The research sites are located in Putaendo and Piguchen villages (Figure 1), within the upper section of the Aconcagua Valley (Valparaíso Region, Chile). The Aconcagua Valley's weather could be divided into High mountains' cold weather (Andes Mountain) and valley warmer weather (Cerda, 2016). The Aconcagua Valley has significant mountain heights that exceed 5,000 masl (Cerda, 2016).

We reached two agropastoralists' associations of the Aconcagua Valley, one from the Piguchen village (we will refer to them as the Piguchén association) (−70°41′O −32° 34′ S) and the other from Putaendo (we will refer to them as the Rinconada de Silva association) (−70° 71′O −32° 62′ S). There were 51 members (90% men) in the Piguchen association and 43 (100% men) in the Putaendo Association in 2020. Both associations work with livestock, and their primary pasturing system is seasonal exploitation of the grasslands: transhumance. The agropastoralists divided the grazing areas into two: (Figure 1). (1) Summerland (“veranada”): high mountain pasture areas used in the austral summertime (December to April), when moisture is optimal for forage growth. Summerlands are primarily managed and used by privates (i.e., local communities and mining companies). These grazing areas exhibit unique biodiversity value and are of particular concern to conservation biologists and conservation institutions. Summerlands also provide habitat and connectivity to relevant fauna species, including apex predators, puma (Puma concolor), and wild herbivores, such as guanaco (Lama guanicoe) (Figure 3). Their primary fertile spots are the “vegas,” a type of high-mountain wetlands commonly found in the central Andes. They exhibit forage production, nourished by underground streams. They are strongholds of unique biodiversity, and they play a critical part in transhumance (Squeo et al., 2006). (2) Winterland (“invernada”) (May to December): a lowland grazing area for keeping the animals safe during austral wintertime. These sites are relatively well-connected to urban areas. Their vegetation is primarily bushes such as Vachellia caven, Mediterranean grasslands, and native trees. A lack of snowfall allows livestock to stay in the Winterlands over the autumn, winter, and part of the spring.

Agropastoralists keep the livestock in the Winterland from the beginning of autumn until late springtime (whereas Summerland is under extreme weather conditions). Then they move the animals back to the Summerlands, where temperatures and moistures spring belated forage production. This way, the transhumant system gets an extended grazing season for the livestock (Figure 3). In this activity, conflicts between agropastoralists and wildlife have intensified and become a significant threat in the last decade in central Chile (2010–2020). Possible causes are drastic climate change, the Mega-drought (explained above) (Vargas et al., 2021), urbanization, and land-use changes (Bonacic et al., 2007; Rodríguez et al., 2019).

Over the last years, urban and peri-urban inhabitants have increased the number of puma sighting reports to the public services (Bonacic et al., 2007; Sepúlveda et al., 2016). These agropastoralists link the puma-livestock problem with the hunter-prey interaction between these two groups. Nevertheless, it has been described that free-ranging dogs are a significant threat to livestock production and wildlife (Muñoz and Muñoz-Santibañez, 2016). Most studies addressing human-wildlife conflicts refer to carnivores and livestock predation conflicts (Ohrens et al., 2016; Rodríguez et al., 2019). However, conflicts with the Andean condor (Vultur gryphus) (a large scavenger bird) and the guanaco (Lama guanicoe) (a wild herbivore) (Vargas et al., 2021) have drawn more attention recently. The Andean condor supposedly performs attacks on newborn calves during the birth season in the high mountain. Still, this fact would require more scientific observation to be confirmed. However, puma and condor impact on livestock production seems to go back several years. In both cases, agropastoralists blamed the wild species for the economic losses. These wild species are often hated and considered pests (retaliation measures have been documented, mainly for puma). The conflict describes an increase in these wild species' populations, thus competing with livestock, primarily cattle, for the available forage. Recent research shows how guanaco's conflict range is expanding through the whole Andes Mountain area of the Valparaiso region. Historically, this wild herbivore inhabits mountainous areas. Since pre-Columbian times, guanaco was used for its meat and leather. It also had cultural and mythological relevance for Andean Indigenous communities (Garrido, 2010).

The local institutions in charge of farmers' issues are the Agricultural and Livestock Development Institute of the Ministry of Agriculture (INDAP) and Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (in livestock and agriculture, SAG). The latter is also the only institution that addresses conflicts with wildlife. The SAG receives wildlife-livestock attacks or predation reports and proceeds from identifying the wildlife species. However, many attacks occur in the high mountains, far away from urban areas, so the authorities often miss them.

We conducted two workshops in January and October 2020 with two different agropastoralist associations: Rinconada de Silva (Putaendo) and Piguchen (Figure 2). The workshops were spaced seven months apart due to the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemics. First, we contacted the community leaders to explain the methodology and its objectives. They agreed that the method was in their best interest, so we decided to conduct one meeting with each community (to carry out the workshops). The communities are hierarchical, so any group calling for meetings must be extended through the leaders. In 3 years working on this site, we confirm that making a community invitation is valid and sufficient to achieve a significant quorum (n = 84/94), Rinconada de Silva (n = 43), and Piguchen (n = 41). The participants did not provide their ages.

We applied participatory community methodologies as tools for collecting information regarding natural resources and local perceptions within a shared territory (Newing et al., 2011) and attending to the land's local production and environmental aspects. In Figure 2, we explain the process for collecting information and analysis. Through participatory mapping in each workshop, we collected the following data: (1) mapping on natural resources or essential elements for the territory (raw map, in Figure 2): (2) evaluation matrix on the land and the natural resources use. In the evaluation matrix, we asked them to assign a score from 1 to 5 for temperatures and rainfall from the present time and 20 years ago. Finally, we asked them to declare “20 years from now scenario,” exhibiting an “ideal future scenario”: how much precipitation and temperature are optimal for their livestock production. We used the evaluation matrix to evaluate the perception of significant changes in environmental variables for their productive activity (Geilfus, 2002). The variables were: (1) temperatures, (2) rainfall/snowfall, (3) how these changes have affected the livestock activity in the last 20 years, and (4) how they relate these changes with wildlife. Agropastoralists mapped these variables based on maximum and minimum thresholds for rainfall and temperatures. The maximum threshold was the most significant rainfall and temperature they remember. In contrast, the minimum threshold was the least rainfall and temperatures they could remember. With that settled, they draw many raindrops and “T” accordingly (Table 2). Agropastoralists explained the variable (3) and (4) in oral statements at the workshop (Figure 2).

These workshops aimed to broaden our knowledge of how human-wildlife conflicts originate. Participatory mapping assesses the community's Local Spatial Knowledge (LSK); it gathers spatial information to represent the reality of an organization or group of people (McCall, 2021). Participatory mapping of natural resources builds a visual representation of land use and natural resources perception. IFAD (2009) defined this methodology as information gathering made by the community in an open process, representing their real needs. This methodology attempts to gather information about a specific territory and its valorization by the community and then use it as a driver for decision-making and identify and locate the conflicts in such use.

The participants were randomized and divided into four groups of 4–7 people. We randomized the participants to deal with the communities hierarchy. By randomizing the participants, the leaders could fall into any group (we did not consider it socially appropriate to ask them not to participate). We did it this way to minimize the bias and have data representing reality beyond the leader's views (solely). Each group designated a group leader. We had a general facilitator and two supporting facilitators per workshop. We did this to ensure each group had a homogeneous dialogue, avoiding one-sided opinions and views (e.g., from the leaders). Each group was provided with materials and told to draw a map representing their territory as they perceived it, focusing on the winter and summer land use. We asked them to include three elements into the map: (1) natural and human components of the landscape (e.g., rivers, roads, forests, croplands), (2) areas with direct conflict with wildlife (puma, condor, and guanaco), and (3) areas with active use for grazing (Important for livestock activities). At the end of the given time, each group briefly exposed the results they obtained (oral statements). We documented the whole process by taking notes and photographing. At the end of each workshop, two sources of information were obtained that complemented each other: raw maps and oral statements. The oral statements provided complementary information to the mapping process: (1) attributes data, (2) non-spatial data, where otherwise [besides the oral statement] would not have been possible to have mapped. The low literacy level and the rural educational context make graphical representation challenging. Therefore, raw maps and oral statements are complementary and necessary to understand the productive system comprehensively.

Our findings showed that agropastoralists have already perceived climatic changes in the mountains of Aconcagua Valley. Consistent with Roco et al. (2015), agropastoralist recognize a change in temperature and precipitation in the recent past. However, our study it's the first to show perceptions of climate changes in the mountains of Central Chile, while Roco et al. (2015) showed results with Family farm agriculture (FFA) in valleys of central Chile. These kinds of agriculture don't use the high mountains for pasture. Studies from other mountainous areas show similar findings (Batumike et al., 2021) regarding increasing temperature and decreasing precipitation. These results are essential because scarce information has documented pastoralist perceptions about climates changes in mountainous areas, most of the studies focused on agricultural communities (Reyes-García et al., 2019; Batumike et al., 2021).

Table 2 also shows variation in perceptions among associations. This could be because of differences in the age composition of each group, resulting in different amounts of time spent experiencing the rangelands and, therefore, different perceptions of climatic variation, but further research would be needed to confirm this hypothesis. The variation in the final consensus map would not be expected since it compiles every element identified by each group within their shared territory.

Our results show that the ideal climatic scenario for both associations (100% of the participants) leads to more precipitation and a lower average temperature. However, they declare to be aware of how unlikely that future is. They think that rainfall will decrease and the temperatures will increase. In fact, climatic projections for the area are not promising. Aldunce et al. (2017) show that annual precipitation is unlikely to grow, and the Mega-drought is likely to continue. Hundred percent of the participants claim that they will continue with the transhumant activity for several reasons: tradition, economy, emotional attachment, reasons previously described by Razeto et al. (2007). These motivations could reflect a relationship between the agropastoralists, the transhumant activity, and the mountain environment, beyond merely the economic.

Like our study, in the north of the studied area, farmers' beliefs suggest that the Mega-drought and climate change are underlying factors contributing to the farmers-guanaco conflict (Vargas et al., 2021). The changing environmental conditions seem to expose livestock activity to greater vulnerability, affecting wild species' tolerance. Regarding the climatic conditions, the projections coincide with the farmer's arguments. Central Chile has been facing a rainfall decline during the last decades. Persistent drought showed a precipitation deficit of ~30% (Boisier et al., 2016). Recent studies highlight that drying and warming conditions are very likely to continue with substantial impacts on surface hydrology, vegetation productivity, and snowpack (projected to decrease by 35–45%) (Bozkurt et al., 2018). The projected changes could significantly impact local agropastoralists' socio-economic conditions and wildlife interactions. A recent study reveals that the current Mega-drought is the hardest in the last 600 years in Central Chile (Morales et al., 2020). It suggests that South America will experience more severe droughts (IPBES, 2019). Despite this, no studies reveal the impact of climate conditions changes in Central Chile's mountain biodiversity or the consequences (direct and indirect) in wildlife interactions with other activities.

Our results show that wildlife affects agropastoralists throughout the year but in different areas. Most of the reported conflicts regard carnivores and scavengers. However, there was an increasing conflict with guanaco in the last years. Perceived triggers of conflicts with each species are different. The agropastoralists perceived an increase in the guanaco population, possibly leading to direct competition for fodder with the livestock.

Regarding the puma, the problem seems connected to another issue besides predation. There are fewer agropastoralists present in the mountain because of the drought. So, one single attack performed by a puma could seem proportionally more damaging (more puma livestock ratio).

Nevertheless, there is little scientific information on guanaco's population estimates: the current data is scarce and outdated, difficulting a decision-making process. Regarding carnivores and scavengers, agropastoralists also declare that although the puma's population has not risen, the attacks performed on livestock (especially small ruminants) have increased. Currently, some agropastoralists are no longer willing to use the Summerland because the economic damage is “too high” (near 70% of losses in some cases). Despite the yield consequences, they would prefer to keep the flock in the Winterland if they have mainly small-ruminants. We encourage more and new research that goes deeper into this matter. Future studies should address wildlife population shifts and their interaction with agropastoralists.

Based on agropastoralists' experiences, we identified Summerlands as a high-risk area for their practices. The primary drivers to this risk could be the problematic interactions with wildlife, other human activities, and the declining vegetation productivity due to the Mega-drought. The associations marked the Mega-drought as the primary driver of this degradation process. This reality seems compatible with recent findings that climate change intensifies human-wildlife conflict by exacerbating resource scarcity (Abrahms, 2021). Additionally, climate change reinforces the Mega-Drought (Garreaud et al., 2021). Based on agropastoralists' perceptions, our results follow other scientific results that the frequency and severity of human-wildlife conflict are rising, especially in Summerlands areas or more degraded areas (Nyhus, 2016; Hodgson et al., 2020).

Besides the environmental changes, anthropogenic actions could harm transhumant agropastoralism. And these changes could affect the interaction with the wildlife species.

Recently in the valley, there was registered some external activity: (1) Mega-Mining projects at starting operations, (2) Cattle raiding and free-roaming dogs, (3) Reports of illegal drug activity in the mountain (near to Winterland area), and (4) reported recreational motorbiking activity. It would be necessary to monitor how these events unfold over time and interact with agropastoral activity and wildlife. Based on other studies, we tend to project that these activities could impact transhumant pastoralism and the environment as a whole.

Mega-mining projects and other extractive activities adversely affect ecosystems by destroying habitat, overexploiting, polluting, and creating species disbalance and disease (Carranza et al., 2020). The level of production defines Mega-mining projects. This concept particularly references a large-scale extractivist output carried out by multinational companies, which occupy large extensions of territory for their development (SONAMI, 2014; OLCA and CGCGA, 2016). Mega-mining projects effects directly impact the transhumant agropastoralist activity.

As we have seen in previous sections, transhumant agropastoralism relies on natural seasonal pastures. The mega-mining procedures would imply disturbing noises, the creation of bare soil, and pollution of the water sources (Mensah et al., 2015). Some of these impacts could be irreversible. The destruction of aggregated soil (already weakened by climatic conditions) would imply a significant shift in soil structure, depleting grass production and increasing erosion. These changes will also negatively affect the ecosystemic processes such as the water cycle, the mineral cycle, the community dynamics, and the energy flow (Savory and Butterfield, 2017).

Another threat to agropastoralists is cattle raiding and the presence of free-roaming dogs. Free-roaming dogs perform attacks on livestock, potentially causing significant animal losses, spreading diseases (zoonotic and interspecies), causing relevant disturbances to wildlife, and competing with endemic species (Young et al., 2011). It is critical to conduct further collective methodologies, with a participatory approach to put all stakeholders in the common ground to take action and prevent this particular threat from growing.

The presence of illegal drug activity in the mountain area (Winterland) represents a significant future threat. Illicit markets are complex, but drug trafficking is often linked to other activities, such as wildlife trafficking (Van Uhm et al., 2021). The Aconcagua Valley would be an ideal scenario. The mere presence of illegal drug activity suggests that a further abandonment of the mountain by agropastoralists could leave a 'free space' for conducting illicit activities.

Recreational motorcycle activity looms as a significant threat, with scalable negative consequences. The repeated wheel traction causes significant erosion in already fragile land (causing productivity loss). Vehicle-wildlife interactions are proven to generate Roadkill, a term given to a dead animal struck by a vehicle. This phenomenon could significantly affect wildlife populations (Chen et al., 2021). We suggest collective action to enhance local education.

The agropastoralists declare a complex relationship with State institutions, pointing them as irrelevant when dealing with the livestock-wildlife conflict. State institutions hypothetically could argue that the livestock-wildlife conflict is an emerging issue, so classified as an unusual activity (out of their routine duties). However, the agropastoralists noted that even for the routine duties, state institutions are ineffective.

The involvement of stakeholders (including the State institutions) is vital for a conflict to be correctly addressed or for a participatory approach to be successful (Hargreaves et al., 2021; Spratt et al., 2021). In this regard, it would be necessary to fully address the agropastoralist-state relationship issues. The state and agropastoralists have an unequal power relation, and the latter feel abandoned by the state. They claim the state should prioritize the conflict and offer some “resolution paths.” The alleged lack of awareness by the state could lead to several scenarios: (1) intensifying the conflict, (2) retaliation actions. Collaboration between agropastoralists and other stakeholders (e.g., other communities, NGOs) could strengthen communication channels with the State (Coria and Calfucura, 2012).

Considering that the agropastoralists' perception exhibits only one side of the conflict, it is imperative to address a broader perspective with all the stakeholders to broaden our knowledge of the community's willingness to achieve a coexistence scenario (Akpo et al., 2015). A complete view will also accelerate the adoption of future territory planning (Spratt et al., 2021).

With our results, we suggest that the Winterlands' adaptation is the main pathway to address the threats agropastoralists face in their activity. This could be done through changes in current practices or including new methods in their activity to continue raising cattle in those lands. Since the association agreed on looking for alternative management, few workshops have been conducted to date (with few people due to the COVID-19 pandemic). However, these meetings have presented promising preliminary results. Due to the current state of degradation of the Winterland, we have concluded that adaptation to climate change should start by restoring this agroecosystem, at least partially (Del Valle et al., 2021). It is imperativeto initiate a participatory ecological restoration program in the Winterlands, so the recent livestock management shifts into one that will enhance the Winterland's resilience, improve productivity, and build adaptation to droughts. To do so, it is necessary to take elements from diverse disciplines, such as Ecological Grazing Management, Agroecology, and Ecological Restoration (Guzmán Luna et al., 2019). An interdisciplinary work can diminish grazing pressure over the Summerland, which has become a place of high vulnerability due to the uncertainty about climate and forage (a consequence of climate shifts or competition for forage). This has exposed agropastoralists to significant animal losses (predation, abrupt changes in the weather, raids).

Agropastoralists are currently evaluating whether to use Summerlands or not, ever again. This scenario sets an opportunity for the conservation of wildlife in these spaces. However, this opportunity must consider restoring and adapting the livestock production to less susceptible areas, such as Winterland. The future of large native species such as the condor, the puma, or the guanaco (which require large amounts of habitat), depends on the ability to conceive a well-planned human-wildlife program.

Contrastingly, the primary adaptation-to-climate-change actions proposed by the government focus on facilitating access to credit for private investment for adaptation. In the specific case of dairy goats, advance toward complete stabling, subsidizing feed purchasing. There is no other action exact for livestock production in the National nor Agricultural Climate Change Action Plan (Ministerio de Agricultura, 2013; Ministerio del Medio Ambiente, 2017). Therefore, these actions do not match the local proposals collected in the workshops. Agropastoralists have not been consulted in any previous process of public policymaking.

Nevertheless, this neglect is widely known. As FAO states in its most recent study about agropastoralism strategies, governments often lack knowledge of integrated landscape management (Wane et al., 2020). Also, evidence suggests that every successful government policy enhancing local adaptation must address the agropastoralists' heterogeneity (Cuni-Sanchez et al., 2018). Decisions should emerge from positive linkages between local communities' knowledge and organization and higher-level institutions (Fu et al., 2012).

Results show that agropastoralists have significant knowledge of the mountain and its biodiversity. Thus, Razeto et al. (2019) define the agropastoralists (or Arrieros) as guardians of the territory. “As they live in it, they will take care of it.” They also show that the Piguchen association would consider doing other mountain and archaeological tourism activities. This association declares that ecotourism could be a “resolution path,” positively affecting family economy and tradition. Furthermore, it would allow the agropastoralists to improve their financial status while maintaining their way of life). Although it does not address the effects of the Mega-drought and the derived conflicts, ecotourism looms as a feasible possibility to face the financial urgency.

Lee and Jan (2019) define ecotourism as traveling to less exploited natural places to see the natural setting and wildlife and enjoy culture while conserving the site's environment. Some elements of that definition could be acquired for further discussion. On the one hand, ecotourism could help agropastoralists adequately protect the land (by providing financial revenue and increasing their presence in the mountain). Also, this activity could provide environmental education for a broader audience. In contrast, some risks in this activity could be public exposure, which could bring negative externalities, such as contamination and over-visit of fragile, sensitive areas (Collins, 1999, quoted by Khanra et al., 2021). Additionally, a complete turn from agropastoralism to tourism as their primary economic activity would make them dependent on tourism market oscillations. Suppose the tourism market drops as it did with the SarsCoV-19 (COVID-19) pandemics. In that case, it could constraint their livelihoods even more, so several parameters should be taken into account to determine whether or not it is profitable and ecologically relevant.

Results of the participatory mapping show that the agropastoralists own significant knowledge of the mountain (and its biodiversity). Thus, Razeto et al. (2019) define the agropastoralists (or Arrieros) as guardians of the territory. “As they live in it, they will take care of it”.

In summary, this study represents a contribution to human-wildlife studies because we put into value local knowledge and local perceptions to build territorial planning in the context of Human-Wildlife conflicts. We also value local perceptions about climate change impacts in the context of Megadrought (García-del-Amo et al., 2020; Batumike et al., 2021). Agropastoralism in Central Chile seems to be an activity where the agropastoralists do not constantly stay with the livestock. A lack of management can contribute to a greater risk of losing animals (raids, attacks by carnivores, etc.). Better management practices, planning, and livestock can reduce losses and increase agropastoralists' productivity. Our participatory mapping set up a reflection space for agropastoralists. They account for the current challenges of the activity and open space for coexistence. Participatory mapping can be understood as a “situation assessment,” informing and guiding decision-making, particularly challenging study areas. This mapping allows us to prioritize places to start working and possibly take action. Notably, this case shows us how the Summerlands are highly challenging areas due to three main reasons: (1) mitigating conflicts with wildlife (2) they present uncontrolled anthropic intervention, such as livestock raids and mining (3) there are areas of significant climatic uncertainty. Results reflect an uncertain future for coexistence in this particular research site. The chronological analysis shows us how the agropastoralists projected their activity. And what the wildlife's role in the system is. Simultaneously, this methodology creates a space for ongoing reflection and debate on the activity's current productive and ecological issues. Agropastoralists' testimonies reflect that this reflection space is innovative for the area: they do not recall a similar previous process. Historically there have been few stakeholders, through non-socialized public policies, driving all the decision-making in agropastoralism at the research site. This situation could have led to a non-participatory approach to the site's issues so far, resulting in a persisting (and growing) human-wildlife conflict.

The current scenario shows a probable increase in livestock and wildlife interaction, a shifting climate, and an increase in agropastoralism vulnerability. Additional multisectoral actions will be required to prioritize the area's activity and adapt it to the future scenario. Future research is needed to increase resilience, reduce vulnerability and adapt the mountain agropastoralist sector. This study also confirms that complex socio-economic, political, and environmental factors (and their interaction) drive negative human-wildlife reciprocity. Previous studies reveal the need to adopt holistic management for multi-species conservation conflicts (Pozo et al., 2020). The consequences have been (and will be) severe, especially in the agriculture sector and biodiversity. Territory threats represent a significant driver to the intensifying of the conflicts. Future initiatives in the area will only be possible if the state works with local communities and scientists to develop public policies that promote biodiversity rehabilitation.