Trends in Ecology & Evolution
ReviewUnderstanding and managing conservation conflicts
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)
How to select instruments for the resolution of environmental conflicts?
Land Use Policy
(2006)Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe – a review
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
(2008)- et al.
Institutional challenges for resolving conflicts between fisheries and endangered species conservation
Mar. Policy
(2008) Identifying, managing and monitoring conflicts between forest biodiversity conservation and other human interests in Europe
Forest Policy Econ.
(2005)Developing an integrated conceptual framework to understand biodiversity conflicts
Land Use Policy
(2009)Integrating economic costs into conservation planning
Trends Ecol. Evol.
(2006)- et al.
The conservation game
Biol. Conserv.
(2011) - et al.
Biodiversity and stakeholder participation
J. Nat. Conserv.
(2011) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review
Biol. Conserv.
(2008)Hard choices: making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being
Biol. Conserv.
(2011)
Integrating development with conservation: a means to a conservation end, or a mean end to conservation?
Biol. Conserv.
Decentralization or privatization of environmental governance? Forest conflict and bioregional assessment in Australia
J. Rural Stud.
Evaluation of a compensation scheme to bring about pastoralist tolerance of lions
Biol. Conserv.
How science makes environmental controversies worse
Environ. Sci. Policy
Experience in implementing harvest strategies in Australia's south-eastern fisheries
Fish. Res.
The need for evidence-based conservation
Trends Ecol. Evol.
The emergence of biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: characteristics and management strategies
Biodivers. Conserv.
Human–carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide
Conserv. Biol.
Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict
Anim. Conserv.
Managing conflict escalation in forestry: logging versus local community interests in Baru Pelepat village, Sumatra, Indonesia
Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag.
Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples
The future of coexistence: resolving human–wildlife conflicts in a changing world
Resolving Human–Wildlife Conflicts: The Science of Wildlife Damage Management
Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlife conflict
Conserv. Lett.
Managing tragedies: understanding conflict over common pool resources
Science
Power in natural resources management: an application of theory
Soc. Nat. Resour.
Resolving Environmental Disputes: From Conflict to Consensus
A story about a muskox: some implications of Tetlit Gwich’in human–animal relationships
Whose nature? Whose culture? Private productions of space and the ‘preservation’ of nature
Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity
Front. Ecol. Environ.
Non-governmental organizations and governmentality: ‘consuming’ biodiversity and indigenous people in the Philippines
Polit. Stud.
Thinking like a human: social science and the two cultures problem
Oryx
Interdisciplinary approaches for the management of existing and emerging human–wildlife conflicts
Wildl. Res.
Concepts for exploring the social aspects of human–wildlife conflict in a global context
Hum. Dimensions Wildl.
Preserving the Nation: The Conservation and Environmental Movements, 1870–2000
Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity
Embodied interdisciplinarity: what is the role of polymaths in environmental research?
Environ. Conserv.
Resolving Environmental Conflicts
Schismogenesis in the wilderness: the reintroduction of predators in Norwegian forests
Ethnos
Innovations in stakeholder involvement: what's the next step?
Wildl. Soc. Bull.
What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes
Environ. Plann. C: Government Policy
Collaborative governance in theory and practice
J. Public Adm. Res. Theory
‘People's knowledge’, participation and patronage: operations and representations in rural development
The carrot or the stick? Evaluation of education and enforcement as management tools for human–wildlife conflicts
PLoS ONE
Cited by (886)
Social determinants of success of community-based hornbill conservation in Thailand
2024, Global Ecology and ConservationUnderstanding stakeholder perceptions on the impacts of gamebird releasing on or near UK protected sites
2024, Journal for Nature ConservationConservation backfire: Local effects of international protected area policy
2024, Environmental Science and PolicyBiodiversity conservation indicators and conflict management: Application of environmental expert-based approach in Romania
2024, Journal of Cleaner ProductionMore management, less damage? With increasing population size, economic costs of managing geese to minimize yield losses may outweigh benefits
2024, Journal of Environmental Management