Why transforming biodiversity conservation conflict is essential and how to begin.

Abstract

Conserving biodiversity requires productive management of conflict. Currently, wildlife are often portrayed as conscious human antagonists, which must be fought. We suggest using the ‘comic corrective’ to experiment with ways to reframe human–human conflicts over wildlife management and wildlife damage. This requires a deep commitment to change, often made more palatable through humour. This effort to fight the use of the term human–wildlife conflict should not be interpreted as a call to reject human–human conflict as a useful conservation tool. Conservationists, who value wildlife, often misleadingly suggest that conservation can sidestep irreducible value differences and political processes that see proponents of different views as antagonists. Because democracies cannot function without dissent, we suggest that conservation biologists should embrace stakeholder conflicts over wildlife conservation as a way to improve decision making. In particular, we should challenge the view that wildlife are willfully antagonistic to people while recognizing conflict among humans over how biodiversity conservation should occur.

An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations

“…Where such encounters may have been experienced previously as facts of life within certain social contexts, examining and trying to mitigate conflicts may lead to them being reinterpreted as unacceptable problems requiring redress by the state or a nongovernmental conservation organization that is given moral and legal responsibilities for resolving the conflict. This reframing may have unintended consequences for both predators and people (Peterson et al 2013;. When conservationists attempt to resolve conflicts, the problem becomes identified with them.…”

“…The model of consensus-based conservation that came to prominence in the 1990s, linked to sustainable development, has proven unhelpful in resolving conservation conflicts (Peterson et al 2013). The focus of conservation efforts-and importantly, funding-is now frequently on scenarios where conservation and development must benefit mutually from interventions.…”

Connecting international priorities with human wellbeing in low-income regions: lessons from hawksbill turtle conservation in El Salvador

“…Sutherland et al 2009), deal with conflict only marginally and superficially. When conflict is considered, recommendations typically involve trying to eliminate or resolve it through education, financial compensation, and/or local control (Peterson et al 2013). Although these approaches are valuable additions to conservation efforts, they are rarely envisioned as more than tools to enable policy makers to respond to relatively superficial interests.…”

“…It requires difficult decisions regarding appropriate levels of resource allocation for protection and management of ecosystems, landscapes, habitats, and species (White et al 2009, Peterson et al 2013. Although most biodiversity conservation contexts are shaped by conflict, publications that list crucial priorities (i.e.…”

Regaining tractability through reframing of a watershed management conflict: A case of southwestern Puerto Rico

“…Recognizing the issues outlined above, the current study has proposed a path forward that would bring parties in conflict together through a framework that would help reconfigure how the problem is understood. Our approach to conflict resolution involves reframing problems considering attitudes toward conservation and development efforts (Peterson, Peterson, Peterson, & Leong, ), stakeholder accounts of changes in Ecosystem Services provision and tradeoffs in the Rio Loco watershed, and their recommendations for improvement. The appropriate framing of tradeoffs in the watershed was a major challenge previously identified by participating stakeholders in the EPA sponsored Public Values Forum (Bradley et al, ).…”