Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conservation Conflicts: Future Research Challenges

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Current Trends in Wildlife Research

Part of the book series: Wildlife Research Monographs ((WIREMO,volume 1))

Abstract

It has been long known that wildlife management is often more about working with people than with wildlife (Gilbert 1971). Much of this people management occurs as top down conservation measures codified in rules, regulations, and laws. When such measures are enforced, or when there is an absence thereof, both people and wildlife can be affected; this has the potential to give rise to conflict about these measures to conserve wildlife. Such conservation conflicts have the potential to be as widespread as they are varied, and have proven difficult to resolve. It is also clear that conservation conflicts that involve wildlife will escalate both in number and intensity in the future because of rising human population and resource use (Redpath et al. 2015).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adams WM, Sandbrook C (2013) Conservation, evidence and policy. Oryx 47:329–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage D, Marschke M, Plummer R (2008) Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Glob Environ Chang 18:86–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boddicker M, Rodriguez JJ, Amanzo J (2002) Indices for assessment and monitoring of large mammals within an adaptive management framework. Environ Monit Assess 76:05–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brechin SR, Wilshusen PR, Fortwangler CL, West PC (2002) Beyond the square wheel: toward a more comprehensive understanding of biodiversity conservation as social and political process. Soc Nat Res 15:41–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briceño-Linares JM, Rodríguez JP, Rodríguez-Clark KM, Rojas-Suárez F, Millán PA, Vittori EG, Carrasco-Muñoz M (2011) Adapting to changing poaching intensity of yellow-shouldered parrot (Amazona barbadensis) nestlings in Margarita Island, Venezuela. Biol Conserv 144:1188–1193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler JRA, Middlemas SJ, McKelvey SA, McMyn I, Leyshon B, Walker I, Thompson PM, Boyd IL, Duck C, Armstrong JD, Graham IM, Baxter JM (2008) The Moray Firth Seal Management Plan: an adaptive framework for balancing the conservation of seals, salmon, fisheries and wildlife tourism in the UK. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 18:1025–1038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colyvan M, Justus J, Regan HM (2011) The conservation game. Biol Conserv 144:1246–1253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conroy MJ, Runge MC, Nichols JD, Stodola KW, Cooper RJ (2011) Conservation in the face of climate change: the roles of alternative models, monitoring, and adaptation in confronting and reducing uncertainty. Biol Conserv 144:1204–1213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickman AJ (2010) Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Animal Conserv 13:458–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endter-Wada J, Blahna D, Krannich R, Brunson M (1998) A framework for understanding social science contributions to ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 8:891–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert DL (1971) Natural resources and public relations. The Wildlife Society, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Gore ML, Knuth BA, Curtis PD, Shanahan JE (2006) Education programs for reducing American black bear-human conflict: indicators of success? Ursus 17(1):75–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gore ML, Knuth BA, Scherer CW, Curtis PD (2008) Evaluating a conservation investment designed to reduce human–wildlife conflict. Conserv Lett 1(3):136–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham IM, Harris RN, Matejusová I, Middlemas SJ (2011) Do ‘rogue’ seals exist? Implications for seal conservation in the UK. Animal Conserv 14:587–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, Ohlson D, Arvai J (2006) Deconstructing adaptive management: criteria for applications to environmental management. Ecol Appl 16:2411–2425

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hemmati M (2002) Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability: beyond deadlock and conflict. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland A (2015) Philosophy, conflict and conservation. In: Redpath SM, Gutierrez RJ, Wood KA, Young JC (eds), Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating towards solutions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 19–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (ed) (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS, Meffee GK (1996) Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv Biol 10:328–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howe C, Milner‐Gulland EJ (2012) Evaluating indices of conservation success: a comparative analysis of outcome‐and output‐based indices. Animal Conserv 15(3):217–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johns D (2009) A new conservation politics: power, organisation building, and effectiveness. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson F, Williams K (1999) Protocol and practice in the adaptive management of waterfowl harvests. Conserv Ecol 3(1):8. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art8/

  • Keith DA, Martin TG, McDonald-Madden E, Walters C (2011) Uncertainty and adaptive management for biodiversity conservation. Biol Conserv 144:1175–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkpatrick JF, Turner JW (1997) Urban deer contraception: the seven stages of grief. Wildl Soc Bull 25:515–519

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee KN (1999) Appraising adaptive management. Conserv Ecol 3(2): 3. [online] URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3

  • Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE, Haywood A, Miezis L (2011) Adaptive monitoring in the real world: proof of concept. Trends Ecol Evol 26:641–646

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCool SF, Guthrie K, Smith JK (2000) Building consensus: legitimate hope or seductive paradox? Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-25. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins

    Google Scholar 

  • Madden F, McQuinn B (2014) Conservation’s blind spot: the case for conflict transformation in wildlife conservation. Biol Conserv 178:97–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLane RJ, Lee RG (1996) Adaptive management: promises and pitfalls. Environ Manage 20:437–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moir WH, Block WM (2001) Adaptive management on public lands in the United States: commitment or rhetoric? Environ Manage 28:141–148

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen CK, Porter WF, Underwood HB (1997) An adaptive management approach to controlling suburban deer. Wildl Soc Bull 25:470–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyhan B, Reifler J (2015) Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine 33:459–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker GE, Osborn FV (2006) Investigating the potential for chilli Capsicum spp. to reduce human-wildlife conflict in Zimbabwe. Oryx 40:343–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson MN, Peterson MJ, Peterson TR, Leong K (2013) Why transforming biodiversity conservation conflict is essential and how to begin. Pacif Cons Biol 19:94–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CM, Fazey I, Reed MS, Stringer LC, Robinson GM, Evely AC (2010) Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J Environ Manage 91:1766–1777

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Redpath SM, Young J, Evely A, Adams WM, Sutherland WJ, Whitehouse A, Amar A, Lambert R, Linnell J, Watt A, Gutiérrez RJ (2013) Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol Evol 28:100–109

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Redpath SM, Bhatia S, Young J (2015a) Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx 49:222–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Redpath SM, Gutiérrez RJ, Wood KA, Young JC (eds) (2015b) Conflicts in conservation: navigating towards solutions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141:2417–2431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Sidoli del Ceno J (2015) Mediation and conservation conflicts: from top-down to bottom-up. In: Redpath SM, Gutiérrez RJ, Wood KA, Young JC (eds) Conflicts in conservation: navigating towards solutions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 222–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Rist L, Cambell BM, Frost P (2013a) Adaptive management: where are we now? Environ Conserv 40:5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rist L, Felton A, Samuelsson AL, Sandström C, Rosvall O (2013b) A new paradigm for adaptive management. Ecol Soc 18:63. http://dx.doi.org/10,5751/ES-06183-1800463

  • Rogers P (2015) Peace research and conservation conflicts. In: Redpath SM, Gutiérrez RJ, Wood KA, Young JC (eds) Conflicts in conservation: navigating towards solutions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 164–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Runge MC (2011) Adaptive management for threatened and endangered species. J Fish Wildlife Manage 2:220–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runge MC, Converse SJ, Lyons JE (2011) Which uncertainty? Using expert elicitation and expected value of information to design an adaptive program. Biol Conserv 144:1214–1223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber ESG, Bearlin AR, Nicol SJ, Todd CR (2004) Adaptive management: a synthesis of current understanding and effective application. Ecolog Manag Restorat 5:177–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sotherton N, Tapper S, Smith A (2009) Hen harriers and red grouse: economic aspects of red grouse shooting and the implications for moorland conservation. J Appl Ecol 46(5):955–960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stankey GH, Borman BT, Ryan C, Shindler B, Sturtevant V, Clark RN, Philpot C (2003) Adaptive management and the Northwest Forest Plan: rhetoric or reality? J Forest 101:40–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM (2004) The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 19(6):305–308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Swaisgood RR, Fuwen W, McShea WJ, Wildt DE, Kouba AJ, Zhang Z (2011) Can science save the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca)? Unifying science and policy in an adaptive management paradigm. Integr Zool 6:290–296

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thirgood S, Redpath S (2008) Hen harriers and red grouse: science, politics and human–wildlife conflict. J Appl Ecol 45(5):1550–1554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson PS, Amar A, Hoccom DG, Knott J, Wilson JD (2009) Resolving the conflict between driven‐grouse shooting and conservation of hen harriers. J Appl Ecol 46(5):950–954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters CJ (1986) Adaptive management of renewable re-sources. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters CJ, Holling CS (1990) Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71:2060–2068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washington H et al (2014) A framework for evaluating the effectiveness of conservation attention at the species level. Oryx. doi:10.1017/S0030605314000763

    Google Scholar 

  • Waylen KA, Fischer A, McGowan PJ, Thirgood SJ, Milner‐Gulland EJ (2010) Effect of local cultural context on the success of community‐based conservation interventions. Conserv Biol 24:1119–1129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams BK (2012) Reducing uncertainty about objective functions in adaptive management. Ecol Model 225:61–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams BK, Johnson FA (1995) Adaptive management and the regulation of waterfowl harvests. Wildl Soc Bull 23:430–436

    Google Scholar 

  • White PCL, Ward AI (2010) Interdisciplinary approaches for the management of existing and emerging human–wildlife conflicts. Wildl Res 37:623–629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood KA, Stillman RA, Daunt F, O’Hare MT (2013) Evaluating the effects of population management on a herbivore grazing conflict. PLoS One 8:e56287

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wood KA, Stillman RA, Daunt F, O’Hare MT (2014) Can sacrificial feeding areas protect aquatic plants from herbivore grazing? Using behavioural ecology to inform wildlife management. PLoS One 9:e104034

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wood KA, Stillman RA, Goss-Custard JD (2015) Co-creation of individual-based models by practitioners and modellers to inform environmental decision-making. J Appl Ecol. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12419

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A (eds) (2005) People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B (1992) Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understand Sci 1:281–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young JC (2010) Analyzing the implementation of Natura 2000 in Scotland: an evaluation of processes and outcomes of stakeholder involvement in management plans. PhD thesis submitted to the University of East Anglia

    Google Scholar 

  • Young JC, Marzano M, White RM, McCracken DI, Redpath SM, Carss DN, Quine CP, Watt AD (2010) The emergence of biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: characteristics and management strategies. Biodivers Conserv 19:3973–3990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young JC, Butler JRA, Jordan A, Watt AD (2012) Less government intervention in biodiversity management: risks and opportunities. Biodivers Conserv 21(4):1095–1100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young JC, Jordan AR, Searle K, Butler A, Chapman DS, Simmons P, Watt AD (2013) Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation? Biol Conserv 158:359–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young JC, Redpath SM (2014) Conflict management principles and guidance. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report (iBids and Project no13654)

    Google Scholar 

  • Young JC, Thompson D, Moore P, MacGugan A, Watt AD, Redpath SM (In Press). A conflict management tool for conservation agencies. J Appl Ecol.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station (AES PROJECT MIN-41-036) provided financial support to RJG.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA

    R. J. Gutiérrez

  2. Conservation Science, Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge, Gloucestershire, GL2 7BT, UK

    Kevin A. Wood

  3. Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Aberdeen University, 23 St Machar Drive, Aberdeen, UK

    Stephen M. Redpath

  4. NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh, UK

    Juliette C. Young

Authors
  1. R. J. Gutiérrez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin A. Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephen M. Redpath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Juliette C. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. J. Gutiérrez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cinegéticos (IREC, CSIC-UCLM-JCCM), Instituto de Investigación en Recursos, Ciudad Real, Spain

    Rafael Mateo

  2. Cinegéticos (IREC, CSIC-UCLM-JCCM), Instituto de Investigación en Recursos, Ciudad Real, Spain

    Beatriz Arroyo

  3. Cinegéticos (IREC, CSIC-UCLM-JCCM), Instituto de Investigación en Recursos, Ciudad Real, Spain

    Jesus T. Garcia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gutiérrez, R.J., Wood, K.A., Redpath, S.M., Young, J.C. (2016). Conservation Conflicts: Future Research Challenges. In: Mateo, R., Arroyo, B., Garcia, J. (eds) Current Trends in Wildlife Research. Wildlife Research Monographs, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27912-1_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation