Search

Humans and wildlife increasingly share urban space, which elevates the risk of negative interactions. Management efforts conventionally focus on controlling species that are considered problematic, but polarization in affected communities' perceptions and values may pose a greater problem for management in cities where ideas about preferred human–wildlife interactions vary greatly. This study uses Q‐method to investigate what type of human‐baboon relations are desirable among residents from seven areas in Cape Town regularly visited by chacma baboons. Two main perspectives emerged, each is motivated by a distinct set of values: 'Live with Baboons' is focused on positive outcomes for nature and society, recognizing humans' responsibility to mitigate negative interactions; whereas 'Control and Manage Baboons' views nature as something that should be controlled in order to maintain a stable and safe human society. Despite differences, the two perspectives also agree in rejecting abusive language toward baboons, recognizing that contexts differ and require different solutions, and acknowledging that resolving conflict requires collaboration. This has important bearing for recent public engagement processes led by local authorities to review management strategies. Residents' values and perceptions are manifestations of different lived realities and actively engaging with them can help to nuance dichotomies in the baboon discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]