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

Abstract

Human-wildlife conflict is one of the most critical threats facing many wildlife species today, and the topic is receiving increasing attention from conservation biologists. Direct wildlife damage is commonly cited as the main driver of conflict, and many tools exist for reducing such damage. However, significant conflict often remains even after damage has been reduced, suggesting that conflict requires novel, comprehensive approaches for long-term resolution. Although most mitigation studies investigate only the technical aspects of conflict reduction, peoples' attitudes towards wildlife are complex, with social factors as diverse as religious affiliation, ethnicity and cultural beliefs all shaping conflict intensity. Moreover, human-wildlife conflicts are often manifestations of underlying human-human conflicts, such as between authorities and local people, or between people of different cultural backgrounds. Despite evidence that social factors can be more important in driving conflict than wildlife damage incurred, they are often ignored in conflict studies. Developing a broader awareness of conflict drivers will advance understanding of the patterns and underlying processes behind this critical conservation issue. In this paper, I review a wide variety of case studies to show how social factors strongly influence perceptions of human-wildlife conflict, and highlight how mitigation approaches should become increasingly innovative and interdisciplinary in order to enable people to move from conflict towards coexistence.

The impacts, characterisation and management of human–leopard conflict in a multi-use land system in South Africa

“…This study contributes further to the literature by acknowledging a range of other hidden impacts caused by livestock depredation such as a loss of social capital for communal farmers because livestock are sometimes used to finance funerals, bride wealth and provide households with additional revenue. Livestock loss can also induce hidden costs because people attach emotional and cultural significance to livestock (Dickman 2010). Livestock loss for both farming communities causes a sense of diminished wellbeing amongst both farming groups.…”

“…People dependent on a single livelihood strategy are more vulnerable to the impacts of depredation, because the social and economic impacts of wildlife damage are intensified (Dickman 2010). Wealth, income diversification and social reciprocity within families and communities may provide adequate coping mechanisms for buffering the impacts of damage-causing animals (Naughton- Treves et al 2005).…”

“…Human-wildlife conflict practitioners stress a need for interdisciplinary research on the human dimensions of conflict (Dickman 2010;Treves et al 2009) and the need to incorporate quantitative and qualitative methods in conservation research involving humans (Drury et al 2011). We adopt an explicitly interdisciplinary and multi-method research approach to address the impacts, characterisation and management of humanleopard conflict.…”

Development of Perception Test for Human-Wildlife Conflict

“…The commonly occurring conflicts include cropraiding events, property damage and human causalities, among other forms (Dickman, 2010). The common wildlife encountering with humans are elephant, wild boar, and primates.…”

Conservation conflicts in nature conservation: the example of Kastamonu-Bartin Küre Mountains National Park

“…Most of the rapidly developing conservation conflicts in conservation biology (Dickman 2010;Graham et al 2011) focus on spatial land-use systems. Yet when the case history of conservation conflicts is examined, it becomes clear that management strategies and social factors are the most influential elements in the occurrence of conflicts (Dickman 2010;Linnell 2011). One of the most important reasons for the increase in conservation conflicts is that politics and regulatory mechanisms focus on natural components and remain incapable of social components evolution.…”