Transparency and adaptability aid in realigning the complexity of objectives, approaches, and systems in human-wildlife coexistence research.

Human-wildlife interactions are situated within dynamic systems, characterized by social and ecological complexity. Human-wildlife coexistence research, however, typically focuses on one component of these systems in isolation. We inadvertently followed this norm while carrying out semi-structured interviews of livestock-owners in Northern Tanzania. As existing literature highlighted that this area was a hotspot for livestock depredation, our research questions focused on human interactions with carnivores. Interestingly, almost three quarters (72%, n = 72 of 100) of study participants independently raised African elephants (Loxodonta africana) as presenting the greatest impediments to coexistence. By centering our interviews on carnivores, we omitted vital components of this complex system. To counteract the effects of this oversimplification, we changed our intended analytical process after data collection. Instead of conducting a quantitative analysis of rates of livestock depredation and perceptions of risk posed by a suite of sympatric carnivores, we applied a grounded theory approach to assess interactions across multiple dimensions of this complex system. Through this transparent effort to realign our approaches with the complexity of the study system, we highlight the importance of designing research approaches that effectively reflect the complexities inherent to human-wildlife coexistence.