http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 18 Dec 2014 IP address: 131.230.73.202

Forum

Tilting at wildlife: reconsideringhuman–wildlife conflict

S T E P H E N MA R K R E D P A T H , S A L O N I B H A T I A and J U L I E T T E Y O U N G

Abstract Conflicts between people over wildlife are wide-spread and damaging to both the wildlife and peopleinvolved. Such issues are often termed human–wildlifeconflicts. We argue that this term is misleading and mayexacerbate the problems and hinder resolution. A reviewof recent articles on human–wildlife conflicts revealsthat were between conservation and other human activi-ties, particularly those associated with livelihoods. We sug-gest that we should distinguish between human–wildlifeimpacts and human–human conflicts and be explicitabout the different interests involved in conflict. Thoserepresenting conservation interests should not only seektechnical solutions to deal with the impacts but also con-sider their role and objectives, and focus on strategies likelyto deliver long-term solutions for the benefit of biodiversityand the people involved.

Keywords Conflict resolution, human–human conflict,human–wildlife conflict, human–wildlife impact

Introduction

In a famous scene from Cervantes’ () novel DonQuixote, the eponymous hero perceives a phalanx of

windmills rising from the Spanish plains as ‘hulking giants’,and he charges on his horse, intending to slay them.Needless to say, this doesn’t go well. Moreover, Quixote’sinability to appropriately identify his adversaries is repeatedthroughout the book, leading him into all sorts of difficultcircumstances.

Just as Don Quixote misidentified his foe, we considerwhether we misidentify the antagonists in human–wildlifeconflict and thereby limit the likelihood of finding effectivesolutions. We consider the way human–wildlife conflict isdefined and briefly explore the literature to examine whothese conflicts are between. We ask whether the term is ap-propriate or whether it reduces our ability to find solutions

to the problem of coexistence with challenging species.These issues are of high relevance for policy in view of thefact that increasing pressure on natural systems is likely toincrease the importance and magnitude of such conflicts,with negative repercussions for biodiversity and humanlivelihoods and well-being (Young et al., ).

Defining human–wildlife conflicts

The term conflict is defined variously in the Oxford ConciseDictionary as ‘a state of opposition or hostilities’, ‘a fight or astruggle’ and ‘a clashing of opposed principles’. The termtherefore suggests action between two or more antagonists.Conflict is integral to conservation; those who defend con-servation objectives often find themselves in conflict withthose with other interests and objectives. Human–wildlifeconflict in particular is widespread and has been the subjectof a large number of publications. Conover () definedthese interactions as ‘situations occurring when an actionby either humans or wildlife has an adverse effect on theother’. This framing implies that species are in conflictwith people, such as in the case of elephant–human conflicts(e.g. Wilson et al., ). In more extreme cases, we also seeorang-utan–palm oil conflicts (Nantha & Tisdell, ) andprotected area–community conflicts (Liu et al., ).

This widely used framing of human–wildlife conflict hasbeen criticized. Peterson et al. () pointed out that theportrayal of animals as ‘conscious human antagonists’ and‘combatants against people’ is problematic as it masks theunderlying human dimension (see also Marshall et al.,; Raik et al., ; White et al., ; Young et al.,). Orang-utans Pongo pygmaeus and oil palm Elaeisguineensis are not in conflict with each other. Instead,these conflicts are between those who want to protect theorang-utan and those wanting to promote oil palm planta-tions. Of course, oil palm plantations may have damagingimpacts on these great apes but the conflict is betweenthe conservationists and developers. This confusion ledYoung et al. () to suggest that human–wildlife conflictsshould be split into their two components: human–wildlifeimpacts, which focus on the impacts of wildlife on humansand their activities, and the underlying human–human con-flicts between those defending pro-wildlife positions andthose defending other positions. An alternative definitionof conflicts over biodiversity has therefore been proposed

STEPHEN MARK REDPATH (Corresponding author) Institute of Biological andEnvironmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Zoology Building,Tillydrone Avenue, Aberdeen, AB2 42TZ, UK. E-mail s.redpath@abdn.ac.uk

SALONI BHATIA Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore, Karnataka, India

JULIETTE YOUNG Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Penicuik, Midlothian, UK

Received June . Revision requested July .Accepted August .

© 2014 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, Page 1 of 4 doi:10.1017/S0030605314000799

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 18 Dec 2014 IP address: 131.230.73.202

as: situations that arise when two or more parties havestrongly held views [over biodiversity objectives] and oneof those parties is attempting to assert its interests at the ex-pense of the other (Bennett et al., ; Marshall et al., ;White et al., ; Young et al., ; Redpath et al., ).Yet, despite these concerns and suggestions, it is clear thatthe way in which these issues are framed remains broadlyunchanged.

Human–wildlife conflict literature

It is undoubtedly the case that many conflicts arise whenhumans and wildlife interact, especially when the wildlifein question is a large charismatic species (Peterson et al.,). In April we used ISI Web of Knowledge to locate case studies, published since , on human–wildlifeconflict, aiming for a broad overview of the subject. Wesearched for articles containing the phrases ‘human–wildlifeconflict’ or ‘human–animal conflict’ (we did not to do a sys-tematic review of the available literature). The databases in-cluded in the search were Science Citation Index–Expanded,Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts and HumanitiesCitation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index–Science, Conference Proceedings Citation Index–SocialScience & Humanities. For multiple articles on the samestudy system we took the most recent one. We excludedreviews and discussion articles.

For each case study, SB identified whether the species inquestion was of conservation interest (i.e. on the IUCN RedList; IUCN, ) and the broad objectives underlying eitherside of the conflict, which were categorized based on theabstract and title (Table ). Although the articles were pri-marily coded by SB, the typology was developed by allthree authors, and in rare cases of uncertainty the articlewas coded by mutual agreement.

Of the articles, involved species of conservationinterest. Most of the species involved were predators(%) or large herbivores (%). We identified the under-lying conflicts as primarily being between conservationobjectives and either livelihood (%) or human safetyand health objectives (%). Others involved conservationand recreation (%), development and infrastructure (%),animal welfare (%) and human well-being (%). In otherwords, almost all human–wildlife conflicts were betweenthose who sought to defend conservation objectives andthose defending other, mainly livelihood, objectives.

Does language matter?

Does it really matter if we continue to frame these issues ashuman–wildlife conflicts? Peterson et al. () argued thatit does because it perpetuates the problem and reduces op-tions for solutions. Using the human–wildlife conflict frame

may label nature as threatening, leading to misunderstand-ing and ultimately negative consequences for nature(McComas, ). This is similar to the problem identifiedin studies of invasive species, where it has been argued thatmilitaristic metaphors are problematic because they give aninaccurate perception of the species involved and contributeto misunderstanding (Larson, ). We also know that theway problems are framed has repercussions. For example,the way that the news is framed by the media is believedto influence the political agenda as well as prime readersto think in a certain way (McCombs & Shaw, ;Scheufele, ). So we may hypothesize that presentingwildlife as antagonistic may alter the way people perceivethose species.

Furthermore, if we continue to view these conflicts asbeing between humans and wildlife then the approachtaken to tackle conflicts will be focused on technical solu-tions rather than on the underlying conflict. Technical solu-tions aimed at reducing the impact of wildlife on humansmay be successful (e.g. Woodroffe et al., ). For example,technical solutions such as tripwires or community-basedguarding or chilli deterrents to minimize damage from ele-phants may be successful (Hedges & Gunaryadi, ).However, because conflicts are fundamentally between peo-ple, technical solutions are unlikely to focus on the underly-ing problem unless both parties support their use. So justbecause a particular technical solution may be effective atreducing impacts does not mean that conflicts between con-servation and livelihood objectives are addressed.

TABLE 1 Descriptions of competing objectives identified in articleson human–wildlife conflict.

Objective Description

Conservation Emphasis on the need to defend conser-vation objectives; e.g. protecting threat-ened species on the IUCN Red List orupholding conservation legislation

Livelihood Emphasis on livelihood impact of theconflict; e.g. impact on farming, fishing

Animal welfare Emphasis on ethics &moral responsibilitytowards the species in conflict, especiallyin human-dominated landscapes; e.g.urban wildlife management

Human safety &health

Emphasis on public health & safety con-cerns arising out of conflict

Recreation Emphasis on recreation; e.g. tourism ortrophy hunting

Development &infrastructure

Emphasis on the impact of infrastructureactivities (e.g. road construction) on con-servation of the species in conflict

Human well-being Emphasis on psychological or spiritualwell-being of people, including percep-tions of risk, or spiritual/religious con-nection of people with the species

2 S. M. Redpath et al.

© 2014 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 1–4

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 18 Dec 2014 IP address: 131.230.73.202

A way forward?

Peterson et al. () suggested, like Madden () beforethem, that instead of using the term human–wildlife conflictwe should use human–wildlife coexistence as a more con-structive way of framing the issue. However, we contendthat we need to do more than this. We need to be explicitabout the underlying human–human dimension.Transparency about the nature of these conflicts is neededbefore we can identify effective means of dealing withthem (Linnell et al., ; Young et al., ). This partly in-volves distinguishing between human–wildlife impacts andhuman–human conflicts (Young et al., ). It also meansbeing unambiguous about the specific interests involved. Inthe majority of cases human–wildlife conflicts are betweenconservation and other human interests. In these cases, wesuggest that it may be more productive to stop hiding be-hind the wildlife and be clear that those who are defendingthe conservation objectives are the antagonists.

This distinction is important because the focus will inev-itably move from a focus on impact and technical solutionsto consideration of how to negotiate solutions between thesecompeting interests. Although technical approaches arelikely to be an important part of the solution, we suggestthat the main thrust should be a policy context that en-courages dialogue between the interest groups to under-stand goals, explore the evidence and negotiate waysforward (Redpath et al., ).

We illustrate these points with an example one of us (SR)has worked on. In the UK, hen harriers Circus cyaneus havean impact on red grouse Lagopus lagopus scoticus popula-tions, and there is a conflict between those interested in har-rier conservation and those interested in grouse shooting(Thirgood & Redpath, ). At the outset this was typicallyconsidered as a human–wildlife conflict and a number oftechnical solutions were proposed (Thirgood et al., ).One technical solution that was subsequently tested andfound to be highly effective in reducing impact was theuse of diversionary feeding (Redpath et al., ). Yet,despite its effectiveness, the solution has not been takenup by grouse managers, and the conflict continues becausethe technique was aimed at reducing impact rather thanaddressing the underlying conflict (Thirgood & Redpath,). We suggest that should a shared solution be sought,then a more productive approach will be to address theunderlying conflict by building trust and understandingbetween the groups. Being explicit about the human antag-onists will help open up the space and expertise to search forsustainable solutions.

The role of conservation

This reframing of many human–wildlife conflicts as beingbetween conservation and other human activities highlights

another potential problem. Given the urgency that is inte-gral to conservation, it is unsurprising that in many casesconservation biologists are dealing with the conflict. Itmay be problematic to have a party who is an antagonistin the conflict leading the search for solutions as thisparty will not be an independent arbiter in the conflict.Conservation biologistsmay focus on top-down approaches,such as enforcing legislation on unwilling stakeholders ortokenistic participatory approaches in which false expecta-tions are raised within a legislative context that cannot bechanged. In addition, conservation biologists are naturallygoing to focus on delivering conservation outcomes, suchas an increase in species number, rather than striving foroutcomes that seek to benefit both parties. The concernhere is that this biased focus may exacerbate the conflict,by antagonizing the other party, rather than resolving it.Care is required when thinking about what role individualsand organizations should play in these issues, what out-comes are sought by those involved, what processes willenable negotiation of alternative solutions, and from aconservation perspective which approach will lead tomore effective long-term conservation outcomes (Redpathet al., ).

Discussion

Within this field of conservation conflicts, we suggest that inmany cases researchers, planners and practitioners are stillattempting, like Don Quixote, to slay falsely identified con-flicts, with the consequent difficulties. There is a need toconsider carefully the way we use the term human–wildlifeconflict and to clearly distinguish between human–wildlifeimpacts and the underlying human–human conflictsbetween conservation and other human interests. These dis-tinctions are important as they highlight that many of theunderlying arguments are between conservation and otherhuman activities over how to manage a large predator orherbivore, rather than between humans and the speciesinvolved, where the species act as a surrogate for conser-vation interests.

To date, human–wildlife conflicts have proven challeng-ing to manage, in part, we contend, because in the majorityof cases they are researched by conservation biologists work-ing to understand and mitigate ecological impact ratherthan the social dimensions (Knight et al., ). We suspectthat it will be more productive to tackle the underlyinghuman dimensions by working with affected communities(Gregory, ; Knight et al., ) and with those skilledin negotiation, to openly and transparently explore the op-tions with conservation biologists, recognizing they are onlyone of the parties involved in that negotiation (e.g. Biggset al., ). This will require the role of conservation inthese conflicts to be acknowledged explicitly, the goals to

Reconsidering human–wildlife conflict 3

© 2014 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 1–4

http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 18 Dec 2014 IP address: 131.230.73.202

be articulated and some will to negotiate solutions withinthe existing legal and political context. Although policy-makers and conservation biologists are increasingly re-cognizing the need for such an approach in conservationgenerally, these issues are pressing within conflict situationswhere there is an urgent need to tackle effectively and sus-tainably the serious problems that threaten the conservationof biodiversity and other human activities.

References

BENNETT, E., NEILAND, A., ANANG, E., BANNERMAN, P., RAHMAN, A.A., HUQ, S. et al. () Towards a better understanding of conflictmanagement in tropical fisheries: evidence fromGhana, Bangladeshand the Caribbean. Marine Policy, , –.

BIGGS, D., ABEL, N., KNIGHT, A.T., LEITCH, A., LANGSTON, A. &BAN, N.C. () The implementation crisis in conservationplanning: could “mental models” help? Conservation Letters, , –.

CERVANTES, Miguel de () Don Quixote. Translated byEdith Grossman. Harper Collins, New York, USA ().

CONOVER,M.R. ()ResolvingHuman–Wildlife Conflicts: The Scienceof Wildlife Damage Management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA.

GREGORY, R. () Using stakeholder values to make smarterenvironmental decisions. Environment, , –.

HEDGES, S. & GUNARYADI, D. () Reducing human–elephantconflict: do chillies help deter elephants from entering crop fields?Oryx, , –.

IUCN () IUCN Red List of Threatened Species v. .. Http://www.iucnredlist.org [accessed July ].

KNIGHT, A.T., COWLING, R.M. & CAMPBELL, B.M. () Anoperational model for implementing conservation action.Conservation Biology, , –.

LARSON, B.M.H. () The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasionbiology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, , –.

LINNELL, J.D.C., RONDEAU, D., REED, D.H.,WILLIAMS, R., ALTWEGG,R., RAXWORTHY, C.J. et al. () Confronting the costs andconflicts associated with biodiversity. Animal Conservation, ,–.

LIU, J., OUYANG, Z. & MIAO, H. () Environmental attitudes ofstakeholders and their perceptions regarding protectedarea–community conflicts: a case study in China. Journal ofEnvironmental Management, , –.

MADDEN, F. () Creating coexistence between humans andwildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, , –.

MARSHALL, K., WHITE, R. & FISCHER, A. () Conflicts betweenhumans over wildlife management: on the diversity of stakeholderattitudes and implications for conflict management. BiodiversityConservation, , –.

MCCOMAS, K.A. () Defining moments in risk communicationresearch: –. Journal of Health Communication, , –.

MCCOMBS, M.E. & SHAW, D.L. () The agenda-setting function ofmass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, , –.

NANTHA, H.S. & TISDELL, C. () The orangutan–oil palm conflict:economic constraints and opportunities for conservation.Biodiversity and Conservation, , –.

PETERSON, M.N., BIRCKHEAD, J.L., LEONG, K., PETERSON, M.J. &PETERSON, T.R. () Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlifeconflict. Conservation Letters, , –.

RAIK, D.B., WILSON, A.L. & DECKER, D.J. () Power in naturalresources management: an application of theory. Society & NaturalResources, , –.

REDPATH, S.M., THIRGOOD, S.J. & LECKIE, F.M. () Doessupplementary feeding reduce predation of red grouse by henharriers? Journal of Applied Ecology, , –.

REDPATH, S.M., YOUNG, J., EVELY, A., ADAMS, W.M., SUTHERLAND,W.J., WHITEHOUSE, A. et al. () Understanding andmanaging conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, ,–.

SCHEUFELE, D.A. () Framing as a theory of media effects. Journalof Communication, , –.

THIRGOOD, S. & REDPATH, S. () Hen harriers and red grouse:science, politics and human–wildlife conflict. Journal of AppliedEcology, , –.

THIRGOOD, S., REDPATH, S., NEWTON, I. & HUDSON, P. ()Raptors and red grouse: conservation conflicts and managementsolutions. Conservation Biology, , –.

WHITE, R.M., FISCHER, A., MARSHALL, K., TRAVIS, J.M., WEBB, T.J.,DI FALCO, S. et al. () Developing an integrated conceptualframework to understand biodiversity conflicts. Land Use Policy, ,–.

WILSON, S., DAVIES, T.E., HAZARIKA, N. & ZIMMERMANN, A. ()Understanding spatial and temporal patterns of human–elephantconflict in Assam, India. Oryx, http://dx.doi.org/./S

WOODROFFE, R., THIRGOOD, S. & RABINOWITZ, A. (eds) ()People andWildlife: Conflict or Co-Existence? Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK

YOUNG, J.C., JORDAN, A., SEARLE, K.R., BUTLER, A., CHAPMAN, D.S.,SIMMONS, P. & WATT, A.D. () Does stakeholder involvementreally benefit biodiversity conservation? Biological Conservation,, –.

YOUNG, J.C., MARZANO, M., WHITE, R.M., MCCRACKEN, D.I.,REDPATH, S.M., CARSS, D.N. et al. () The emergence ofbiodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: characteristics andmanagement strategies. Biodiversity and Conservation, , –.

Biographical sketches

STEPHEN REDPATH is interested in understanding andmanaging con-flicts in conservation. SALON I BHAT IA ’s research is focused on toler-ance in relation to living with carnivores. JUL I ETTE YOUNG studies thepolitical science of conflict.

4 S. M. Redpath et al.

© 2014 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 1–4