This ethnographic study reveals how coyote interactions influence territory in rural communities, suggesting new dimensions for conservation and agroecotourism.
This article examines the sociomaterial interactions between humans and coyotes that reshape a rural territory. Our research challenges the thesis of human exceptionalism, which posits that only humans construct meaningful lifeworlds. Adopting a relational perspective, we redefine the concept of the “social actor” to include non-human beings as fully recognized social agents. The empirical study was conducted in the rural locality of San Gerardo de Oreamuno, a mountainous area in Costa Rica’s Cartago province. This territory includes protected wilderness areas, residential zones, horticultural production, dairy farming, and emerging community-based agroecotourism initiatives. We employed a multispecies ethnographic approach, using situated experience recording to identify the sociomaterial and affective relationships between humans and coyotes. Our analysis reveals the limitations of administrative approaches to territory, which often prioritize market-driven and planning dimensions, overlooking the values and meanings inherent in multispecies coexistence. In contrast, we highlight the role of coyotes in local territorial narratives, a key aspect for understanding emerging regimes of cohabitability. A deeper investigation into these modes of coexistence requires the integration of ontological dimensions that remain underexplored within conservation sciences. Known locally as “perro lobo” (“wolf dog”), the coyote exemplifies how daily interactions with specific beings contribute to local knowledge that challenges the universality of scientific categories, such as “species.” In our concluding remarks, we underscore the significance of such ethnographic exercises for fostering an ecological orientation within Development Anthropology. This approach calls for critical reflection on Western andro-anthropocentric perspectives and encourages a stronger epistemological and political commitment to the study of “naturalcultural” relations, where humans are one element among many.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arias et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: