Review
Understanding and managing conservation conflicts

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021Get rights and content

Conservation conflicts are increasing and need to be managed to minimise negative impacts on biodiversity, human livelihoods, and human well-being. Here, we explore strategies and case studies that highlight the long-term, dynamic nature of conflicts and the challenges to their management. Conflict management requires parties to recognise problems as shared ones, and engage with clear goals, a transparent evidence base, and an awareness of trade-offs. We hypothesise that conservation outcomes will be less durable when conservationists assert their interests to the detriment of others. Effective conflict management and long-term conservation benefit will be enhanced by better integration of the underpinning social context with the material impacts and evaluation of the efficacy of alternative conflict management approaches.

Section snippets

Conservation conflicts: an increasing global problem

Across the globe, conservation is increasingly in conflict with other human activities. Although such conflicts can positively influence change 1, 2 they are often destructive, costly, and not only undermine effective conservation, but also prevent economic development, social equality, and resource sustainability 3, 4. Hence, conflicts are arguably one of the most intractable problems facing conservation 5, 6.

Our goal here is to define conservation conflicts, consider the conditions under

Defining conservation conflicts

Conflicts are a characteristic of human society and emerge in many forms [7]. Here, we focus on conservation conflicts, which, building on [2], we define as ‘situations that occur when two or more parties with strongly held opinions clash over conservation objectives and when one party is perceived to assert its interests at the expense of another’. This definition recognises that conservation conflicts occur fundamentally between humans.

Disagreements over conservation objectives are

Understanding conservation conflicts

Superficially, many conflicts appear to be about species impacts, such as the perceived impact of predators on livestock. However, the origins often go beyond material differences between stakeholders, arise from a deeper cognitive level [15], and are linked to power relations, changing attitudes, and values [16] that are rooted in social and cultural history. Six broad, non-exclusive categories of conflicts have been identified, of which only one relates to a lack of ecological information 2,

Conflict management: approaches

There is a broad literature on approaches to resolving conflicts in the environment and beyond 7, 31. We illustrate some of the key points relevant to conservation conflicts and then consider the success of attempts to manage these conflicts in practice. We use the term ‘conflict management’ throughout to draw a distinction between eliminating conflict (resolution) and reducing the negative impact of conflict (management). We start by considering how game theory can help conceptualise the

Conflict management: challenges

Theoretically, the development of shared solutions through stakeholder engagement, as outlined above, appears relatively straightforward. However, there are many barriers that can limit its effectiveness, particularly those discussed below.

The role of scientists in conservation conflicts

Science has a fundamental role to play in understanding the root causes of conflicts, assessing human–wildlife impacts, suggesting and testing alternative mitigation techniques, and helping parties explore trade-offs (Box 1, Box 2, Box 3, Box 4; Figure 2). Yet, scientists can be perceived as biased if they advocate conservation positions or work for an organisation involved in advocacy, so they need to acknowledge their own values [61]. Science can become politicised because stakeholders might

Measuring successful outcomes

In conflict management, success occurs when the outcome is acceptable to both sides and when neither party is asserting its interests to the detriment of others (for example, Box 2). In the case of conservation conflicts, one needs to know not only how effective different approaches are for reducing human–wildlife impact, but also more importantly, how effective the process is for reducing human–human conflict and developing long-term, robust solutions. Although the former might be easier to

Conflict resolution?

To our knowledge, no conservation conflict has ever been fully resolved in the sense that conflict is eliminated, although there have been varying degrees of success at managing them to minimise their destructive nature. The case studies highlight the dynamic nature of conflicts and that some level of conflict will persist over long time periods (Box 1, Box 2, Box 3, Box 4). Given this, the question of whether the long-term management of conservation conflict is best delivered through dialogue

Concluding remarks

We have focused on conflicts between humans over species of conservation concern. Yet, the issues discussed apply to other forms of conflict in conservation and beyond, as they are all ultimately about humans with different interests, views, and values.

At its heart, conflict management is about bringing parties face-to-face to discuss and negotiate acceptable solutions (Figure 2). At one level, this might seem trivial, yet as we have described, numerous barriers can prevent effective

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Phil Hulme and Mike Manfredo for their constructive comments. This paper grew out of discussions at the Conference on Conservation Conflicts in Aberdeen, 2011 and a workshop at the Society for Conservation Biology conference in Auckland in 2011. We are grateful to all those involved in debating these issues. The project was supported by funding from a Scottish Research Development Grant to the Aberdeen Centre for Environmental Sustainability, Aberdeen University's

References (95)

  • N. Salafsky

    Integrating development with conservation: a means to a conservation end, or a mean end to conservation?

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2011)
  • M.B. Lane

    Decentralization or privatization of environmental governance? Forest conflict and bioregional assessment in Australia

    J. Rural Stud.

    (2003)
  • S.D. MacLennan

    Evaluation of a compensation scheme to bring about pastoralist tolerance of lions

    Biol. Conserv.

    (2009)
  • D. Sarewitz

    How science makes environmental controversies worse

    Environ. Sci. Policy

    (2004)
  • A.D.M. Smith

    Experience in implementing harvest strategies in Australia's south-eastern fisheries

    Fish. Res.

    (2008)
  • W.J. Sutherland

    The need for evidence-based conservation

    Trends Ecol. Evol.

    (2004)
  • J.C. Young

    The emergence of biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: characteristics and management strategies

    Biodivers. Conserv.

    (2010)
  • A. Treves et al.

    Human–carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2003)
  • A.J. Dickman

    Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict

    Anim. Conserv.

    (2010)
  • Y. Yasmi et al.

    Managing conflict escalation in forestry: logging versus local community interests in Baru Pelepat village, Sumatra, Indonesia

    Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag.

    (2010)
  • M. Dowie

    Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples

    (2009)
  • R. Woodroffe

    The future of coexistence: resolving human–wildlife conflicts in a changing world

  • M.R. Conover

    Resolving Human–Wildlife Conflicts: The Science of Wildlife Damage Management

    (2001)
  • M.N. Peterson

    Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlife conflict

    Conserv. Lett.

    (2010)
  • W.M. Adams

    Managing tragedies: understanding conflict over common pool resources

    Science

    (2003)
  • D.B. Raik

    Power in natural resources management: an application of theory

    Soc. Nat. Resour.

    (2008)
  • R. Sidaway

    Resolving Environmental Disputes: From Conflict to Consensus

    (2005)
  • R. Wishart

    A story about a muskox: some implications of Tetlit Gwich’in human–animal relationships

  • C. Katz

    Whose nature? Whose culture? Private productions of space and the ‘preservation’ of nature

  • D.A. Armitage

    Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity

    Front. Ecol. Environ.

    (2009)
  • R.L. Bryant

    Non-governmental organizations and governmentality: ‘consuming’ biodiversity and indigenous people in the Philippines

    Polit. Stud.

    (2002)
  • W.M. Adams

    Thinking like a human: social science and the two cultures problem

    Oryx

    (2007)
  • P.C.L. White et al.

    Interdisciplinary approaches for the management of existing and emerging human–wildlife conflicts

    Wildl. Res.

    (2010)
  • M.J. Manfredo et al.

    Concepts for exploring the social aspects of human–wildlife conflict in a global context

    Hum. Dimensions Wildl.

    (2004)
  • T.R. Wellock

    Preserving the Nation: The Conservation and Environmental Movements, 1870–2000

    (2007)
  • R. Frodeman

    Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity

    (2010)
  • J. Young et al.

    Embodied interdisciplinarity: what is the role of polymaths in environmental research?

    Environ. Conserv.

    (2010)
  • C. Maser et al.

    Resolving Environmental Conflicts

    (2012)
  • O. Brox

    Schismogenesis in the wilderness: the reintroduction of predators in Norwegian forests

    Ethnos

    (2000)
  • L.C. Chase

    Innovations in stakeholder involvement: what's the next step?

    Wildl. Soc. Bull.

    (2000)
  • T.C. Beierle et al.

    What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes

    Environ. Plann. C: Government Policy

    (2001)
  • C. Ansell et al.

    Collaborative governance in theory and practice

    J. Public Adm. Res. Theory

    (2008)
  • D. Mosse

    ‘People's knowledge’, participation and patronage: operations and representations in rural development

  • S. Baruch-Mordo

    The carrot or the stick? Evaluation of education and enforcement as management tools for human–wildlife conflicts

    PLoS ONE

    (2011)
  • Cited by (886)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text