandoned traditional systems of collectivised livestock shepherding (Arango Fernández 2011), most protected their Despite many common aspects to resource users’ views across livestock during the birthing season by keeping the young in all sites, there are also important differences. Perceptions nearby fields, and around one-quarter of them owned livestock of carnivores are known to vary even at small scales guarding dogs (Supplementary Materials 5). (Piédallu et al. 2016), and although our results show that wolf Farmers across all sites overwhelmingly believed that the depredations were significant predictors of certain attitudes wolf population would keep increasing unless it was controlled towards wolves, damages did not alone explain the variation (Figure 2l), and most felt that there were too many wolves in attitudes between study sites (Supplementary Materials 2). in their area (Figure 2k). Most farmers and hunters spoke of In the following sections, we trace the interplay between the “conservation through control”, referring to their acceptance coexistence subjectivities described above and the multiple and that wolves belonged to the landscape but required management. overlaying environmentality approaches present in each site. [Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Wednesday, December 21, 2022, IP: 90.164.51.133] Environmentalities of wolf coexistence / 351 Figure 2 Descriptive plots of the items measuring farmers’ attitudes towards wolves on a 3-point Likert scale. Significance (* = P < 0.05; ** = P < 0.01; *** = P < 0.001) is indicated: a) below each plot using Kruskal–Wallis tests across all study sites; and b) above each plot using Wilcoxon post hoc tests to examine differences between individual sites. All tests used Bonferroni adjustments (Supplementary Materials 3). N = 69 in PHGs of León; 59 in RHR of Riaño; 76 in Cangas; 67 in Somiedo PHGS of León (Castilla y León) hunting system, there are elements of a community-driven The PHGs of León had the most decentralised system of wildlife environmentality approach as local democratically elected governance of all four sites (Figure 1 and Supplementary Neighbourhood Associations are holders and beneficiaries of Materials 1). Wolves were listed as a game species, wolf and hunting rights on public lands. other hunting permits were acquired privately, and hunting Upon first glance, the privatised and community-managed management was devolved to license holders. Privately hunting systems of the PHGs of León appeared to support each employed rangers accompany hunters, and the damage other, as the hunting of wolves and other species generated compensation system functions through private insurance significant revenue for local Neighbourhood Associations and (Marino et al. 2018). Alongside a strongly market-driven also allowed hunters a high level of autonomy over wildlife [Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Wednesday, December 21, 2022, IP: 90.164.51.133] 352 / Marino et al. management. However, deeper enquiry revealed tensions informants claimed that the wolf’s trophy value was limited between the two approaches, as some hunters reported that compared to the value of its prey, and through discursive the market-driven hunting system, based on concessions sold expressions that linked domestic and wild animals, exhibited to the highest bidder, excluded local hunters: “hunting is for a strong sense of ownership over wild game: “if wolves don’t the rich” (hunter). Stronger decentralisation and weaker rule cause damages to domestic livestock, they cause them to wild enforcement in the PHGs of León resulted in an interesting livestock” (hunter)… “(the regional administration) should combination of attitudes towards wolves. This site showed compensate wolf damages to wild game too because they take the lowest level of declared (Supplementary Materials 2) money away from the town” (hunter)… “in the end, breeding and perceived (Figure 2e) damages to livestock, and the wolves is more expensive than (the revenue) tourism brings most open and relaxed attitudes towards wolf poaching in” (farmer). In this case, ‘market-driven’ perceptions of (Supplementary Materials 6), sometimes justified by the lack wildlife as a commodity that is owned and traded may have of damage compensation. Despite having a less advantageous been strengthened by a regional development policy marked compensation system from the regional administration, farmers by austerity measures, which according to some informants in the PHGs of León were less likely to claim their tolerance had increased rural towns’ financial dependency on hunting. would increase with improved compensation (Figure 2m), suggesting they appreciated the decentralised system in place. Cangas del Narcea and Somiedo (Asturias) Finally, hunters (Supplementary Materials 4) and farmers Cangas del Narcea and Somiedo’s wolf management strategies were significantly more likely to claim that wolves enrich tend towards sovereign and disciplinary environmentalities their experience of nature (Figure 2b) and to be more tolerant (Figure 1). Neither treated wolves as a game species; instead, of the size of wolf population (Figure 2k). The apparent open wolf culling was carried out by rangers and wolf damages were and relaxed attitudes towards the illegal killing of wolves and fully compensated by the Regional Administration. However, positive emotional attachment to wolves are seemingly in the two sites have different land tenure systems and histories. contrast with each other but could be explained by the high In Cangas del Narcea, conflicts between private landowners, value local resource users placed on their autonomy and their community land tenure arrangements, and the protected role in maintaining their vision of a natural balance: “Wolves area created by the Regional Administration have resulted carry out a good selection of wild prey, they take out the sick in legal challenges (Marino 2019), reflecting fundamental ones. I like to see them and I also hunt them. It would be better tensions between neoliberal, community, and sovereign if the regional government did not do anything, we can control environmentality approaches. In Somiedo, on the other hand, them perfectly” (hunter). most land is public, and the protected area is well-established and viewed relatively positively by local residents (Marino RHR of Riaño (Castilla y León) 2019). The Somiedo Natural Park coincided with, and resulted Compared to the PHGs of León, the RHR of Riaño in, important investments in the area (Arango Fernández 2011), shows a stronger influence of disciplinary and sovereign and successfully established a narrative that emphasises the environmentalities (Figure 1 and Supplementary Materials 1). biocultural uniqueness of the site. Hunting revenue is reinvested in the local community but most Even though reported livestock depredations from is managed by the Regional Administration, hunters are always wolves in Somiedo were higher than in Cangas del Narcea accompanied by Regional Administration rangers, and wolf (Supplementary Materials 2), we did not observe any major damages are fully compensated by the Regional Government. differences in local attitudes and beliefs about wolves between Out of the four sites, the RHR of Riaño is the best-known the two sites (Figure 2). Furthermore, wolf poaching was destination for wolf tourism. Our results show that although reportedly less frequent in Somiedo than in all the other sites resource users from Riaño had a more positive view of wolf (only 6% of farmers claimed that wolves were killed illegally tourism than resource users elsewhere (Figures 2h and 2i), in the area, compared to 61% in the PHGs of León, 17% in the they did not have noticeably more positive views of wolves RHR of Riaño, and 13% in Cangas del Narcea; Supplementary (Figures 2a–2e). In this respect, some informants from the RHR Materials 6). Greater law enforcement, compared with that in of Riaño claimed that wolf tourism promoted a romanticised the PHGs of León and Cangas del Narcea, might explain lower vision of wilderness and misrepresented the reality of levels of reported wolf poaching in Somiedo, influencing either coexistence. Such claims do not mean that wolf tourism is the occurrence of illegal behaviour or people’s willingness incompatible with local aspirations and activities. However, to discuss it. Informants in Somiedo almost always referred they indicate the potential for tensions between the intended to the patrolling activities of rangers and the consequences disciplinary effect of wildlife tourism initiatives and resource of being caught as the main reason why wolves were not users’ culturally-rooted relations with nature. Additionally, poached “people don’t (poach) out of fear of the consequences some informants also wanted revenue from wolf tourism (…) before people did it all the time, but now there are laws” to be distributed differently, by contributing payments to (farmer). However, resource users also claimed that the higher Neighbourhood Associations. Finally, our analysis of the RHR levels of rule compliance were an outcome of internalised of Riaño reveals that the dependence of local communities on norms: “people are aware that it is not allowed, they have hunting revenue at times fuelled hostility towards wolves. Some internalised it, that’s what the regional administration is for [Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Wednesday, December 21, 2022, IP: 90.164.51.133] Environmentalities of wolf coexistence / 353 (to control the wolf population)” (farmer). These accounts to encompass wildlife in similar ways. This supports other suggest that in Somiedo, the disciplinary effects of law research which has shown that familiarity and everyday enforcement and productive alliances with park authorities interactions with nature can pre-empt or blur conceptual worked to constrain local practices. Yet these arrangements did dichotomies between nature and culture and between wilderness not directly affect local subjectivities, as informants in Somiedo and domesticity (Bobbé 1993; Ingold 2000; Descola 2013). openly criticised the regional administration’s management Many local farmers are not opposed to wolf conservation, of wolves and shared similar views on wolf conservation as and instead favour an approach that might be summarised as informants from the other sites (Figure 2a). Coexistence in ‘conservation through control’. This is a view of coexistence in Somiedo, therefore, appears to be sustained through a system which population control and reciprocity are prevalent features, in which livestock and hunting practices are valued elements and where people play a central role in maintaining a productive of the natural environment, and the economy of the area is landscape (Bobbé 1993; Lescureux and Linnell 2010). supported by public investment and tourism. Grounding such views in wider notions that local resource users hold about the landscape and their place within DISCUSSION it, can help explain the origin and symbolic importance attributed to wolf control. It has important implications The Cantabrian Mountains’ diverse wolf management systems for resource users’ sense of autonomy and place, and is and long history of coexistence offer fertile grounds to explore also embedded within husbandry and production-oriented the wider cultural and political contexts in which relations subjectivities tied to farmers’ self-concepts as producers with wolves are situated. The field sites we examined all (Wilson 2001; Burton 2004). Through this lens, wolves encompass varying approaches that govern local relations become enrolled in struggles over the legitimacy, sustainability, with wolves: culturally-rooted environmentalities based on and persistence of pastoral livelihoods and practices worldviews and practices that define the role of humans in (Krange and Skogen 2007). By extension, they also become nature; community-based arrangements through which local entangled in wider narratives of depopulation that link to the institutions play an active role in managing coexistence; subsidy disappearance of inhabited and productive landscapes and of or market-based mechanisms intended to offset the costs of the livelihoods and practices that sustain them (Rippa 2021). coexisting with wolves; disciplinary conservation approaches Our analysis suggests that culturally-rooted and community- intended to promote positive attitudes and behaviours towards based environmentality approaches are closely linked, they wolves; and sovereign approaches intended to regulate and mutually constitute and reinforce each other, and in this sense, enforce the protection of wolves and land. Our study reveals the neither can really be understood without the other. The pastoral ways in which multiple environmentalities are at play within traditions of husbandry and stewardship evoked by farmers any given wolf governance system, showing how they are are rooted in history and culture, but they are also strategic sometimes aligned, and other times in tension with each other. political articulations (Li 2000; Escobar 2001). Appeals to the sustainability of their livelihoods and environmental practices Synergies Between Environmentalities were instrumental in resource users’ claims of autonomy and self-determination. Data from across our field sites show that social relations with wolves are embedded within a broader set of Tensions Between Environmentalities human-environment relations (see also Montes et al. 2020). Habituation to wolves and longstanding coexistence produced Our case studies furthermore contribute to a growing body some degree of tolerance, suggesting that resource users’ of literature documenting a misalignment between top-down relations with wolves are shaped not just by a socially policy and local subjectivity, and highlighting how people constructed reality influenced by top-down approaches, but may resist, reinterpret, and navigate environmental and also by embodied, everyday experiences of material and development initiatives (Wilson 2001; Heatherington 2010; intimate interactions with nature (Singh 2013, 2018). In our Homewood 2010; Cepek 2011). In our case, the more sites, culturally-rooted environmentalities encompass relations developed wolf tourism sector in the RHR of Riaño did not with the landscape as a whole, through livelihood practices result in higher tolerance for wolves when compared with and lived experiences, and with wolves in particular, through the other sites. The creation of a protected area in Cangas habituation and repeated interactions that include livestock met resistance from local resource users and has coincided depredations and forms of wolf population control. Local with extensive illegal fires (Marino 2019). Wildlife tourism, resource users viewed their activities and familiar engagements park subsidies, and narratives of sustainable development with nature as central in promoting and maintaining a natural in Somiedo did not result in more positive perceptions of balance (see also Kaltenborn et al. 2013). Although informants wolves compared to other sites. These are examples where appeared to hold separate notions of wild and domestic spaces policy interventions have not produced the expected change and entities, the boundaries between the two were permeable, in coexistence subjectivities. Other research has doubted the suggesting that concepts of care, control, and sometimes extent to which subjects’ worldviews can be colonised and ownership extended beyond farmers’ relations with livestock has shown how individuals exposed to interventions may [Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Wednesday, December 21, 2022, IP: 90.164.51.133] 354 / Marino et al. mould their practices to comply with new requirements and (see also Agarwala et al. 2010). Management tools and policies regulations, while still retaining their own views and beliefs are not experienced in isolation, but rather they depend on and (Scott 1985; Manfredo et al. 2017; Cortes-Vazquez and interact with each other and with realities on the ground. Our Ruiz-Ballesteros 2018). In the case of Somiedo, compliance case studies exemplify some of the difficulties of balancing with rules did not result from a disciplinary approach that the level of autonomy granted in wolf management with changed how local communities viewed wolves but may have social and conservation goals. On the one hand, a centralised emerged from a productive alliance between park authorities wolf governance system in Somiedo, strongly influenced by and local resource users (see also Forsyth and Walker 2014). sovereign and disciplinary approaches, was associated with Our results also exemplify contexts in which high damages and negative attitudes towards wolves but limited incentive- or market-based mechanisms conflict with reported poaching; on the other, a decentralised governance community and culturally-rooted environmentalities and system in the PHGs of León, strongly influenced by neoliberal raise questions regarding the extent to which conservation and community-driven approaches, was associated with low approaches that rely solely on economic incentives may result damages, positive attitudes towards wolves, and yet high in positive conservation and social outcomes. Our data show levels of reported poaching. In our cases, greater autonomy that economic incentives alone, particularly ones that are in wolf management was linked to more positive attitudes insensitive to community governance structures and antagonise but not necessarily to more conservation friendly practices. culturally-rooted relations with nature, may fail to enhance Although this inference relies on informants’ openness to coexistence with wolves. In the PHGs of León, the privatised discuss poaching and conclusions drawn from it should be hunting system provided revenue to local communities, but tentative, it does point to the importance of examining not just limited local hunters’ access. In the RHR of Riaño, support how people perceive wildlife but also how they interact with for using wolves to attract tourism was higher than elsewhere, it. It brings to the forefront the practices with which people but tourism existed uneasily alongside local conceptions of establish relations with wildlife and on which they build their nature, and disagreements persisted over how tourism revenue own understanding of what it means to coexist. should be distributed. This draws attention to the significance The inconsistency between coexistence subjectivities and of tourism as a “loaded moral territory” (Mostafanezhad practices we identify in this study has important implications and Hannam 2014) in which encounters between different for how coexistence is understood. Our results contrast with worldviews unfold (Erb 2012; Martínez Álvarez et al. 2020). behavioural science theories (Ajzen 1991) often adopted Overall, informants were doubtful about claims that wolf in traditional human dimensions studies, which posit a hunting and tourism could offset the economic costs of universal and one-way relationship between attitudes and coexistence. This was exacerbated where reported reductions behaviours. Rather, and in line with other environmentality in public funding from the regional administration seemed to research, our case studies emphasise the role of environmental have increased the dependency of local communities on income practices in shaping subjectivities, and the ways in which generated by ungulate hunting. Whilst revenue generated from both subjectivities and practices result from situated and wolf hunting was meant to promote support for wolves, the complex negotiations between individuals and governmentality much greater revenue generated by ungulate hunting served approaches (Cepek 2011; Singh 2013; Cortes-Vazquez to intensify competition between hunters and wolves over and Ruiz-Ballesteros 2018). In the case of Somiedo, such wild prey. Moreover, sites with better compensation for wolf negotiations can result in communities upholding conservation damages were not associated with higher tolerance for wolves. behaviours, whilst still maintaining their fundamental views. Our analysis illustrates the limits of neoliberal approaches to As a whole, our approach highlights the importance of conservation (Büscher and Fletcher 2020; Apostolopoulou exploring the processes of cultural politics resulting in and Adams 2015), and the strengths of culturally-rooted what Heatherington refers to as “identit(ies) fraught with approaches that recognise the importance of engaging with layers of hybridity and ambivalence” (2010, 8). Our data pastoral traditions and local visions of landscape and nature on resource users’ perceptions of wolves depict a reality (Heatherington 2010; Peterson et al. 2010). of coexistence that is never free of conflict but where, nonetheless, locals overwhelmingly believe that wolves Multi-layered and Ambivalent Coexistence Subjectivities belong to the local landscape and show more positive attitudes and Practices towards wolves than those reported on average in Europe (Dressel et al. 2015). Underlying these results is a simultaneous Our results have implications for how coexistence is managed capacity for tolerance of wolves alongside a desire to control and highlight the usefulness of place-based accounts that their behaviours and populations, sometimes to potentially complicate our understanding of coexistence and conviviality unsustainable levels. In this context, categorisations that in productive ways. They show that without rule enforcement, see conflict and coexistence as opposites (Frank et al. 2019) the legal hunting of wolves does not necessarily result in and dominionistic and mutualistic values as unreconcilable lower levels of poaching (see also Louchouarn et al. 2021), (Manfredo et al. 2016) may be inappropriate. Instead, the and that public compensation programs are not necessarily notion of reciprocity on which local relations with wolves associated with higher levels of tolerance of damages are built, encompasses acts of control as well as stewardship [Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Wednesday, December 21, 2022, IP: 90.164.51.133] Environmentalities of wolf coexistence / 355 (Goldman et al. 2010; Lescureux and Linnell 2010; Fry 2022). our study reveals the potential for conservation approaches to In our case studies, perceptions of wolves and other wildlife improve collaborations with existing coexistence mechanisms appear to be closely linked to farmers’ roles as producers and local notions of stewardship. Such an effort depends on and to the relations of dominance and care that they extend a cultural and political understanding of how local resource to domestic livestock. In this way, proximity, habituation, users negotiate their own life and place-making projects in the and close engagement with nature and animals may result context of wider conservation policy. in a type of coexistence that, if altogether different from mainstream and predominantly dualistic conceptualisations Supplementary Material: https://bit.ly/3o8usti (Sandbrook 2015), still exhibits elements of moderate tolerance and conviviality. This is a view of conviviality which Author contribution statement values non-idealised, everyday environmentalisms built on intimate engagements with nature and carried out in lived, AM conceived the study, collected and analysed the data, and biocultural landscapes where traditional knowledge and local drafted the manuscript; SMD contributed to the first draft; APC practices are acknowledged components of the local ecology contributed to the data collection; JCB, JACV, JVLB, and SMD (Büscher and Fletcher 2020; Toncheva et al. 2022). contributed critical revisions of the manuscript. CONCLUSION Acknowledgements In this paper, we analyse the cultural contexts and political We would like to acknowledge the time and knowledge that negotiations through which coexistence with wolves our informants and local contacts contributed to this research. is shaped. Our analysis reveals a complex and at times We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable ambivalent experience of coexistence by local resource users, input, Katherine Homewood for revising earlier versions of which is mediated by everyday engagements with nature as the manuscript, and Oriol Campi for his data collection efforts. well as conservation and management regimes. Resource users’ perceptions of wolves emerged as embedded within Conflict of interest wider human-environment relations, and closely linked to stewardship and production-oriented pastoralist traditions. The authors declare no competing interests in the conduct of As such, they are largely founded on notions of reciprocity this research. spanning both relations of care and control. Whilst we argue that these relations must be understood as rooted in history, Financial Disclosures culture, daily labour, and practice, they are also means through which resource users articulate their identity and A. Marino was supported by a NERC doctoral scholarship negotiate autonomy with top-down management regimes. The and the Royal Geographic Society Frederick Soddy expressions of convivial relations that we report in this study Award. The research contributes to the “María de Maeztu” offer a vision of coexistence that is far from idealised. Instead, Programme for Units of Excellence of the Spanish Ministry they are fraught with everyday conflicts and contradictions. of Science and Innovation (CEX2019-000940-M). J.V. These contradictions are exemplified by the fact that many López-Bao was supported by the Spanish Ministry of resource users expressed both tolerance and acrimony Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (RYC-2015-18932; towards wolves, but they also manifest through the multiple CGL2017-87528-R AEI/FEDER EU) and by a GRUPIN inconsistencies we reported between the intended effects of research grant IDI/2021/000075 from the Regional conservation approaches and the responses of those who are Government of Asturias. The other authors were not funded exposed to them. Our framework facilitates an understanding by any agency for their work. of how different ways of knowing and governing human-nature relations encounter each other, comingle, or collide, thereby Research Ethics Approval shaping individual experiences of coexistence and resulting in unexpected combinations of subjectivities and practices. Our research obtained ethical approval following a formal The prominent role that labour and material expressions of ethical review at the Institute of Zoology, ZSL, specifically care and control play in shaping coexistence subjectivities in designed to monitor the social impacts of the research. The our analysis brings environmentality theories beyond a purely Committee had a balance of ZSL staff and external members post-structural approach, and aligns with theoretical currents (Ref: I-FM12, approved on 11/5/2016). that emphasise practice-based engagements with nature (Ingold 2000; Singh 2013; Cortes-Vazquez and Ruiz-Ballesteros 2018; Data Availability Martínez-Reyes 2016). By applying environmentality theories to the field of human-animal studies, we expose coexistence as Our data cannot be made available to third parties as we do not an arena of competing knowledges and practices, but also as a have permission from our informants to do so. Furthermore, space of possible synergies and productive alliances. Overall, we wish to be careful in this respect as our research addresses [Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Wednesday, December 21, 2022, IP: 90.164.51.133] 356 / Marino et al. sensitive topics, and we want to avoid our data being used out Cortes-Vazquez, J.A. and E. Ruiz-Ballesteros. 2018. Practising nature: a of context. Moreover, our qualitative dataset is extensive and phenomenological rethinking of environmentality in natural protected areas in Ecuador and Spain. Conservation and Society 16(3): 232–242. contains some sensitive and confidential information. Descola, P. 2013. Beyond nature and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Preprint Archiving Dietsch, A.M., T.L. Teel, and M.J. Manfredo. 2016. Social values and biodiversity conservation in a dynamic world. Conservation Biology We have not published any pre-review or pre-print versions 30(6): 1212–1221. of this manuscript. Dressel, S., C. Sandström, and G. Ericsson. 2015. A meta-analysis of studies on attitudes toward bears and wolves across Europe 1976–2012. Conservation Biology 29: 565–574. REFERENCES Erb, M. 2012. The dissonance of conservation: environmentalities and the environmentalisms of the poor in Eastern Indonesia. The Raffles Bulletin Adams, W.M. 2015. The political ecology of conservation conflicts. of Zoology 25: 11–23. In: Conflicts in conservation: navigating towards solutions (eds. Redpath S.M., R.J. Gutiérrez, K.A. Wood, et al.). Cambridge: Escobar, A. 2001. Culture sits in places: reflections on globalism and subaltern Cambridge University Press. strategies of localization. Political Geography 20(2): 139–174. Agarwala, M., S. Kumar, A. Treves, et al. 2010. Paying for wolves in Solapur, Fletcher, R. 2010. Neoliberal environmentality: towards a poststructuralist India and Wisconsin, USA: comparing compensation rules and practice political ecology of the conservation debate. Conservation and Society to understand the goals and politics of wolf conservation. Biological 8(3): 171–181. Conservation 143: 2945–2955. Fletcher, R. 2017. Environmentality unbound: multiple governmentalities in Agrawal, A. 2005. Environmentality: technologies of government and the environmental politics. Geoforum 85: 311–315. making of subjects. Durham and London: Duke University Press. Fletcher, R. and J. Breitling. 2012. Market mechanism or subsidy in disguise? Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behaviour Governing payment for environmental services in Costa Rica. Geoforum and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211. 43: 402–411. Apostolopoulou, E. and W.M. Adams. 2015. Neoliberal capitalism and Fletcher, R. and J.A. Cortes-Vazquez. 2020. Beyond the green panopticon: conservation in the post-crisis era: the dialectics of ‘green’ and ‘un-green’ new directions in research exploring environmental governmentality. grabbing in Greece and the UK. Antipode 47(1): 15–35. Environment & Planning E: Nature and Space 3(2): 289–299. Arango Fernández, J. 2011. Somiedo: de la transhumancia al parque natural. Forsyth, T. and A. Walker. 2014. Hidden alliances: rethinking environmentality Oviedo: Ayuntamiento de Somiedo and KRK Ediciones. and the politics of knowledge in Thailand′s campaign for community forestry. Conservation and Society 12(4): 408–417. Bernard, H.R. 2011. Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches. 5th edition. Plymouth: Altamira Press. Foucault, M. 2007. Security, territory, population. Lectures at the Collège de France 1977-78. (ed. Senellart, M.). Palgrave Macmillan. Bluwstein, J. 2017. Creating ecotourism territories: environmentalities in Tanzania’s community-based conservation. Geoforum 83: 101–113. Foucault, M. 2008. The birth of biopolitics. Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-79. (ed. Senellart, M.). Palgrave Macmillan. Bobbé, S. 1993. Hors statut, point de salut: ours et loups en Espagne. Etudes Frank, B., J. Glikman, and S. Marchini. 2019. Human–wildlife interactions: Rurales 129–130: 59–72. turning conflict into coexistence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Braun, V, and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Press. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101. Fry, T. 2020. ‘These birds don’t belong here’: the livelihood and sociocultural Brockington, D. 2002. Fortress conservation: the preservation of the Mkomazi impacts of rewilded white-tailed eagles in the Scottish Highlands. PhD game reserve Tanzania. London: International African Institute: James dissertation. University College London, UK. Currey. Fry, T., A. Marino, and S. Nijhawan. 2022. ‘Killing with care’: locating ethical Brosius, J.P. 1999. Analyses and interventions: anthropological engagements congruence in multispecies political ecology. ACME: An International with environmentalism. Current Anthropology 40(3): 277–310. Journal for Critical Geographies 21(2): 226–246. Browne-Nuñez C, A. Treves, D. MacFarland, et al. 2015. Tolerance of Goldman, M.J., J. Roque de Pinho, and J. Perry. 2010. Maintaining complex wolves in Wisconsin: a mixed-methods examination of policy effects relations with large cats: Maasai and lions in Kenya and Tanzania. on attitudes and behavioral inclinations. Biological Conservation Human Dimensions of Wildlife 15(5): 332–346. 189: 59–71. Heatherington, T. 2010. Wild Sardinia: indigeneity and the global dreamtimes Burton, R.J.F. 2004. Seeing through the ‘good farmer’s’ eyes: towards of environmentalism. Seattle: University of Washington Press. developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of Homewood, K. 2010. The power of traditions in conservation. In: Trade-offs ‘productivist’ behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis 44(2): 195–215. in conservation: deciding what to save. (eds. Leader-Williams N., W.M. Büscher, B. and R. Fletcher. 2020. The conservation revolution: radical ideas Adams, and R.J. Smith). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. for saving nature beyond the Anthropocene. London: Verso. Ingold, T. 2000. The perception of the environment: essays in livelihood, Büscher, B, S. Sullivan, K. Neves, et al. 2012. Towards a synthesized critique dwelling, and skill. London: Routledge. of neoliberal biodiversity conservation. Capitalism Nature Socialism Kaltenborn, B.P., O. Andersen, and J.D.C. Linnell. 2013. Predators, stewards, 23(2): 4–30. or sportsmen - how do Norwegian hunters perceive their role in carnivore Cepek, M.L. 2011. Foucault in the forest: questioning environmentality in management? International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Amazonia. American Ethnologist 38(3): 501–515. Services and Management 9(3): 239–248. Chapron, G., P. Kaczensky, J.D.C. Linnell, et al. 2014. Recovery of large Krange, O. and Skogen, K. 2007. Reflexive tradition: young working-class carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science hunters between wolves and modernity. Young 15(3): 215–33. 346: 1517–1519. Lescureux, N. and J.D.C. Linnell. 2010. Knowledge and perceptions Cimatti, M., N. Ranc, A. Benítez-López, et al. 2021. Large carnivore expansion of Macedonian hunters and herders: the influence of species in Europe is associated with human population density and land cover specific ecology of bears, wolves, and lynx. Human Ecology changes. Diversity and Distributions 27(4): 602–617. 38(3): 389–399. [Downloaded free from http://www.conservationandsociety.org.in on Wednesday, December 21, 2022, IP: 90.164.51.133] Environmentalities of wolf coexistence / 357 Li, T.M. 2000. Articulating indigenous identity in Indonesia: resource politics and Pooley S. 2021. Coexistence for whom? Frontiers in Conservation Science the tribal slot. Comparative Studies in Society and History 42(1): 149–179. 2:726991 Louchouarn N.X., F.J. Santiago-Ávila, D.R. Parsons, et al. 2021. Evaluating Rippa, A. 2021. Hunting, rewilding, and multispecies entanglements in the how lethal management affects poaching of Mexican wolves. Royal alps. Ethnos 1–23. Society Open Science 8: 200330. Robbins, P. 2012. Political ecology: a critical introduction. 2nd edition. Luke, T.W. 1999. Environmentality as green governmentality. In: Discourses Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. of the environment (ed. Darier, E.). Oxford: Blackwell. Sandbrook, C. 2015. What is conservation? Oryx 49(4): 565–566. Manfredo, M.J., J.T. Bruskotter, T.L. Teel, et al. 2017. Why social values cannot be changed for the sake of conservation. Conservation Biology Scott, J.C. 1985. Weapons of the weak: everyday forms of peasant resistance. 31(4): 772–780. New Haven: Yale University Press. Manfredo, M.J., T.L. Teel, and A.M. Dietsch. 2016. Implications of human Singh, N.M. 2013. The affective labor of growing forests and the becoming of value shift and persistence for biodiversity conservation. Conservation environmental subjects: rethinking environmentality in Odisha, India. Biology 30(2): 287–296. Geoforum 47: 189–198. MAPAMA (Ministerio de Agricultura y Pesca, Alimentación y Singh, N.M. 2018. Introduction: affective ecologies and conservation. Medio Ambiente). 2014. Censo 2012-2014 de Lobo Ibérico Conservation and Society 156(1): 1–7. (Canis Lupus, Linnaeus, 1758) en España. Skogen, K., I. Mauz, and O. Krange. 2008. Cry wolf!: narratives of wolf Marino, A., A. Planella Bosch, S. Ricci, et al. 2018. Performance of two recovery in France and Norway. Rural Sociology 73(1): 105–133. insurance-based compensation systems for wolf damages in Italy and Toncheva, S., R. Fletcher, and E. Turnhout. 2022. Convivial conservation Spain. Carnivore Damage Prevention News 17: 43–51. from the bottom up: human-bear cohabitation in the Rodopi mountains Marino, A. 2019. Coexistence with large carnivores in the north west of Spain. of Bulgaria. Conservation and Society 20(2): 124–135. PhD dissertation. University College London. Treves, A, L. Naughton-Treves, and V. Shelley. 2013. Longitudinal analysis Martínez Álvarez, B. and J.A. Cortes-Vazquez. 2020. ‘May the smoke keep of attitudes toward wolves. Conservation Biology 27(2): 315–323. coming out the fireplace’: moral connections between rural tourism and socio-ecological resilience in the EUME Region, Galicia. Sustainability Trouwborst, A. 2014. The EU Habitats Directive and wolf conservation and 12(11): 4602. management on the Iberian peninsula: a legal perspective. Galemys Spanish Journal of Mammalogy 26:15–30. Martínez-Reyes, J.E. 2016. Moral ecology of a forest: the nature industry and Maya post-conservation. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Vaske, J.J. and M.P Donnelly. 1999. A value-attitude-behavior model Marvin, G. 2012. Wolf. London: Reaktion Books Ltd. predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Society & Natural Resources 12(6): 523–553. Montes, J., S. Tshering, T. Phuntsho, et al. 2020. Cosmological subjectivities: exploring ‘truth’ environmentalities in the Haa Highlands of Bhutan. Wang T. 2015. Green governmentality. In: The international handbook Conservation and Society 18(4): 355–365. of political ecology (ed. Bryant, R.L.) Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Mostafanezhad, M. and K. Hannam. 2014. Introducing moral encounters in Publishing. tourism. In: Moral encounters in tourism. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Wilson, G.A. 2001. From productivism to post-productivism... and back again? Limited. Exploring the (un)changed natural and mental landscape of European Peterson, R.B., D. Russell, P. West, et al. 2010. Seeing (and doing) conservation Agriculture. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers through cultural lenses. Environmental Management 45(1): 5–18. 26(1): 77–102. Piédallu, B., P.Y. Quenette, C. Mounet, et al. 2016. Spatial variation in public Zinn, H.C, M.J. Manfredo, and J.J. Vaske. 2000. Social psychological bases attitudes towards brown bears in the French Pyrenees. Biological for stakeholder acceptance capacity. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Conservation 197: 90–97. 5(3): 20–33. Received: 28-Apr-2021; Revised: 06-Jun-2022; Accepted: 11-Jul-2022; Published: 17-Oct-2022