Conservation conflict is widespread, damaging, and has proved difficult to manage using conventional conservation approaches. Conflicts are often “wicked problems,” lacking clear solutions due to divergent values of stakeholders, and being embedded within wickedly complex environments. Drawing on the concept of wicked environmental problems could lead to management strategies better suited to tackling conflict. However, it is unclear whether managers are embracing ideas from the wicked problems concept. There is currently a lack of guidance for applying strategies to tackle particular wicked problems, such as conservation conflict. We explored the suitability of wicked problems‐inspired management, using eight contemporary conflict case studies. Conservation conflict was managed predominantly using conventional approaches suited to tackling single objectives in simple environments, rather than balancing competing objectives in complex environments. To deal with different characteristics of wickedness, we recommend that managers develop strategies combining distributed decision‐making, diverse opinions, pattern‐based predictions, trade‐off‐based objectives, and reporting of failures. Recent advances in conservation conflict research have focused on improving interactions among stakeholders. We believe that such stakeholder‐focused approaches would dovetail with the whole‐system focus of a wicked problems framework, allowing conservationists to move toward a holistic strategy for managing conservation conflict.

No abstract

No abstract

Global demand for agricultural products continues to grow. However, efforts to boost productivity exacerbate existing pressures on nature, both on farms and in the wider landscape. There is widespread appreciation of the critical need to achieve balance between biodiversity and human well-being in rural tropical crop production landscapes, that are essential for livelihoods and food security. There is limited empirical evidence of the interrelationships between natural capital, the benefits and costs of nature and its management, and food security in agricultural landscapes. Agroforestry practices are frequently framed as win-win solutions to reconcile the provision of ecosystem services important to farmers (i.e., maintaining soil quality, supporting pollinator, and pest control species) with nature conservation. Yet, underlying trade-offs (including ecosystem disservices linked to pest species or human-wildlife conflicts) and synergies (e.g., impact of ecosystem service provision on human well-being) are seldom analysed together at the landscape scale. Here, we propose a systems model framework to analyse the complex pathways, with which natural capital on and around farms interacts with human well-being, in a spatially explicit manner. To illustrate the potential application of the framework, we apply it to a biodiversity and well-being priority landscape in the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania, a public-private partnership for increasing production of cash and food crops. Our framework integrates three main dimensions: biodiversity (using tree cover and wildlife as key indicators), food security through crop yield and crop health, and climate change adaptation through microclimate buffering of trees. The system model can be applied to analyse forest-agricultural landscapes as socio-ecological systems that retain the capacity to adapt in the face of change in ways that continue to support human well-being. It is based on metrics and pathways that can be quantified and parameterised, providing a tool for monitoring multiple outcomes from management of forest-agricultural landscapes. This bottom-up approach shifts emphasis from global prioritisation and optimisation modelling frameworks, based on biophysical properties, to local socio-economic contexts relevant in biodiversity-food production interactions across large parts of the rural tropics.

No abstract