Who’s in Conflict with Whom? Human Dimensions of the Conflicts Involving Wildlife

Abstract

Some of the most high-profile wildlife conservation cases in the world have been addressed within the emerging field of human-wildlife conflict (HWC). Although HWC is often defined as any situation where wildlife comes into conflict with humans over common resources, the term HWC has been applied almost exclusively to cases involving charismatic mega-fauna, such as large-bodied herbivores and top predators. What these animals have in common is not the magnitude of the damage they cause or their conservation status, but their power to elicit strong mixed opinions among broad sectors of society, which often results in clashes between groups of people who hold differing values toward these animals and their management. As society becomes more diversified and people hold more varied views on human domination over nature, conflicts involving wildlife will grow in intensity and frequency. In this chapter, I discuss the importance of the human dimensions perspective for effectively understanding and resolving HWC; an approach that goes beyond the traditional ecological and economic considerations about reciprocal negative impacts, by addressing also the complexity of the causal relationship between wildlife damage and human thoughts and actions toward wildlife, and the disagreements between people over wildlife values and management objectives.

Predicting Acceptability of Jaguars and Pumas in the Atlantic Forest, Brazil

“…HWC represents the conflict between humans and a particular wildlife species (e.g., livestock depredation), but also the conflict of interest among different groups toward the species. These conflict situations are now a primary issue facing wildlife conservation (Marchini, 2014) that necessitates economic, legal, social psychological, and political considerations (Knight, 2000). In this article, social psychological considerations focusing on individuals' emotions, attitudes, existence value, and perceived agency credibility are used for investigating acceptability of jaguars and pumas in Brazil's Atlantic Forest.…”

“…Expansion of human settlements into natural areas and livestock depredation by large carnivores, such as jaguars (Panthera onca) and pumas (Puma concolor), has increased mortality, particularly in the context of human-wildlife conflict (HWC; Marchini, 2014). HWC represents the conflict between humans and a particular wildlife species (e.g., livestock depredation), but also the conflict of interest among different groups toward the species.…”

Recent land‐use changes and the expansion of an exotic potential prey: a possible redemption for Atlantic forest jaguars?

“…In order to confront these challenges, the following issues need to be addressed: (1) wild boars are considered to be the most invasive vertebrate in the world (Barrios-Garcia & Ballari, 2012); the cost of their control could be considerably reduced in the presence of jaguars; (2) agricultural landscapes should be multifunctional with a primary mission of producing crops and domesticated livestock, but also a secondary mission of conserving wild species (Verdade et al, 2014); and last but not least, (3) capacity building in the field of wildlife management should be stimulated in Brazil (Verdade, 2004). Many countries have been facing conflicts related to the recovery of large predators (Marchini, 2014), and their experience would be invaluable in such a task.…”

Recreational harvest and incident‐response management reduce human–carnivore conflicts in an anthropogenic landscape

“…). Thus, managers are not only charged with ensuring wildlife population viability, but must also heed shifting stakeholder acceptance (Marchini ). Some proactive solutions to human–wildlife conflicts are publically acceptable such as intensively managing raptors nesting on power infrastructure in South Africa (Jenkins et al .…”

“…One of the complexities inherent to these systems is that ecological and cultural carrying capacities can radically differ, yet dynamically interrelate (Levin et al 2013). Thus, managers are not only charged with ensuring wildlife population viability, but must also heed shifting stakeholder acceptance (Marchini 2014). Some proactive solutions to human-wildlife conflicts are publically acceptable such as intensively managing raptors nesting on power infrastructure in South Africa (Jenkins et al 2013) or applying deterrents to reduce elephant crop raiding in Kenya (Graham & Ochieng 2008).…”