Menu
The direct and indirect effects of food waste on wildlife and humans are likely to manifest over multi-generations and across multiple ecosystems. This is depicted in Figure 2, which shows how an ecosystem with food waste (Ecosystem State 1) can directly affect wildlife ecology and behaviour, and indirectly affect other species. Over multiple generations, such impacts are likely to further alter ecosystems and the processes that structure ecological communities (Ecosystem State 2). There may also be impacts on humans and human livelihoods, especially via disease transmission, predation on livestock, and attacks on humans by wildlife. The outstanding question is what happens to wildlife, ecosystem processes, and human-wildlife dynamics when food waste is removed or managed properly by humans. With respect to the wildlife that currently rely on human-provided foods there are several possible outcomes including (1) they die of starvation; (2) they disperse and live elsewhere; (3) they switch their dietary preferences to other prey; and/or (4) they die due to conflict with humans searching for alternative foods. These scenarios are depicted in Figure 3 along with the consequences to ecosystem processes. Studies that track what happens to wildlife when food waste is removed would provide insights into such possibilities. Such an experiment became possible with the closure of Sustainability 2017, 9, 1269 6 of 9 dumps in Yellowstone National Park in the 1970s [18]. Experimental manipulation of food waste is also possible [56]. The results of these experiments would help inform the best management strategies to adopt when food waste is removed. It may, for instance, require direct intervention by directly reducing the abundance of some species to protect others (Figure 3). Until such studies are completed, the flow on effects of removing abundant human-provided food sources will be unclear [57]. However, if the food source remains, we do know that the consequences for wildlife, ecosystem processes and human livelihoods are mostly negative (Figure 2), so it may be pertinent to remove and properly manage agricultural and food waste even if the knock-on effects are unclear.
Figure 2. Conceptual model showing how wildlife access to food waste can alter wildlife ecology
and behaviour, other species, and ecological processes, as well as exacerbate human-wildlife conflicts.
The model includes two ecosystem states. In Ecosystem State 1, wildlife use of food waste directly
affects wildlife ecology and behaviour (e.g., changes in diet, abundance, life history, sociality,
and habitat use). Over multiple generations, these direct impacts are likely to indirectly affect other
species and ecological processes, resulting in the formation of Ecosystem State 2. In both ecosystem
states there will be impacts on humans and human livelihoods, especially via disease transmission,
predation on livestock, and attacks on humans by wildlife.
dumps in Yellowstone National Park in the 1970s [18]. Experimental manipulation of food waste is
also possible [56]. The results of these experiments would help inform the best management strategies
to adopt when food waste is removed. It may, for instance, require direct intervention by directly
reducing the abundance of some species to protect others (Figure 3). Until such studies are completed,
the flow on effects of removing abundant human-provided food sources will be unclear [57]. However,
if the food source remains, we do know that the consequences for wildlife, ecosystem processes and
human livelihoods are mostly negative (Figure 2), so it may be pertinent to remove and properly
manage agricultural and food waste even if the knock-on effects are unclear.
Sustainability 2017, 9, 1269 6 of 9
food waste is also possible [56]. The results of these experiments would help inform the best
management strategies to adopt when food waste is removed. It may, for instance, require direct
intervention by directly reducing the abundance of some species to protect others (Figure 3). Until
such studies are completed, the flow on effects of removing abundant human-provided food sources
will be unclear [57]. However, if the food source remains, we do know that the consequences for
wildlife, ecosystem processes and human livelihoods are mostly negative (Figure 2), so it may be
pertinent to remove and properly manage agricultural and food waste even if t
