human conflict essay

Why Peace Is So Tricky for Humans

Humans are hardwired for violent conflict, as well as the ability to resolve it.

Like our close living relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, humans are hardwired come into conflict with one another, often violently. Even so, like our ancestors, we also have the capacity to resolve fights; something that one anthropologist says has evolved along with our societies over the millennia.

We still have a way to go, he points out. The current system we have in place for dealing with large-scale conflict — the United Nations — is inadequate, suggests researcher Christopher Boehm who has contributed one of several essays on human conflict published in the May 18 issue of the journal Science.

"The genes are still making us do the same old things, which include quite a bit of conflict. Culture has given us solutions at various levels," said Boehm, of the department of biological sciences and anthropology at the University of Southern California, in a podcast released by the journal Science. "But the world conflict-resolution system still needs quite a bit of work." [ The Evolution of Fighting ]

While for the most part, national governments are fairly good at coping with internal conflicts , the UN's ability to intervene in conflicts is severely hampered, because, for example, permanent members of its Security Council are able to veto a resolution, he said.

The role of third parties like the UN in resolving conflicts appears to have deep evolutionary roots. The common ancestor for humans, chimpanzees and bonobos appears to have lived in a social dominance hierarchy, a structure that leads to conflict between individuals and groups, Boehm concluded by looking at behaviors shared among the three species today. (Bonobos appear less conflict-prone than chimpanzees and human hunter-gatherers.)

Often, fighting bonobos or chimpanzees will resolve the conflict themselves, but when this doesn't happen, a third party sometimes steps up.

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

"One way this happens for chimpanzees and occasionally bonobos is simply a power figure threatens the two who are fighting and gets their attention and makes them stop," Boehm said.

To get an idea of how hunter-gatherers living about 45,000 years ago dealt with conflict, Boehm looked to modern hunter-gatherer societies. [ The Awá Gallery: Faces of a Hunter-Gatherer Tribe ]

While humans at this time retained the capacity for violent conflict shared by their ancestors, the dynamics had changed. Humans had an understanding of death and they had weapons. They temporarily lost the alpha-male role and became more egalitarian, living in small bands; they also became moral, following rules because group values support them, rather than simply out of a fear of power, Boehm writes.

Hunter-gatherers have high rates of homicide , comparable to those of a large modern city, he said. Their egalitarian social structure, however, means there is no strong figure to intervene in fights, so people often try to head off a fight before it starts, he said.

Evolving solutions

But the loose social structure also offers a solution; those involved in conflicts can join a new band far away. This changed in time.

"Our cultural evolution has involved living in much more large and dense populations, and with larger populations come a greater need for command and control at the political center," he said.

Because moving away is no longer an option for them, tribal farmers grant some authority to a chief, allowing him to stop conflicts. Over time, this trend toward centralized power continued, chiefdoms turned into kingdoms, which led to early states and eventually modern nations.

Conflict management could then be delegated to police, courts and political figures, and in some cases, armies could intervene.

As for conflict between groups (rather than within them), humans, like chimpanzees, and bonobos to a lesser degree, fight with their neighbors. In the modern world, nations devote considerable resources to preparing for war, and small wars are waged frequently. However, like hunter-gatherers , nations can use truces and treaties to resolve them, Boehm writes.

Do you think world peace is possible?

"In the foreseeable future, the human capacity for political problem-solving will continue to be tested, with an ancient capacity for conflict management providing an important tool in international politics," he writes.

You can follow LiveScience senior writer Wynne Parry on Twitter @Wynne_Parry . Follow LiveScience for the latest in science news and discoveries on Twitter @livescience and on Facebook .

Human ancestor 'Lucy' was hairless, new research suggests. Here's why that matters.

Y chromosome is evolving faster than the X, primate study reveals

Earth from space: Green River winds through radioactive 'labyrinth of shadows'

CORE COMPONENTS

Expert Commissions
Secretariat and Director General
IUCN Council

IUCN WORLD CONSERVATION CONGRESS
REGIONAL CONSERVATION FORA
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR NATURE
IUCN ENGAGE (LOGIN REQUIRED)

IUCN tools, publications and other resources.

Get involved

Human-wildlife conflict

Wildlife can threaten people’s safety and livelihoods, which can lead to conflicts between groups of people over how to resolve the situation; experts call this ‘human-wildlife conflict’.
Human-wildlife conflicts are becoming more frequent, serious and widespread as human populations grow and habitats are lost.
Effectively managing human-wildlife conflicts protects communities, stops conflicts escalating, builds trust in conservation and avoids retaliation against wildlife.
Human-wildlife conflicts have unique ecological, cultural, social, historical, physical, economic and political characteristics which strategies to manage conflicts must consider.

What is the issue?

Wildlife can pose a direct threat to the safety, livelihoods and wellbeing of people . For example, when elephants forage on crops, seals damage fishing nets or jaguars kill livestock, people can lose their livelihoods. Retaliation against the species blamed often ensues.

The term human-wildlife conflict has traditionally been applied only to these negative interactions between people and wildlife, but this implies deliberate action by wildlife species and ignores the conflicts between groups of people about what should be done to resolve the situation.

The IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Human-Wildlife Conflict & Coexistence Specialist Group defines human-wildlife conflict as: struggles that emerge when the presence or behaviour of wildlife poses an actual or perceived, direct and recurring threat to human interests or needs, leading to disagreements between groups of people and negative impacts on people and/or wildlife.

Human-wildlife conflicts are becoming more frequent, serious and widespread because of human population growth, agricultural expansion, infrastructure development, climate change and other drivers of habitat loss. Human-wildlife conflicts can occur wherever wildlife and human populations overlap, so any factor that forces wildlife and people into closer contact makes conflicts more likely.

Much work to date has focussed on interventions to reduce impacts on people and retaliation against wildlife such as creating barriers, deploying deterrents or moving wildlife. In the absence of consultative, collaborative processes with stakeholders, these measures often have limited success.

Lion killing a donkey on the boundary of Makgadikgadi Pans National Park, Botswana

Why is this important?

Healthy ecosystems and the vital services they provide to people depend on wildlife. Managing human-wildlife conflicts is therefore crucial to achieve the UN Vision for Biodiversity 2050 in which ‘humanity lives in harmony with nature and in which wildlife and other living species are protected’.

Human-wildlife conflicts have severe implications for communities’ livelihoods, safety and wellbeing, and risk undermining conservation efforts by eroding support for protected areas, wildlife and biodiversity.

Retaliation against wildlife can pose a serious threat to a species’ survival, and reverse previous conservation progress.

For example, wolves, bears and other large carnivores are recovering across Europe, leading to tensions over how to manage their presence, which is welcomed by some and perceived as a risk to safety and livelihoods by others.

What can be done?

Human-wildlife conflict is recognised as a global concern in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s post-2020 global biodiversity framework

(to be adopted by Parties at CBD COP15 Part Two). Related to this, many governments are beginning to include the management of human-wildlife conflict in national policies and strategies to ensure resources are made available to manage them.

There are numerous approaches and measures that can be taken to reduce the damage or impacts, de-escalate tensions, address risks to income and poverty, and develop sustainable solutions.

These sometimes include barriers (fences, nets, trenches), guarding and early-warning systems, deterrents and repellents (sirens, lights, beehives), translocation (moving wildlife), compensation or insurance, providing risk-reducing alternatives, as well as managing tensions between stakeholders involved in these situations.

Effective planning and implementation of such measures requires consideration of good principles in community led-conservation , in collaboration with the communities affected .

Asian elephants damage crops in Assam, India

Research has shown that conflicts are complex and each situation has unique ecological, cultural, social, historical, physical, economic and political characteristics .

Although it is tempting to transfer approaches for damage reduction (e.g. fences, barriers) that appear helpful in one area directly to another, these only succeed if achieved through consultative, collaborative processes with stakeholders.

There can be pressure for ‘quick fixes’ to human-wildlife conflicts, but actions that do not consider the wider social and local contexts can lead to unintended consequences and increase tensions.

These can escalate into deeper divisions in which stakeholders perceive the conflict over wildlife to threaten their values or identity. Such situations become extremely difficult to resolve. In tensions over wolves in parts of North America for example, the relationship between stakeholders has deteriorated to deeply polarised conflict. In such cases, professional mediation and reconciliation processes (as used in peacebuilding) are needed.

The levels of conflict over wildlife

Efforts to assess and manage complex human-wildlife conflicts require collaboration across disciplines and sectors . For example, collaborations could involve conservation practitioners, community leaders, governments, researchers, businesses and other stakeholders; and need expertise in ecology, social psychology, economics, peacebuilding and environmental law.

More information:

IUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict & Coexistence Specialist Group: hwctf.org

hwctf.org/document-library - resource library
hwctf.org/policies - briefing papers
hwctf.org/guidelines - guidance

IUCN Resolution WCC-2020-Res-101 Addressing human-wildlife conflict: fostering a safe and beneficial coexistence of people and wildlife iucncongress2020.org/motion/117

Coexistence between human and wildlife: the nature, causes and mitigations of human wildlife conflict around Bale Mountains National Park, Southeast Ethiopia

Sefi Mekonen ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7712-9211 1

BMC Ecology volume 20 , Article number: 51 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

167k Accesses

75 Citations

30 Altmetric

Metrics details

Human–wildlife conflict occurs when the needs and behavior of wildlife impact negatively on humans or when humans negatively affect the needs of wildlife. To explore the nature, causes and mitigations of human wildlife conflict, the coexistence between human and wildlife assessment was conducted around Bale Mountains National Park. Data were collected by means of household questionnaires, focus group discussion, interview, field observation and secondary sources. The nature and extent of human wildlife conflict in the study area were profoundly impacted humans, wild animal and the environment through crop damage, habitat disturbance and destruction, livestock predation, and killing of wildlife and human. The major causes of conflict manifested that agricultural expansion (30%), human settlement (24%), overgrazing by livestock (14%), deforestation (18%), illegal grass collection (10%) and poaching (4%). To defend crop raider, farmers have been practiced crop guarding (34%), live fencing (26%), scarecrow (22%), chasing (14%), and smoking (5%). However, fencing (38%), chasing (30%), scarecrow (24%) and guarding (8%) were controlling techniques to defend livestock predator animals. As emphasized in this study, human–wildlife conflicts are negative impacts on both human and wildlife. Accordingly, possible mitigate possibilities for peaceful co-existence between human and wildlife should be create awareness and training to the local communities, identifying clear border between the closure area and the land owned by the residents, formulate rules and regulation for performed local communities, equal benefit sharing of the local communities and reduction of human settlement encroachment into the national park range. Generally, researcher recommended that stakeholders and concerned bodies should be creating awareness to local community for the use of wildlife and human–wildlife conflict mitigation strategies.

Introduction

Human–wildlife conflict (HWC) occurs when the needs and behavior of wildlife impact negatively on humans or when humans negatively affect the needs of wildlife. These conflicts may result when wildlife damage crops, threaten, kill or injure people and domestic animals [ 33 ]. These are as critical problems created by the growing rural population in and around wildlife habitats [ 34 ]. Human–wildlife conflict incidents are widespread but not evenly distribute because they are dependent on the proximity of wildlife. In addition, different species cause different types of damage at different times of the year. The damage caused has variable effects on the livelihood of households depending on their level of livelihood security at the time of the incident [ 27 ]. One major cause of human–wildlife conflict is increasing human population adjacent to wildlife habitats. As human population increases and the demand for resources grow, the frequency and intensity of such conflicts increases [ 29 ]. This can be manifested by increasing encroachment to wildlife habitats. As a result, the populations of those species which are unable to adapt to altered habitats may invade the marginal habitats or decline in number [ 26 , 29 ]. Human wildlife conflicts undermine human welfare, health, safety and have economic and social cost [ 31 ].

Because HWC is a reciprocal process, humans and animals are negatively affected by the conflict, and it is one of the most complex and urgent issues facing wildlife management and conservation [ 10 ], especially outside PAs [ 38 ]. Scholars are seeking ways to refocus policy-relevant conflict research on finding pathways toward human–wildlife coexistence [ 23 ] and coadaptation [ 2 ]. According to König et al. [ 18 ], literature on HWCs, interaction, and coexistence has grown exponentially from 2000 to 2019, and work on conflict outpaces work on interactions and coexistence threefold. This may be because scholarship on human–wildlife interactions has focused mainly on conflict (i.e., negative outcomes for people, wildlife, or both) [ 3 ] or because new ways of thinking about these interactions now include a paradigm of coexistence [ 18 ]. Coexistence is defined as a dynamic but sustainable state in which humans and wildlife co-adapt to living in shared landscapes, where human interactions with wildlife are governed by effective institutions that ensure long-term wildlife population persistence, social legitimacy, and tolerable levels of risk [ 2 , 18 ]. The focus on human–wildlife conflict has often been a constraint to wildlife conservation, as practitioners have centered their attention on reducing negative interactions, rather than on increasing positive relations between humans and wildlife. To work toward solutions that maximize conservation success, it is necessary to include positive interactions, coexistence, and attitudes of tolerance toward wildlife [ 11 ].

Human wildlife conflict is a well-known phenomenon throughout sub Saharan Africa [ 34 ]. Reducing human–wildlife conflict is also an urgent conservation priority and key to coexistence between humans and animals in this region [ 37 ]. There are many human wildlife conflicts in Ethiopian protected areas which need solutions, but there is no enough empirical study done on issues pertaining to human wildlife conflict. Local communities do not enough benefit from wildlife resources and alienated from wildlife related economic enterprises. Like other parks or protected areas in Ethiopia, Bale Mountains National Park (BMNP) is highly influenced by the human activities living in and around the Park. Due to this, local peoples around the park and the wildlife are being affected negatively as the result this interaction. From this perspective, it is imperative to assess the human–wildlife conflict that occurs with local communities living adjacent to BMNP. There was no detail investigation made to identify the cause of the conflict and its adverse consequences.

Identify potential ways to reduce or prevent conflicts for the better wellbeing of both people and wildlife is the main objective of conducting research on human–wildlife conflict [ 21 ]. A prerequisite for finding effective solutions is understanding the details, mechanisms, and nature of conflict [ 21 ]. Therefore, this particular study aims to investigate the nature, extent, roots and mitigations of human wildlife conflict in and around the park. Moreover, this study was serving as ideal or standard information for the coexistence between humans and wildlife. Local community, researchers and other organizations are benefited from the study by getting how to conserved or managed the wildlife in additional to ensure positive coexistence between people and wild animal in the interest of human and environmental wellbeing.

Materials and methods

Description of the study area.

The study area Bale Mountains National Park is located southeast of Ethiopia about 400 km by road from Addis Ababa, between 6 o 29′ and 7 o 10 o North and 39 o 28′ and 39 o 58 o East. It covers an area of 247,000 hectare of land with an altitudinal range from 1500 to 4377 m asl [ 8 ]. It was first proposed in the late 1960 s to protect Afroalpine habitat and populations of the rare, endemic and species of the mountain nyala ( Tragelaphus buxtoni ), the giant molerat ( Trachyoryctes macrocephalus ) and the Ethiopian wolf ( Canis simensis ) [ 16 ], [ 1 ]. Even if its establishment was for this Bale Mountains is one of the most important areas of the world for its number of threatened Ethiopian endemics in all taxa 26% of Ethiopia’s endemic species. Of the area’s recorded birds, 6% are Ethiopian endemics. In addition there are several rare and endemic amphibian species found only in Bale as well as 1321 species of flowering plants with 163 endemic (23 to Bale alone) to Ethiopia [ 16 ].

The Park, as part of the highlands of eastern Africa encompasses a variety of habitats that supports a diversity of wildlife species. The habitat types include grassland, woodland, heather moorland and Afro-alpine vegetation [ 14 , 15 , 24 ]. Bale Mountain National Park is undoubtedly one of the most unique areas on earth, with the largest piece of Afro-alpine habitats with the second largest moist tropical forest and the only cloud forest in Ethiopia [ 16 ]. And it is an Important Bird Area of immense importance comprising more than 256 species of birds with seven endemics from the afro tropical highland biome species which represents 80% of the species making the area the richest site for this biome assemblage [ 1 , 8 , 16 ].

Data collection methods

The data were collected through primary and secondary methods. Primary data was collected from household questionnaires, interview and field observation. Household questionnaires were implemented to gather the data related to assess HWC cause, the nature of conflict and management and mitigation strategies to reduce conflict in the area. The study was based on mainly park office and sample kebele household cross sectional survey using pre-test structure questioner organizing in logical order of presentation. Key informant interviews were conducted with selected informants who are depending on park resources. Interview was held with park scout, park manager and local community to explore the nature of HWC and human and wildlife coexistences. In focus group discussions, the researcher is just a facilitator and the respondents provide information. Focus groups therefore, provided an opportunity for the researcher to interact with the local community and gain relevant information about their knowledge, opinions, and attitudes regarding human–wildlife conflicts and to determine effective HWC management and control methods used by local people. Field observation was mainly used to confirm the respondent’s responses, so that accurate and reliable information would be collected during filed observation. The observation was carried out in three purposive selected kebeles (Dinsho Kebele 01, Goba and Rira kebele). To make the research more reliable and to obtain an objective data which is got from primary data was supported by the secondary one. Secondary data collection sources are data obtained from books, internet searches, libraries, journal, progress reports, Park office and articles.

Sampling size and sampling technique

It is obvious that Bale Mountains National Park is surrounded by five Districts such as: Adaba (west), Dinsho (north), Goba (northeast), Mana-Angetu (south) and Berbere (east). However, the extent of exposure of local people and their agricultural area to wildlife is not the same throughout the five Districts rather it greatly differs from one to another. Therefore, two Districts (Dinsho and Goba Woreda) were selected using systematic random sampling technique through careful identifications in which those which have high extent of exposure with the park boundaries. In addition, random sampling technique was employed to identify sample households. In this heads of households were randomly selected from sample kebeles/villages of the two Districts which were selected using systematic random sampling after the completion of preliminary survey which is helpful to identify specific villages which are highly affected as a result of the conflict with wildlife. 5% of the total households from each sample village were selected randomly.

The sampling size of the study was determined based on formula adapted from Israel (1962) as follows.

where; N = the total population; n = the required sample size; e = the precision level which is = (± 10%), where confidence interval is 90% at p = + 10 (maximum variability) which is = (± 10%) n = 1850/1+1850(0.1) 2 = 95.

Accordingly, from the total (1850) population of three villages, a total of 95 respondents were selected and the questionnaire was transferred purposefully. The respondents were selected purposively based on their ability, awareness, adjacent to an area and knowledge contributes to the overall research objectives.

Data analysis

The data was analyzed by using simple descriptive (qualitative) method and quantitative (numerical) method. The study was interpreting the data based on the survey questionnaire, interview and filed observation. The data was analyzed by using simple descriptive statistics such as mean percentage and the data was present on tables, charts, picture and percentage also further represented by using graphs and other diagram in order to analyses more information about our research study.

Nature and extent of human wildlife conflict

The nature and extent of human wildlife conflict in and around Bale Mountains National Park have profoundly impacted humans, wild animal and the environment in many ways through crop damage, habitat disturbance and destruction, livestock depredation, killing of wildlife and human and the like. As a result, local communities disliked wildlife inhabiting in and around their surroundings. This has a great negative impact in conservation of the wildlife.

Crop damage

The result showed that not all crops were equally affected by crop raiders (herbivore wild animals) in the studies area. Olive baboon ( Papio anubis ), warthog ( Phacochoerus aethiopicus ), common mole rat ( Tachyoryctus splendens ), porcupine ( Hystrix cristata ), grey duiker ( Sylvicapra grimmia ), mountain nyala ( Tragelaphus buxtoni ) and bohor reedbuck ( Redunca redunca ) were mentioned as important crop raiders. According to farmers, Olive baboon ( Papio anubis ) was the most commonly reported crop raiders which cause more damage and ranked first followed by warthog ( Phacochoerus aethiopicus ). They damage crops early in the morning and evening when people are absent near farmlands. While, respondents were putted porcupine ( Hystrix cristata ) are as third crop raiders followed by bohor reedbuck ( Redunca redunca ). Human and wildlife have been in conflict because farming crops generally offer a rich food source for wildlife as well as for people. Large wild herbivores compete for fallow resources with livestock and can act as reservoirs of livestock diseases. The respondents claimed that Wheat (30%) and barley (24%) was the most vulnerable crop to raiders’. Whereas respondents reported that potato, Maize, Teff and legume are damaged by wild animals on rank 18%, 14%, 10% and 4%, respectively (Fig. 1 ).

Rank of vulnerable crops in the order of destruction by crop raider

Habitat disturbance

Habitat disturbance is destruction of the home of the wild animals. Humans kill or chase wild animals by digging, cutting, sealing by stones and smoking their natural habitat. This method is a main cause to decrease or to extinct of wild animals. The major components of habitat disturbance in the study area were settlement in and around the national park, over grazing by livestock, frequent fire and bush encroachment, tree cutting for charcoal, sale and construction of huts. Tree cutting was mainly associated with new settlement, which resulted deterioration of the remaining vegetation cover of the area. This minimizes the feeding ground, nesting and mating site of the wild animals so you have to be happened conflict between human and wild animal.

Livestock depredation

According to the respondents a total of three (namely, leopard (50%), Common Jackal (28%) and spotted hyenas (22%)) common problematic wild animals were reported in terms of livestock depredation from the villages although their effect is differing from village to village (Fig. 2 ). Leopards were reported to attack cattle, donkeys, goats, sheep and domestic dog in the study area. Common jackals are attack sheep; goat and spotted hyena caused the most pronounced problems and the local communities’ loss their oxen, cows, donkeys, mules, domestic dog and horses. Carnivores are attacking domestic livestock due to declining number of herbivorous in the wild due to prolonged droughts and habitat degradation.

Major livestock depredation wild animal in the study area

Killings of wildlife

Because of lack of compensated for crop losses, and domestic animal killing or loss the local communities are more suffered by wild animals and then they straggled to kill wild animals. This study was showed that Crop-raiding undermines food security and intolerance of wildlife within neighboring human communities in the study area. The inability to mitigate crop-raiding and absence of composition for crop losses lead to killing of animals.

Root causes of human–wildlife conflicts

According to the respondents and field observation, the main root causes of human wildlife conflict in the study area were: agricultural expansion (30%), human settlement (24%), overgrazing by livestock (14%), deforestation (18%), illegal grass collection (10%) and poaching (4%) (Figs. 3 and 4 ).

Cause for Human wildlife conflict in and around the study area

Habitat Degradation, Agricultural Expansion and human settlement

Deforestation is another major cause of human wildlife conflict in the study area mainly caused by cutting of trees for expansion of farm land, fire wood collection and livestock grazing send fire for the purpose of charcoal production (Fig. 5 ). Over grazing also was another major cause of human wildlife conflict the in the study area. This cause was due to the local communities were farming and livestock production are the main activities.

Over grazing and tree logging by livestock

Minimizing and mitigations of human wildlife conflict

According to the respondents, different methods are used by farmers to defend crop raider from their crop include crop guarding (34%), live fencing (26%), and scarecrow (22%), chasing (14%), whereas 5% was used smoking to repeal the crop raiders from their crop mostly in the night time which was the lowest method (Table 1 ).

As below Fig. 6 showed, the local community used different controlling techniques to defend livestock predator animals, such as fencing (38%), chasing (30%), scarecrow (24%), guarding (8%), and smoking (0%) based on respondents rank. These traditional controlling techniques of the most effective methods are fencing and chasing, the second most effective methods are scarecrow and guarding (especially common jackal) and the least effective traditional controlling techniques are smoking.

Traditional controlling techniques of livestock predation animal

Wildlife damage to agricultural crops is a serious concern affecting much of the world today [ 30 ]. Primates are one of the most frequently cited crop pests [ 13 ], so primates and humans are always in potential conflict over crops. This conflict is particularly interesting in that it arises from a positive desire to contact monkeys and then people discover that the contact poses risks from bites, theft of non-provisioned food or more general health issues such as exposure to simian viruses [ 6 ]. The result was agreed with finding of [ 36 ] who reported that wheat (ripe and dried) was the most frequently eaten crop by crop raiding in West Africa. Study conducted in Rwandan Forest Fragment indicated that maize, potato, beans, cabbage, sweet potato and tomato were raided by wild animals [ 12 ].

A research conducted in and around the study area showed that Olive baboon, warthog, common mole rat and bohor reedbuck (Redunca redunca), were identified as destructive animals, mainly feeding commonly on wheat, barley, potato, maize, teff and legume. Similar finding with the current study was observed in Filinga Range of Gashaka Gumti National Park of Nigeria. Monkeys, Baboons, Birds and Rodents were listed among wild animals that attack crops including Maize, Cassava, Rice and Banana [ 7 ].

Hence, common jackal and leopards could easily penetrate the fences and drag out the sheep and goat and any other animals. So, most of the predation by leopard happened during Both Night and Day Time but common jackal happened in day time and Spotted Hyena during happened in the night time within the settlement. This result is the same as with [ 25 ] that reported Leopard, Spotted Hyena and Common jackal were the major predators for domestic animals in and around Semen Mountains National park of Ethiopia. They were responsible for loss of Sheep, Goats, Oxen, Cows, Donkeys and Mules. Eight problematic wild animals in terms of domestic animal loss were identified in Chebera Churchura National Park southwestern part of Ethiopia [ 5 ]. Among those hazardous wild animals three of them i.e. Leopard, Jackal, and hyena were same with the present finding.

Reduction in the availability of natural prey/food sources leads to wild animals seeking alternate sources. Alternately, new resources created by humans draw wildlife resulting in conflict [ 39 ]. Byproducts of human existence offer un-natural opportunity for wildlife in the form of food and sheltered interference and potentially destructive threat for both man and animals. Competition for food resources also occurs when humans attempt to harvest natural resources such as fish and grassland pasture. Another cause of conflict comes from conservation biased toward flagship or game species that often threatens other species of concern [ 20 ].

According to the respondent’s response (10%), the local people cut grass illegally to feed their cattle, sell in the market and for thatching houses. This might cause scarcity of grass for herbivores and disturb the natural behavior of wildlife in the Park. Like any other Park in Ethiopia, local people exploit the resource from BMNP as well. Forest exploitation inside the Park and traditional farming activities close to the Park might cause strong impacts on the wildlife. Wild animals are highly restricted in some parts of the Park because of human and livestock encroachment.

Therefore the researcher was concluded that Agricultural Expansion (30%) and human settlement (24%) are the major causes of human wildlife conflict in and around the study area (Figs. 3 , 4 , and 5 ), while poaching (4%) are the lowest cause of HWC. Recently there was agricultural practice and human settlement inside and outside the park. Similar sources for Human wildlife were reported from Tsavo Conservation Area, Kenya. Agricultural Expansion, human settlement, deforestation, illegal grass collection, poaching was reported as the main causes of Human wildlife conflicts [ 22 ]. Different causes for human wildlife conflict were reported from different parts of Africa. For instance, animal death, loss of human life, crop damage, and damage to property, injuries to people and wildlife, encroachment of forest areas for agriculture, developmental activities, and livestock grazing are some key reasons for increment of the conflict in countries such as Kenya, Namibia, Mozambique, Zambia and Nigeria [ 19 ].

Many traditional repelling techniques are fairly effective if formalized, but are labor intensive. But where an animal can be repelled adequately using conventional methods it seems in appropriate, and certainly not particularly cost effective to try to introduce more expensive techniques requiring greater technological input or backup [ 4 ]. Another approach that has been used successfully to manage Human wildlife conflict involves changing the perceptions of people experiencing the damage, thus, increasing their willingness to tolerate damage [ 35 ]. Agricultural producers already are receptive to this argument and appreciate the wildlife on their farms to enhance wildlife habitat and their tolerance for some wildlife damage. This tolerance can be enhanced by providing economic incentives [ 25 ].

There was percentage difference between respondents using the different traditional methods in which of the respondents were used to defend their crop from crop raiders. This result agrees with the finding of [ 17 ] who founds that guarding and live fencing away of animals was ranked first and second in protecting crop raiders from crops. According to [ 13 ], the most viable options to reduce crop loss were increasing vigilance by farmers. This has been shown to make a considerable difference in the amount of crops lost, increasing farmer tolerance for a pest species and lost crops and increasing the ability of farmers to repel crop raiders using existing local methods. This has a number of obvious benefits, if these methods do not make a considerable impact on crop loss, and larger impact interventions such as electric fencing, lethal control of pest animals or moving farmers from the conflict zone can be considered [ 35 ].

Selection of the different strategies depends on the type of species, behavior of species and size of species. These results were similar to reported from Kenya Nyeri district [ 28 ]. The most effective strategy of the local communities used in preventing crop damage was guarding (34%), which is time consuming [ 7 ]. Similarly, the communities in the present study reported that permanent Guarding by adults is the most effective strategy to control both crop and livestock from wildlife when asked the most effective deter strategy among practiced by the local people. Active guarding by famers and members of their families was found to be the sole mode of protection from crop raiding [ 12 ].

No single management strategy can prevent all crop raiding and the goal of management should not only to be reducing the levels of crop raiding but also to raise the tolerance level of crop raiding by lessening its impact to farmers [ 33 ]. No solution will work without site-specific knowledge of what is possible, practical, or acceptable in any particular area. Unfortunately, human–wildlife conflict situations are often complex so are unlikely to be resolved quickly and cannot be solved solely by technical means. Human wildlife conflict can be managed through a variety of approaches. Prevention strategies endeavor to avoid the conflict occurring in the first place and take action towards addressing its root causes [ 13 ]. The main difference between the options is the moment at which the measure is implemented. By definition, management techniques are only cost-effective if the cost of implementing the technique is less than the value of the damage, taking into account the fact that a short period of active management may have a continued effect, by instating longer-term protection of crops or herds [ 9 ]. The various management possibilities are presented according to the characteristics of conflict whether they relate to humans, production, animals and the environment, rather than according to their ability to prevent or mitigate damage [ 20 ].

According to Hill et al. [ 13 ], conflict resolution/management methods have the following possible goals: reducing the amount of crop losses to wildlife; improving local people’s attitudes and perceptions towards protected area and its wildlife; helping affected farmers to improve agricultural production; increasing the amount of crops being harvested locally. Through improved local yields and reducing levels of poaching. Those wise it is very important that farmers be involved in the process of developing new solutions from the beginning [ 35 ]. Not only does this foster a sense of commitment and involvement amongst them, but it is also vital that they be involved from the beginning. Because they understand how the situation affects them and what kinds of intervention are likely to be acceptable and feasible with in the local culture, providing there is adequate representation from the different types of stakeholder involved [ 32 ].

The present study showed that human wildlife conflict is apparent in the study area. The conflict becomes the main causes to the continued survival of wild animal species in the area. Not only causes for wild animals but also the conflict causes high impact in economic loss of the people in and around the study area. Therefore, human–wildlife conflicts are negative impacts on both human and wildlife as highlighted in this study. It is also a serious obstacle to wildlife conservationists. Based on these reasons, mitigation strategies are very essential to reduce the cause and impact of HWC. Accordingly, possible mitigate possibilities for peaceful co-existence between human and wildlife are presented as follows:- Create awareness and organize training program to the local communities, identifying clear border between the closure area and the land owned by the residents, rules and regulations of the park, translocate the problematic animal to another area, equal benefit sharing of the local communities, to reduce or minimize agricultural practice inside and outside the national park, reduce deforestation by formulate rules and regulation for performed local communities, relocate agricultural activity out of the national park range, zoning or change the location of crop fields, Reduction of human settlement encroachment into the national park range.

Conclusions

The result of the present study has clearly shown that there was a strong conflict between human and wildlife living in and around the study area. The cause of human wildlife conflict was human settlement, agricultural expansion, illegal grass collection, over grazing by livestock and deforestation in national park. As a result, local communities disliked wildlife inhabiting in and around their surroundings. This has a great negative impact in conservation of the wildlife. The main effects for the presence of strong human wildlife conflict in the study area include crop damage, livestock depredation, killing of wildlife and habitat disturbance. Therefore, determination of possible solutions to mitigate Human wildlife conflict in the study area is mandatory for peaceful coexistence of human and wildlife.

Based on the obtained results of the present study, the following points are recommended in the study area:

Farmers should cooperatively keep their farm against crop raiders to minimize crop loss by using most effective method in an area.

The park authority should provide compensation for wildlife induced damage in and around the park.

Palatable and nutritive crops should not be grown near the park edge.

The concerning body should work hard to increase the awareness of the local people about the importance of wildlife conservation.

The park authority should provide fence or other method that used to protect crops, peoples and livestock from threat.

Stakeholders should reduce human settlements around the forest, expansion of farmland and cattle grazing in and around the National Park.

To reduce the dependency of the local people in and around the national park, it is better to encourage the local people to plant trees for their various types of utilization.

Further investigation must be conducted to identify alternative crops that can be rejected by crop raiders in the area.

Availability of data and materials

The data used and analyzed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on a reasonable request, without disclosure of the interviewees.

Abbreviations

Institute of Biodiversity Conservation

Bale Mountains National Park

Human wildlife conflict

BirdLife International. Important bird areas of Africa and Associated Islands, priority areas for conservation. Cambridge: Pisces Publishers; 2001.

Google Scholar

Carter NH, Linnell JDC. Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends Ecol Evol. 2016;31:575–8.

Article Google Scholar

Chapron G, López-Bao JV. The place of nature in conservation conflicts. Conserv Biol. 2020;34:795–802.

Conover M. Resolving human wildlife conflicts the science of wildlife damage management. New York: Lewis Publishers; 2002. p. 418.

Demeke D, Afework B. Conservation challenge: human-carnivore conflict in Chebera Churchura National Park, Ethiopia. Greener J Biol Sci. 2013;3(3):108–15.

Else JG. Non-human primates as pests. In: Box HO, editor. Primate responses to environmental change. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.

Eniang EA, Ijeomah HM, Okeyoyin G, Uwatt AE. Assessment of Human–wildlife conflicts in filinga range of Gashaka Gumti National Park, Nigeria. PAT. 2011;7(1):15–35.

EWNHS. Important bird areas of Ethiopia: a first inventory. Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Wildlife and Natural History Society; 1996.

FAOUN (food and agricultural organizations of united nations) (2010). Managing conflict between people and lion, review and insights from the literature and field experience.

Frank B, Glikman JA, Marchini S. Human–wildlife interactions:turning conflict into coexistence. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019.

Book Google Scholar

Frank B. Human–wildlife conflicts and the need to include tolerance and coexistence. An introductory comment, society and natural resources. 2016;29(6):738–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1103388 .

Guinness SM, Taylor D. Farmers’ perceptions and actions to decrease crop raiding by forest-dwelling primates around a Rwandan forest fragment. Hum Dimens Wildl. 2014;19(2):179–90.

Hill C, Osborn F, Plumptre AJ. Conflict of interest between people and baboons, crop raiding in Uganda. Int J Primatol. 2000;21:2.

Hillman JC. Bale Mountains National Park management plan. Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization; 1986.

Hillman JC. Ethiopia: compendium of wildlife conservation, vol. 2. Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization; 1993.

IBC. Bale Mountain National Park Management Plan (2007–2017). Addis Ababa: Institute of Biodiversity Conservation; 2007.

Johansson T. The Spatial dimension of human–wildlife conflicts, discoveries of new animal geography. Helsinki: University of Helsinki; 2002.

König HJ, Kiffner C, Kramer-Schadt S, Fürst C, Keuling O, Ford AT. Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world. Special section: challenges of and solutions to human–wildlife conflicts in agricultural landscapes. Conserv Biol. 2020;34(4):786–94.

Ladan SI. Examining human wild life conflict in Africa. In: International conference on biological, civil and environmental engineering; 2014, p. 102–5.

Lamarque F, Anderson J, Fergusson R, Lagrange M, Osei Owusu Y, Bakker L. Human wildlife conflict in Africa cause, consequences and management strategies. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2009.

Linnell J, Thomassen J, Jones K. Wildlife–human interactions: from conflict to coexistence in sustainable landscapes. NINA Special Report 45. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Norway; 2011.

Makindi SM, Mutinda MN, Olekaikai NKW, Olelebo WL, Aboud AA. Human–wildlife conflicts: causes and mitigation measures in tsavo conservation area, Kenya. Int J Sci Res. 2014;3(6):1025–31.

Marchini S, Ferraz KMPMB, Zimmermann A, Guimarães-Luiz T, MoratoR Correa PLP, Macdonald DW. Planning for coexistence in a complex human-dominated world. In: Frank B, Glik-man JA, Marchini S, editors. Human–wildlife interactions: turning conflict into coexistence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019. p. 414–38.

Chapter Google Scholar

Marino J. Spatial ecology of Ethiopian Wolf, Canis simensis. Ph.D. thesis. University of Oxford, London; 2003.

Messmer TA. Human–wildlife conflicts: emerging challenges and opportunities. Hum Wildl Confl. 2009;3(1):10–7.

Messmer TA. The emergence of human– wildlife conflict management: turning challenges into opportunities. Int Biol Deterior Biol Degrad. 2000;45(3–4):97–102.

Mulonga S, Suich H, Murphy C. The conflict continues: human–wildlife conflict and livelihoods in Caprivi. Namibia: Windhoek; 2003.

MUsyoKi C. Crop defense and coping strategies: wildlife raids in Mahiga ‘B’ village in nyeri distriCt, Kenya. Afr Study Monogr. 2014;35(1):19–40.

Newmark WD, Leonard NL, Sarko HI, Gemassa DM. Conservation attitude of local people living adjacent to five protected areas in Tanzania. Biol. Conserv. 1993;63:177–83.

O’Connell-Rodwell CE, Rodwell T, Rice M, Hart LA. Living with the modern conservation paradigm, can agricultural communities co-exist with elephants. A five year case study in East Caprivi, Namibia. Biol Conserv. 2000;93(3):381–91.

Ogada MO, Woodroffe R, Oguge NO, Frank LG. Limiting depredation by African carnivores: the role of livestock husbandry. Conserv Biol. 2003;17(6):1521–30.

Parkhurst JA. The center for human–wildlife conflict resolution at Virginia Tech A Model of future use. Blacksburg: Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Tech; 2006.

Sillero-Zubiri C, Switzer D. Crop raiding primates: searching for alternative, humane ways to resolve conflict with farmers in Africa. People and Wildlife Initiative. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit. Oxford: Oxford University; 2001.

Sukumar R. The Asian Elephant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989. p. 265.

Treves A. Balancing the needs of people and wildlife: when wildlife damage crops and prey on livestock. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison; 2007.

Warren Y. Crop-raiding Baboons (Papio Anubis) and defensive farmers: a West African Perspective. School of Human and Life Sciences, Whiteland College, Roehampton University, Holybourne Avenue, London SW154JD. West Afr J Appl Ecol. 2008; 14. http://www.peapleandwildlife.org.uk/crmanuals/CropraidingPrimatesP&WManual .

Wilson-Holt O, Steele P. Human–wildlife conflict and insurance. Can insurance reduce the costs of living with wildlife? IIED Discussion Paper. IIED, London; 2019. http://pubs.iied.org/16648IIED , ISBN 978-1-78431-666-2.

Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A. People and wildlife, conflict or co-existence?Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: United Kingdom; 2005.

Young J. Ethiopian protected areas A ‘‘Snapshot’’. A reference guide for future strategic planning, and project funding, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2012.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to offer my sincere thanks to Bale Mountains National Park office staff member, local communities and Scouts for giving me an opportunity to pursue this research.

No funding sources

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biology, College of Natural and Computational Science, Debre Berhan University, Debre Berhan, Ethiopia

Sefi Mekonen

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

I am contributing for this work is starting from designing study and data collection to finalizing the research. The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sefi Mekonen .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Permits for this research were issued by the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA) and park management office.

Consent for publication

This manuscript does not contain any individual person’s data, and further consent for publication is not required/ applicable.

Competing interests

I declare that no competing interests, because the research is done by only me.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mekonen, S. Coexistence between human and wildlife: the nature, causes and mitigations of human wildlife conflict around Bale Mountains National Park, Southeast Ethiopia. BMC Ecol 20 , 51 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-020-00319-1

Download citation

Received : 07 May 2020

Accepted : 03 September 2020

Published : 14 September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-020-00319-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Biodiversity
Conservation
Human–wildlife interactions
Protected area

BMC Ecology

ISSN: 1472-6785

General enquiries: [email protected]

What is human-wildlife conflict?

In an increasingly crowded world, people and animals constantly compete for space and resources. This competition often leads to encounters between humans and wildlife that may have negative outcomes. Human-wildlife conflict is the term we use to describe negative interactions between humans and wild animals. When humans and wildlife enter into conflict, it can negatively impact resources, livelihoods, and habitats, with potentially fatal consequences.

Conflict between humans and wildlife tends to occur when an animal poses a direct or recurring threat to people’s safety or livelihoods. This can often lead to the persecution of the specific animal involved in the conflict and may even evolve into retaliatory killings of animals of that same species—or other species—living nearby. It can create negative perceptions of certain animals that cause the conflict, and these perceptions can persist for generations. Human-wildlife conflict can also occur when humans encroach on the territories of wildlife, resulting in an attack.

Human-wildlife conflict occurs with many species worldwide. Incidents of human-wildlife conflict can put the safety and lives of humans, as well as animals, at risk. This is a particular concern when the wild animals belong to a vulnerable or endangered species.

The issue of human-wildlife conflict makes it more difficult to ensure sustainable development, as humans may eradicate wild animals from their natural habitats to ensure the safety and food security of their own communities. It also makes conservation efforts within these areas more complicated, as humans begin to perceive the wild animals as a threat to their safety or livelihoods rather than recognizing how they contribute to the provision of ecosystem services and important resources.

The consequences of human-wildlife conflict are extensive, including the destruction of crops, a reduction in agricultural productivity, growing competition for resources (including grazing lands and water sources), predation of livestock, damage to infrastructure, disease transmission, and injuries or death for humans and wildlife. Animals that aren’t involved in the conflict directly can also be harmed if people take action like setting traps or poisoning wildlife.

What are some causes of human-wildlife conflict?

Several events can lead to conflict between humans and wild animals, including expanding human populations, resource competition, agricultural expansion, and climate change.

Expanding human populations

The world’s human population has more than tripled over the last 70 years, growing from just 2.5 billion people in 1950 to eight billion as of November 2022 . As human populations grow, we require more land to live and farm, so human settlements expand further into more remote locations. This leads to habitat loss for animals as humans slowly urbanize, carry out infrastructure projects, or convert land for agriculture.

As humans encroach further and further into the natural habitats of wildlife, the proximity between humans and wild animals increases, meaning interactions between humans and wild animals become more frequent leading to greater opportunity for human-wildlife conflict.

Agricultural expansion

Converting natural habitats into agricultural land is a key driver of human-wildlife conflict. As wild animal populations lose range and become more fragmented, they lose access to food sources and shelter. Where these wild animals can still access agricultural land, they may attempt to feed on human crops and livestock.

If farmers catch these wild animals feeding on their crops or killing their livestock, they may kill the wild animals to prevent them from coming back. They may also use preventative measures, like traps or poison, to kill or injure animals that venture into agricultural land.

Climate change

As climate change takes effect worldwide, it can alter the climates of specific regions. This can impact the distribution of resources, causing wildlife to migrate and move into different areas in search of more space, food, and water. This increases the chance of wildlife crossing paths with humans, leading to conflict. In fact, in more than 80% of case studies into human-wildlife conflict, changes in temperature and rainfall were the top causes of conflict.

Competition for resources

As humans increasingly occupy wildlife habitats, it can create competition for the local resources, including food and water. Conflict escalates when these life-sustaining resources become limited—thanks to factors like climate change—intensifying the competition between humans and wildlife.

How does human-wildlife conflict harm animals?

Human-wildlife conflict can harm animals in various ways, from starving them of food or water to causing injuries, fragmenting populations, or leading to mass death and the endangerment of entire species.

Human-elephant conflicts most commonly occur when elephants raid human agriculture or destroy human property, or when humans get too close to elephants and the animals become aggressive—which can cause injury or death for either party.

Climate change is a huge factor that drives increased competition for resources between humans and elephants. Recent droughts have forced elephants to explore new areas for food and water and humans to venture deeper into elephant territory to seek out water and firewood. The fragmentation of elephant habitat also exacerbates the resource competition. This is caused by expanding human settlements, farms, roads, infrastructure, and industrial activities like mining.

Sadly, all three remaining elephant species are listed on the IUCN Red List as critically endangered or endangered and have declining populations. This means they cannot afford to lose adult elephants to human-elephant conflicts.

Coyotes living in human-inhabited areas may come into contact with people, livestock, and pets. Coyote-human conflicts will often be reported in the news as ‘attacks’, though most are not as dramatic as this term would suggest. Coyote-human conflicts that result in the injury or death of a human are extremely rare. Only two fatal attacks on humans have been reported since 1981.

It’s thought that coyotes may be perceived by humans as dangerous or nuisances simply because they are larger predators that sometimes live in the same areas as humans. Yet conflicts between humans and domestic animals far outnumber conflicts between coyotes and humans. For example, in Cook County in the US in 2013, there were 0 recorded bites of people by coyotes, but 3,822 bites from domestic pets .

Where human-coyote conflicts have occurred, it’s usually related to humans having either intentionally or unintentionally fed coyotes. An example of unintentional feeding would be when a coyote gains access to garbage.

Humans have long persecuted coyotes due to human-coyote conflicts and the perceived threat of attack. In the mid-20th century , many states even put out bounties to encourage people to hunt and kill coyotes. To this day, the USDA Wildlife Services are known to use poison, like cyanide bombs , to kill ‘nuisance’ animals like coyotes.

One of the primary triggers for human-wolf conflicts is the predation of livestock by wolves . As humans convert land for agricultural use nearer to wolf populations, wolves are more likely to target livestock as a food source, leading to economic losses for farmers.

Farmers will, therefore, sometimes intentionally poison or hunt wolves to protect their livestock from predators. As territorial animals, wolves are more likely to engage in conflict with people when domestic dogs are present. Conflicts are also more likely to happen if the wolves are habituated to humans or infected with rabies.

As one of the top predators in the food web, wolves have few enemies besides humans. In fact, for the majority of regions that wolves inhabit, humans are the leading cause of death for wolves . Sadly, wolves are now near extinct in much of their historical habitat, occupying only a fraction of their original range.

Human-giraffe conflicts have increased as human populations expand and infringe upon the natural habitat of giraffes. As humans settle further into these areas, giraffes are forced to seek resources near human settlements, increasing interactions and conflicts.

Giraffes are already suffering from climate change-induced droughts, with more than 6,000 estimated to have died due to severe droughts in Kenya in 2022. As giraffes roam in search of water, they are more likely to encounter humans, who perceive them as competition for their own scarce water supply.

Humans have attempted to block giraffes from accessing water by building fences and other infrastructure. When giraffes have made it to these water sources, humans have attacked them with lethal methods, including snares, spears, and ditches .

Direct confrontations between humans and giraffes can turn violent, posing risks to both parties. Human-giraffe conflicts contribute to declining giraffe populations. Habitat loss, direct killings, and disruption of natural behaviors can jeopardize the long-term survival of these animals.

Examples of how IFAW is working to prevent human-wildlife conflict?

One of the best ways to reduce human-wildlife conflict is to educate the public on how coexistence with wildlife is possible. At IFAW, we’re working to shift the public perception of wildlife in urban or human-populated areas, helping educate local communities on how to live harmoniously with wild animals.

One example of this is our work on reshaping how people perceive coyotes, one of the most persecuted animals in human history. Despite a low incidence of human-coyote conflicts, there is a fear and hostility towards coyotes. The IFAW team has worked with members of Congress to promote coexistence with coyotes and to push for non-lethal wild management strategies that affect coyote populations. We’re also campaigning to end the cruel poisoning of wolves in Alberta, Canada , as a method to control wolf populations.

As well as reducing conflict with animals that humans deem threatening, IFAW works to promote coexistence with animals that aren’t perceived as threatening yet may end up in conflicts with humans all the same. For instance, we have distributed more than 100 signs across Cape Cod, Massachusetts , to encourage people to maintain a safe distance from the local seals despite how tempting it can be to approach them. They also act to educate people on the seals’ natural shoreline habitats, reminding us that we share our beaches with wildlife.

As IFAW has proven, there are humane ways to deter animals from approaching human-occupied regions, thus reducing the likelihood of conflicts. One example is our use of beehives to deter elephants. By suspending beehives on poles around human communities in Malawi, we have found that elephants tend to stay away due to their instinctual fear of bees. Not only has this created jobs for 150 people in the region, but it’s also expected to decrease the number of human-elephant conflicts by a staggering 85% .

One of the key factors that we cannot ignore when it comes to human-wildlife conflict is the danger that wild animals can present to local human communities and their livelihoods. That’s why we need to empower these communities with coping mechanisms and resilience, supporting them in their coexistence with wildlife. We center these people within the conservation discussion and work to support wildlife-friendly livelihoods.

Community Engagement

Press releases

Protecting the last remaining wild Asian elephants in China through enhancing cross-habitat cooperation

Facts and FAQ about wolves

Boosting human-elephant coexistence in China: New community ranger network in Xishuangbanna

Our work can’t get done without you. Please give what you can to help animals thrive.

Unfortunately, the browser you use is outdated and does not allow you to display the site correctly. Please install any of the modern browsers, for example:

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Open access
Published: 23 February 2023

The unequal burden of human-wildlife conflict

Alexander R. Braczkowski 1 , 2 , 3 ,
Christopher J. O’Bryan ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6472-6957 4 , 5 ,
Christian Lessmann 6 , 7 ,
Carlo Rondinini 8 ,
Anna P. Crysell 9 ,
Sophie Gilbert 10 , 11 ,
Martin Stringer 12 ,
Luke Gibson ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7706-3355 1 &
Duan Biggs 2 , 13 , 14

Communications Biology volume 6 , Article number: 182 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

14k Accesses

22 Citations

193 Altmetric

Metrics details

Conservation biology
Environmental economics

Human-wildlife conflict is one of the most pressing sustainable development challenges globally. This is particularly the case where ecologically and economically important wildlife impact the livelihoods of humans. Large carnivores are one such group and their co-occurrence with low-income rural communities often results in real or perceived livestock losses that place increased costs on already impoverished households. Here we show the disparities associated with the vulnerability to conflict arising from large carnivores on cattle ( Bos taurus ) globally. Across the distribution of 18 large carnivores, we find that the economic vulnerability to predation losses (as measured by impacts to annual per capita income) is between two and eight times higher for households in transitioning and developing economies when compared to developed ones. This potential burden is exacerbated further in developing economies because cattle keepers in these areas produce on average 31% less cattle meat per animal than in developed economies. In the lowest-income areas, our estimates suggest that the loss of a single cow or bull equates to nearly a year and a half of lost calories consumed by a child. Finally, our results show that 82% of carnivore range falls outside protected areas, and five threatened carnivores have over one third of their range located in the most economically sensitive conflict areas. This unequal burden of human-carnivore conflict sheds light on the importance of grappling with multiple and conflicting sustainable development goals: protecting life on land and eliminating poverty and hunger.

Lessons from COVID-19 for wildlife ranching in a changing world

A pan-African spatial assessment of human conflicts with lions and elephants

Patterns of livestock depredation and Human–wildlife conflict in Misgar valley of Hunza, Pakistan

Introduction.

One of Earth’s foremost challenges to sustainable development is ensuring that the human communities living alongside wildlife and protected areas prosper 1 , 2 , 3 . While wildlife such as large carnivores—species ranging from wolves and hyenas to lions and bears—are critical for regulating ecosystem processes that improve human well-being 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 and contribute substantially to tourism economies 8 , 9 , their protection is challenging because they often kill valuable livestock in both community lands and areas adjacent to protected areas 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 . The economic shocks of losing livestock to large carnivores can be very high 14 , because as much as two-thirds of a household’s annual income can be lost in a single livestock predation event 15 . For example, families living inside Jigme Sigmye National Park in central Bhutan lost on average 17% of their yearly per-capita income from tiger ( Panthera tigris ) and leopard ( Panthera pardus ) predation 16 , and those on the edge of Tanzania’s Serengeti National Park lost over 19% annually from leopard and lion ( Panthera leo ) predation 17 . Moreover, some 750 million to one billion livestock keepers own limited livestock, are landless, live on less than two US dollars per day 18 , 19 , and have pastureland overlapping some of the least productive vegetation zones 20 . In lower latitudes, livestock are also kept as a risk management asset 21 . The financial shocks from human–wildlife conflict often disproportionately affect such producers 15 and are an additional source of stress in communities already impacted by climate change, armed conflict, and disease events 22 , 23 , 24 .

In some areas carnivores are valued for cultural and religious reasons 25 , 26 , 27 but where these are absent conflict between agricultural communities and carnivores often escalates carnivore extinction risk due to the retaliatory killings following livestock predation 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 . For example, intense conflicts between cattle farmers and African lions in WAZA National Park in Cameroon and Queen Elizabeth National Park in Uganda have led to unsustainable rates of retaliatory killings over the past three decades, causing severe declines in these lion populations 32 , 33 . Such retaliatory killings are important for a series of reasons including that they negate the increasingly important role carnivores play in both trophic regulation 34 , 35 , and the direct benefits they provide to humans 5 . For example, high mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ) densities and reduced tree recruitment in the Zion and Yosemite National Parks USA were linked to localized extinctions of mountain lions ( Puma concolor ) 36 , 37 . Similarly, mountain lions and gray wolves ( Canis lupus ) make roadways for humans safer in South Dakota and Wisconsin USA through reducing vehicle collisions with deer and save millions of dollars in resulting insurance costs and hospital fees 7 , 38 . Given that rangelands make up over half of the earth’s terrestrial surface 39 and that agricultural lands are projected to increase in extent by 2–10 million km 2 (~15–20%) in the coming decades 40 , large carnivores are at unprecedented risk of extinction along with the unique ecosystem services they provide.

While research on the negative economic impacts of large carnivore predation on livestock has been ongoing at local scales 41 , 42 including some well-developed examples 43 , 44 , and even those examining spatial human-wildlife conflict risk at the continental scale 45 , no work to date has comparatively explored the potential economic burden of large carnivores globally. Here we present the first spatially explicit analysis of the potential economic burden (Supplementary Box 1 ) arising from human-wildlife conflict at the global scale illustrating the financial and social costs of losing livestock on human communities. We do this by examining the proportion of GDP per capita (hereafter referred to as per capita income) that is vulnerable from the loss of a single cattle calf (the equivalent of 250 kg or one tropical livestock unit 46 ) in 133 countries that overlap with the habitat of 18 large carnivore species known to prey on cattle (adjusted for the presence of cattle). We then assess the direct and opportunity costs of lost calories to households from the predation of a single cow or bull and contrast this against the production yield of meat per animal. Finally, we examine the proportion of carnivore range found within highly economically sensitive conflict areas (i.e., areas where communities would experience ≥25% loss to per capita income during a predation event, we define these areas as frontline communities) and discuss this in the context of a suite of already highly threatened carnivore species. Our study shows the predicament facing economically fragile households and carnivore species occupying the same habitats, thereby illustrating the difficult tradeoffs between three closely interlinked United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: no poverty (Goal 1), zero hunger (Goal 2), and protecting life on land (Goal 15).

Potential burden hotspots

Using an analysis based on subnational 1st level administrative regions our data show that the world’s poorest people may bear the highest cost of living with large carnivores (Fig. 1 ). This is based on the disparities in economic vulnerability to carnivore predation on cattle. People living in developing countries will on average experience an eightfold higher potential economic burden (x̄ = 32%, range = 0.02–201% of per capita income lost in a large carnivore predation event) than those living in developed economies (x̄ = 4% income lost, range = 1–9%, Supplementary Table 2 ). Moreover, 13% of the countries ( n = 17 out of 133) in carnivore range globally are potentially under threat of losing more than half of their per capita income. The most economically sensitive countries (i.e., those with the highest potential economic burden where >50% economic income loss would occur through predation) in our global assessment were the African states of Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, and Burundi, and the Southeast Asian countries of Cambodia and Laos. In these countries human communities are vulnerable to losing all or more than double their annual income (x̄ = 132%, range = 106–201% of per capita income) if a single calf is killed by carnivores. The situation is different in some of the most economically developed countries like Sweden, Canada, United States, Australia, and Spain where the vulnerability of a single predation event is nominal (x̄ = 1.67%, range = 1.29–1.92% of per capita income, Supplementary Table 2 ).

Our model assumes that a single cattle keeper is exposed to a single calf (250 kg) predation event anywhere across a given carnivore’s range. The orange silhouettes represent those species that have >25% of their range located in areas where communities would experience >50% economic income loss through predation. Bar charts are provided for the ten species of large carnivore identified in our analysis that have more than a third of their range in areas where a conflict event would represent a high economic burden (i.e., ≥25% of per capita income vulnerable from a single predation event). Silhouettes obtained from www.phylopic.org and are used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 3.0 Unported license. Silhouette credits are as follows: Puma concolor = Cristian Osorio & Paula Carrera, Ursus americanus , Ursus thibetanus and Ursus arctos = Tracy Heath, Canis lupus , Panthera pardus, Acinonyx jubatus , Hyaena hyaena, Parahyaena brunnea, and Panthera leo = Margot Michaud, Panthera onca, Panthera uncia and Lycaon pictus = Gabriela Pamono-Munoz, Canis lupus dingo = Sam Fraser-Smith, Panthera tigris = Steven Traver, Cuon alpinus = Michael Keesey, Canis rufus = David Orr, Crocuta crocuta = Oscar sanisidro .

Carnivore species in highly sensitive conflict areas

The geographic distribution of the 18 large carnivores in our analysis was 72,313,995 km 2 in 2009, and 82% of this fell outside of protected areas. Nearly a quarter of all carnivore range in our analysis (23%) fell within the highest conflict burden areas (≥25% per capita income vulnerable to a single predation event). Ten species had more than a third of their range in areas where a predation event would represent a severe economic burden (Table 1 ), and this included eight species considered globally threatened by the IUCN. These species had a mean proportion of 61% of their range overlapping areas where a cattle predation would amount to ≥25% of per capita income lost. The species with the highest range overlap were the Snow leopard Panthera uncia (89% range overlap, Fig. 1 ), African lion Panthera leo (78% range overlap), Asiatic black bear Ursus thibetanus (70%), striped hyena Hyaena hyaena (66%), and leopard Panthera pardus (64%, Table 1 ). The species with the lowest range overlap with highly sensitive conflict areas were the dingo Canis lupus dingo (0% range overlap), red wolf Canis rufus (0%), American black bear Ursus americanus (0%), puma Puma concolor (1%), and jaguar Panthera onca (4%, Table 1 ).

Food security impacts

Predation events also represent a loss in direct and opportunity costs to cattle keepers. Assuming a single predation of a cow or bull, this can result in 227.33–1229.07 immediate usable kilocalories (1kcal = 1000 calories) lost to a cattle keeper and their family (Fig. 2 ). This caloric loss is highest in the developed world (x̄ = 817.80 kcal, range = 478.17–1130.22) but most severe in developing economies because daily per capita meat intake is 37% lower than in the developed world (Supplementary Table 4 ). The immediate caloric losses from a single predation event in developing economies translates to nearly 1.5 years (x̄ = 1.42, range = 0.77–3.12) of lost daily calories required by a 2–3-year-old child, and roughly two thirds of a year (x̄ = 0.69, range = 0.26–1.41) for a 12–13-year-old adolescent, and 30–59-year-old adult human (x̄ = 0.66, range=0.25–1.35). We estimate another 131.04 and 33.88 kcal are lost annually from potential milk and meat production respectively under the assumption that 312 kg of milk and 12.5 kg of meat are produced annually 47 .

A The direct costs of losing a single cow or bull, and Bthe opportunity costs of losing a single cow or bull. Costs are calculated in direct caloric. Data and references are taken from 47 and 109. Lost opportunity cost may also be manifested as a negative externality whereby a lost cow or bull decreases herd size, reproductive potential, and places livestock producers where they can no longer maintain a pastoral lifestyle as noted in 46 and 48. Silhouettes obtained from www.phylopic.org and www.freepik.com . Silhouette credits are as follows: bottle and meat = macro_vector on Freepik, human silhouttes = www.publicdomainvectors.com , cattle = Steven Traver and Andreas Preuss.

Economic disparities in national cattle production

We found that cattle prices globally were comparable for the 2009 year ( F (2,76) = 0.41, p = 0.66, Fig. 3 ), the same year as our AOH habitat carnivore data. There was also no significant difference in cattle price between developing, transition, and developed economies for multiple years beginning in 1961 ( F (2,103) = 0.32, p = 0.73, Fig. 3 ). However, we observed disparities in the meat yield per cattle between these different economic groups with developing (174.05 kg/animal, SD = 63.39) and transition (153.4 kg/animal, SD = 36.99) economies producing significantly less meat per animal ( F (2,131) = 20.75, p = <0.00001) when compared to developed states (253.98 kilograms/animal, SD = 54.86) for the 2009 year, and over multiple years with developing (155.91 kilograms/animal, SD = 53.97) and transition (149.87 kg/animal, SD = 37.11) economies producing significantly less meat per animal ( F (2,6983) = 827.088, p = 0.00) when compared to developed states (223.94 kg/animal, SD = 57.88).

We provide data for both the 2009 year (which corresponds to our AOH carnivore habitat data), and for all years since 1961. Silhouettes obtained in public domain.

Our results highlight two key findings, namely that Earth’s poorest communities pay the highest financial and food security costs for conflict (it is eight orders of magnitude worse for a cattle keeper, as a proportion of their per capita income, to lose a calf from conflict in a developing country than a developed one), and more than half of the world’s largest carnivore species have over one third of their habitat overlapping the most economically vulnerable human communities (what we term economic frontline communities). Our results confirm that not only is this true in absolute per capita income loss, but also due to cattle keepers in developing economies producing less meat per animal and having a lower meat intake per capita. This is notable because in many areas of the developing world cattle keepers are already under immense pressure from localized rainfall patterns, drought, and climate change 21 , 48 , and the fragmentation of once contiguous pasture lands 49 . This is causing livestock units per capita to decline 50 . This in turn has a knock-on effect on herd size that when below a critical threshold leads pastoralism to no longer be viable 46 , 48 . Estimates vary but typically if a cattle keeper owns two or fewer adult cattle (4.5 tropical livestock units equivalent to 1125 kg of livestock biomass per capita) they are unable to maintain a nomadic cattle keeping lifestyle 48 . Any source of livestock loss at this point is too severe for economic recovery 46 and will potentially erase the wealth of an entire cattle keeping family. These income losses may have a knock-on effect on food security, and this may disproportionately affect women who tend to forgo meals to keep the household fed 51 , 52 . This mirrors crop raiding scenarios like those highlighted in the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area 53 . These authors showed that elephant-associated crop raiding exacerbated the likelihood of food insecurity due to an already reduced rainfall environment. We anticipate that such knock-on effects we discuss here are likely experienced by many if not most of the households that would lose ≥25% of per capita income in our analysis. Moreover, further knock-on effects are likely, such as migration, subsequent social, and political instability, and impacts to childhood cognitive skills and education due to loss of calories 54 . Our analysis also illustrates two sources of additional and lost opportunity cost, that of useable calories from meat, and those garnered from milk and associated products. We estimate the immediate useable calories to be somewhere between roughly half a year and 1.5 years of calories depending on human age, while we estimate an additional ~300 kg of milk and 12 kg of meat/year from cattle yield. These kinds of costs ignore additional valuations of other cattle products such as dung used for fertilizer 55 , 56 , the hidden mental costs associated with the loss of a sacred animal in some regions 57 , and critical thresholds of cattle herd size 48 .

Charismatic carnivore species like African lions and tigers are highly valuable to societies, and this is especially true at the national or global level 58 , 59 , but at more local scales they often have little or even negative value 9 , 15 . Despite the lamentations of western governments and celebrities over declining carnivore populations, the global community suffers little to no personal cost from large carnivores. This lies in stark contrast to the experiences of local communities living alongside these predators in the developing world for whom a single predation event represents on average a third of their annual income. It is these local communities who “are burdened disproportionately with global wildlife maintenance despite the commonplace notion of wildlife resources as the birthright of people everywhere” 60 (pp. 35–36). Furthermore, outside actors from developed nations at times impede conservation efforts on reserve edges and community lands in developing nations, such as in the case of trophy hunting bans that deny communities a proven mechanism to benefit economically from wildlife 61 , 62 .

Our results arrive at a critical juncture, where calls for environmental conservation are increasingly tempered by recognition of the environmental justice concerns that go with such requests 60 , 63 , 64 . The poorest 40% of humanity suffer impacts from climate change 70% greater than the global average 65 , 66 . Likewise, our analysis shows that human communities lying outside of protected areas overlap with 82% of the Earth’s large carnivore range, whilst also bearing potentially the heaviest economic burdens of living alongside them. Building on work highlighting the tradeoffs between biodiversity conservation and food production 63 , we highlight the at times conflicting nature of three of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): no poverty (Goal 1), zero hunger (Goal 2), and protecting life on land (Goal 15). In the context of human-wildlife conflict these three SDGs are often in direct competition with one another, mainly because there are no sufficient bridging mechanisms for communities to access the potential value of damage-causing but charismatic species. In cases where human communities living alongside protected areas and damage-causing wildlife realize the monetary value from these species (e.g., through ecotourism revenues, conservancies, and population performance payments), and this revenue is not subjected to elite capture or is marginal in nature 67 , 68 , pressures on protected areas and wildlife wane. This is due to increases in human development indices and people escaping from poverty traps 69 , 70 , 71 . Indeed, human-wildlife conflict has also been shown to reduce when non-economic conflict reduction models are used. These include inter alia the introduction of human and canine guardians for livestock 41 , and the building of protective enclosures and bomas to shield livestock against predators 72 .

Our results illustrate the urgent need to create economic bridging measures that will reconcile the high value placed on carnivores globally or nationally, with the economic inequalities suffered by local communities. Recent developments in the novel conservation financing sector are an example of such mechanisms. Two examples include South Africa’s “Rhino Bond” and Sweden’s payment for wolverine presence. Both are tied to the population performance of these species in community lands and protected areas 73 , 74 . Conservancy models which promote tourism and revenue generation in non-protected areas but are not necessarily limited to non-consumptive-tourism only (still having a livestock component 75 ) are another financial model for the problem we have identified here 76 . These solutions deal explicitly with the problem of damage-causing carnivore species (seven of which that are considered globally threatened by the IUCN Red list of threatened species) ranging on non-protected community land which is not only suitable habitat but is also co-inhabited by cattle. It should also be noted that the costs associated with predation events often pale when compared to climatic or disease-related shocks which run into the billions of US$ dollars 77 .

Our analysis of the potential economic burden arising from losing livestock to carnivores was only possible due to recent developments in global socioeconomic 78 and carnivore range spatial data 79 . We feel however, that our analysis is extremely conservative for several reasons, namely we only show the potential economic ramifications of a single predation event. Carnivore depredation often manifests itself in specific areas due to habitat or ecological variables 80 , 81 , households often experience predation events multiple times per year 15 , and sometimes carnivores engage in surplus killing 82 , 83 , 84 . Our analysis does not calculate actual depredation rates, it only illustrates highly vulnerable (and buffered) economic areas globally that would suffer under a predation event. Our valuation of a predated calf is also likely low, because we adjusted the measure of FAO market cattle value to the slaughter weight of a single ~6-month-old calf (250 kg), equating to roughly 33% of the economic value of an adult cow, and our measure of a single calf as a proportion of per capita GDP is well below the threshold of total income generated from many cattle production systems in Africa and Asia (for instance across much of sub-Saharan Africa livestock typically contributes between half and all of household income in rural settings, with cattle contributing 70–90%; 47). We acknowledge that a lack of regional cattle price data means that our analysis of cattle market price is relatively coarse. Prices in livestock also change with the breed of cattle, seasonality (and drought) and with prevailing macro and micro economic conditions 85 . Further, our data originate from 2009 and the acceleration of human-induced climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, and increased rates of political strife may have impacted the severity of our analysis even further.

How cattle keepers view and utilize cattle also varies sharply across the globe, and as 86 note in their key paper “there is an enormous variability in herd management strategies, in social organization, in land tenure, degree of dependence on agricultural products, interactions with outside groups, differentiations of sex and age, etc”. We agree that such variation may be present even at incredibly fine spatial scales. For example, the Bahima and Karamajong cattle keepers of Uganda’s Mbarara and Karamoja districts, place immense cultural and monetary value into cattle keeping. It is a central part of their identity 87 . They largely subsist off cow milk and blood, use cows as dowry or enzhugano 88 , but rarely slaughter the cows for meat 89 . Contrastingly, South African Zulus slaughter a high quantity of cattle for consumption in their diet 90 . Similar contrasts can be observed in India. Roughly 80% of the human population is comprised of Hindus 91 which consider cattle as sacred and do not slaughter and consume cattle. This contrasts with the roughly 14% of Indians which are Muslim. Forty percent of these Muslims include cattle meat in their diet. Our analysis does not capture the nuances of these cultural or even religious valuations of cattle. We also do not differentiate the variations in production practice of cattle globally. For example, in the Brazilian Pantanal cattle ranches are large (over half are between 5 and 30,000 hectares in size 92 , intensive in nature, and slaughter and export to the international market 93 . This contrasts with for example Maasai group ranches in southeast Kenya that own on average between 250 and 650 hectares depending on their location 94 . Our analysis encapsulates both highly productive intensive systems, and nomadic, subsistence production types.

Finally, our results only touch on the many potential opportunity costs (Fig. 3 ) stemming from conflict. There are a multitude of hidden costs 95 and perceived conflicts that can be associated with such a loss including increased workload to make up for financial losses 51 , physical displacement of households 96 , the physical and disease exposure risks of guarding livestock at night to prevent further losses 95 , transaction costs of pursuing compensation payments, and the failure to obtain fair livestock value 97 , 98 . A recent example from Zimbabwe shows that the presence of an African lion equates to negative USD$180 per person per year due to fear, and a lack of trust in compensation by authorities responsible in mitigating conflict events 9 . There may also be a host of psychological effects stemming from such conflict including fear of attack by carnivores, hesitancy to move in the dark, grief over lost livestock, and even PTSD from livestock loss, not to mention the immense cost of human life itself 99 .

Mapping large carnivore habitat

We mapped the spatial habitat extent of 18 large carnivores known to prey on cattle (Supplementary Table 1 ) using Area of Habitat (AOH) data from 100 , except for the dingo Canis lupus dingo , which was mapped following 101 . AOH represents areas of fine scale (300 m) high habitat suitability within large carnivore IUCN geographic distributions during the year 2009. AOH has been used in several recent global studies 102 , 103 due to its reduced risk for commission errors 79 , fine spatial scale, and incorporation of heterogeneous environmental variables (e.g., land cover, elevation, and hydrological features 104 . These layers were used for subsequent analyses. Excluded countries are presented in Supplementary Table 3 .

Mapping per capita income

We mapped annual per capita income at the sub-national scale (i.e., state or province scale) from for the year 2009 78 . We chose the year 2009 to correspond with the year of the large carnivore distribution data, as described above. We chose this dataset because these data provide high resolution estimates of per capita income for both developed and developing countries based on nighttime luminosity data 78 . Nighttime luminosity is important because household survey data (e.g., Afrobarometer or DHS) usually do not contain income data since households fear expropriation from the government and/or cannot provide a monetary equivalent of returns from agricultural production. Generally, as income rises, so too does electricity usage and subsequent nighttime light signature per person, in both production activities and consumptive ones 105 , and light has been used as a proxy for income per capita in several previous studies 106 , 107 , 108 .

Estimating cattle prices

We obtained data on national cattle prices per kilogram (Item Code 945, FAO) from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 109 . This dataset reports on cattle prices as collected at the point of initial sale (prices paid at the farm-gate). Because our large carnivore AOH and per capita income data corresponded to the year 2009, we included the average cattle live weight price for the year 2009, or the next closest year available in the FAO database or gray literature (see Supplementary Data File 1 for details). We then determined the price of a single sub-adult cattle calf by multiplying the per kilogram cattle price for a given country by 250 kg, the approximate size of a sub-adult cattle calf, also known as a single tropical livestock unit 46 . This estimated price of a sub-adult cattle calf per country was used for estimating the financial burden of large carnivore predation, described below.

Mapping cattle distribution

We mapped the spatial distribution of cattle using the updated Gridded Livestock of the World (GLW 3 110 ). The GLW 3 represents areas of sub-national livestock densities, including cattle at fine resolution (~10 km at the equator) for the year 2010. We used the dasymetric dataset of cattle, which corresponds to previous GLW datasets and represents different cattle densities per pixel within a census area according to random forest models. We determine cattle to be present in a given pixel if the density was greater than zero. We resampled the data (bilinear method) to match the spatial resolution of the large carnivore AOH data (300 m).

Mapping burden hotspots

We determined the financial burden of losing a single sub-adult cattle calf to large carnivore predation by first dividing estimates of the price of a single sub-adult cattle calf (see Estimating cattle prices ) with estimates of per capita income at the sub-national scale (see Estimating per capita income ). This produced the relative proportion of annual per capita income lost assuming the predation of a single sub-adult cattle calf. We then masked sub-national administrative boundaries, which contained the above information on the proportion of per capita income vulnerable, with the spatial extent of large carnivores (see Mapping large carnivore habitat )—that is, a spatial mosaic of all 18 large carnivore AOH. Next, we masked this layer with data 110 on the spatial distribution of cattle globally (see Mapping cattle distribution ). Finally, we intersected the AOH (corrected with the distribution of cattle) with country boundaries to determine the per capita financial burden at the national scale, and we intersected this with individual carnivore AOH layers to determine the potential financial burden within each species’ geographic range (Supplementary Data 3 ).

We report our results of potential economic burden for each country as an average annual per capita income loss across the entire country. We also calculated the proportion of each carnivore species’ range overlapping areas that experience different levels of economic burden: 0–5% of per capita income loss (very low-vulnerability area), 5–10% (low vulnerability area), 10–25% (moderate vulnerability area), 25–50% (high vulnerability area), and >50% (extreme vulnerability area).

Estimating food security impacts

We also assessed the direct and opportunity costs lost to households from predation. We calculated calories lost from a single cow or bull (note the FAO data provides hectograms per animal for yield) predation through multiplying country-specific meat yield from the FAO 2021 by beef carcass kilojoule value (1351 kJ/100 g) (see: https://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/meat/backgr_composition.html ). We then divided these lost calories by the average estimated daily caloric intake of a young child aged 2–3, an adolescent aged 12–13, and an adult aged 30–60-years-old 111 .

Estimating economic disparities in national cattle production

Finally, we assessed the disparities in cattle prices between developing, transition, and developed economies and examined the differences in meat yield per carcass (Supplementary Data 2 ). We did this because we wanted to ascertain whether cattle keepers in developing and transition economies may be further exposed (comparatively to developed states) to conflict due to a) price plasticity in cattle markets over time (these could be indicative of market or climate-related shocks 46 , 48 ), and b) low productivity in meat production per animal (ie. prices of cattle per kg may be similar between countries however cattle keepers have to produce more cattle per unit area to yield the same price per ton). We used cattle meat yields in kilograms per animal obtained from the FAO agricultural database 109 . Potential disparities in a) the cattle price (both for the 2009 year, and over time using our historic FAO cattle price dataset), and b) meat yield per animal between developing, transitioning, and developed economies were assessed using a one-way analysis of variance ANOVA.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Andrade, G. S. & Rhodes, J. R. Protected areas and local communities: an inevitable partnership toward successful conservation strategies? Ecol. Soc. 17 , 14–23 (2012).

Article Google Scholar

UNHCR. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The Sustainable Development Goals and Addressing Statelessness (2017). https://www.refworld.org/docid/58b6e3364.html [accessed 16 April 2021]

Ngorima, A., Brown, A., Masunungure, C. & Biggs, D. Local community benefits from elephants: Can willingness to support anti-poaching efforts be strengthened? Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2 , e303 (2020).

Google Scholar

Ripple, W. J. et al. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343 , 1241484 (2014).

O’Bryan, C. J. et al. The contribution of predators and scavengers to human well-being. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2 , 229–236 (2018).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Levi, T. et al. Community ecology and conservation of bear-salmon ecosystems. Front. Ecol. Evol. 8 , 433 (2020).

Raynor, J. L., Grainger, C. A. & Parker, D. P. Wolves make roadways safer, generating large economic returns to predator conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118 , e2023251118 (2021).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Tortato, F. R., Izzo, T. J., Hoogesteijn, R. & Peres, C. A. The numbers of the beast: Valuation of jaguar (Panthera onca) tourism and cattle depredation in the Brazilian Pantanal. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 11 , 106–114 (2017).

Jacobsen, K. S. et al. What is a lion worth to local people—quantifying of the costs of living alongside a top predator. Ecol. Econ. 198 , 107431 (2022).

Thirgood, S., Woodroffe, R. & Rabinowitz, A. The impact of human-wildlife conflict on human lives and livelihoods. Conserv. Biol. Ser. 9 , 13 (2005).

Mackenzie, C. A. & Ahabyona, P. Elephants in the garden: financial and social costs of crop raiding. Ecol. Econ. 75 , 72–82 (2012).

Anaya, F. C. & Espírito-Santo, M. M. Protected areas and territorial exclusion of traditional communities. Ecol. Soc . 23 (2018).

Nsukwini, S. & Bob, U. Protected areas, community costs and benefits: a comparative study of selected conservation case studies from northern KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. GeoJ. Tour. Geosites 27 , 1377–1391 (2019).

Heydinger, J. M., Packer, C. & Tsaneb, J. Desert-adapted lions on communal land: surveying the costs incurred by, and perspectives of, communal-area livestock owners in northwest Namibia. Biol. Conserv. 236 , 496–504 (2019).

Dickman, A. J., Macdonald, E. A. & Macdonald, D. W. A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human–carnivore coexistence. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108 , 13937–13944 (2011).

Wang, S. W. & Macdonald, D. W. Livestock predation by carnivores in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Biol. Conserv. 129 , 558–565 (2006).

Holmern, T., Nyahongo, J. & Røskaft, E. Livestock loss caused by predators outside the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Biol. Conserv. 135 , 518–526 (2007).

Thornton, P. K. et al. Locating poor livestock keepers at the global level for research and development targeting. Land Use Policy 20 , 311–322 (2003).

McDermott, J. J., Staal, S. J., Freeman, H. A., Herrero, M. & Van de Steeg, J. A. Sustaining intensification of smallholder livestock systems in the tropics. Livest. Sci. 130 , 95–109 (2010).

Dyson-Hudson, N. & Dyson-Hudson, R. The structure of East African herds and the future of East African herders. Dev. Change 13 , 213–238 (1982).

Herrero, M. et al. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Change 6 , 452–461 (2016).

Kgathi, D. L., Ngwenya, B. N. & Wilk, J. Shocks and rural livelihoods in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Dev. South. Afr. 24 , 289–308 (2007).

Letta, M., Montalbano, P. & Tol, R. S. Temperature shocks, short-term growth and poverty thresholds: evidence from rural Tanzania. World Dev. 112 , 13–32 (2018).

Cottrell, R. S. et al. Food production shocks across land and sea. Nat. Sustain. 2 , 130–137 (2019).

Li, J. et al. Role of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in snow leopard conservation. Conserv. Biol. 28 , 87–94 (2014).

Bhatia, S., Redpath, S. M., Suryawanshi, K. & Mishra, C. The relationship between religion and attitudes toward large carnivores in northern India? Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 22 , 30–42 (2017).

Gebresenbet, F., Baraki, B., Yirga, G., Sillero-Zubiri, C. & Bauer, H. A culture of tolerance: coexisting with large carnivores in the Kafa Highlands, Ethiopia. Oryx 52 , 751–760 (2018).

Cardillo, M. et al. Human population density and extinction risk in the world’s carnivores. PLoS Biol. 2 , e197 (2004).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Hazzah, L., Mulder, M. B. & Frank, L. Lions and warriors: social factors underlying declining African lion populations and the effect of incentive-based management in Kenya. Biol. Conserv. 142 , 2428–2437 (2009).

Plaza, P. I., Martínez-López, E. & Lambertucci, S. A. The perfect threat: pesticides and vultures. Sci. Total Environ. 687 , 1207–1218 (2019).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Mateo-Tomás, P. & López-Bao, J. V. Poisoning poached megafauna can boost trade in African vultures. Biol. Conserv. 241 , 108389 (2020).

Tumenta, P. N. et al. Threat of rapid extermination of the lion (Panthera leo leo) in Waza National Park, Northern Cameroon. Afr. J. Ecol. 48 , 888–894 (2010).

Braczkowski, A. et al. Detecting early warnings of pressure on an African lion (Panthera leo) population in the Queen Elizabeth Conservation Area, Uganda. Ecol. Solut. Evid. 1 , e12015 (2020b).

Ickes, K. Hyper-abundance of Native Wild Pigs (Sus scrofa) in a Lowland Dipterocarp Rain Forest of Peninsular Malaysia 1. Biotropica 33 , 682–690 (2001).

Ripple, W. J. et al. Widespread mesopredator effects after wolf extirpation. Biol. Conserv. 160 , 70–79 (2013).

Ripple, W. J. & Beschta, R. L. Linking a cougar decline, trophic cascade, and catastrophic regime shift in Zion National Park. Biol. Conserv. 133 , 397–408 (2006).

Ripple, W. J. & Beschta, R. L. Trophic cascades involving cougar, mule deer, and black oaks in Yosemite National Park. Biol. Conserv. 141 , 1249–1256 (2008).

Gilbert, S. L. et al. Socioeconomic benefits of large carnivore recolonization through reduced wildlife-vehicle collisions. Conserv. Lett. 10 , 431–439 (2017).

ILRI. Rangelands Atlas. (ILRI, IUCN, FAO, WWF, UNEP and ILC, 2021). Nairobi Kenya: ILRI.

Williams, D. R. et al. Proactive conservation to prevent habitat losses to agricultural expansion. Nat. Sustain. 4 , 314–322 (2021).

McManus, J. S. et al. Dead or alive? Comparing costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal human-wildlife conflict mitigation on livestock farms. Oryx 49 , 687–695 (2015).

Broekhuis, F. et al. Identification of human-carnivore conflict hotspots to prioritize mitigation efforts. Ecol. Evol. 7 , 10630–10639 (2017).

Lozano, J. et al. Human-carnivore relations: a systematic review. Biol. Conserv. 237 , 480–492 (2019).

Khorozyan, I. & Waltert, M. A global view on evidence-based effectiveness of interventions used to protect livestock from wild cats. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3 , e317 (2021).

Di Minin, E., Slotow, R., Fink, C., Bauer, H. & Packer, C. A pan-African spatial assessment of human conflicts with lions and elephants. Nat. Commun. 12 , 1–10 (2021).

Lybbert, T. J. et al. Stochastic wealth dynamics and risk management among a poor population. Econ. J. 114 , 750–777 (2004).

Otte, M. J. & Chilonda, P. Cattle and Small Ruminant Production Systems in Sub-Saharan. Africa - Systematic Rev . (FAO, Rome, Italy, 2002).

Maystadt, J. F. & Ecker, O. Extreme weather and civil war: Does drought fuel conflict in Somalia through livestock price shocks? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 96 , 1157–1182 (2014).

Galvin, K. A. Transitions: pastoralists living with change. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 38 , 185–198 (2009).

Stavi, I. et al. Food security among dryland pastoralists and agropastoralists: The climate, land-use change, and population dynamics nexus. Anthropocene Rev . (2021). 20530196211007512.

Ogra, M. V. Human–wildlife conflict and gender in protected area borderlands: a case study of costs, perceptions, and vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum 39 , 1408–1422 (2008).

Botreau, H., & Cohen, M. J. Gender Inequalities and Food Insecurity: Ten Years After The Food Price Crisis, Why Are Women Farmers Still Food-Insecure? Oxfam:Oxford, UK (2019).

Salerno, J. et al. Wildlife impacts and changing climate pose compounding threats to human food security. Curr. Biol. 31 , 5077–5085 (2021).

Prado, E. L. & Dewey, K. G. Nutrition and brain development in early life. Nutr. Rev. 72 , 267–284 (2014).

Madhusudan, M. D. The global village: linkages between international coffee markets and grazing by livestock in a south Indian wildlife reserve. Conserv. Biol. 19 , 411–420 (2005).

Margulies, J. D. & Karanth, K. K. The production of human-wildlife conflict: A political animal geography of encounter. Geoforum 95 , 153–164 (2018).

Simoons, F. J., Simoons, F. I. & Lodrick, D. O. Background to understanding the cattle situation of India: The sacred cow concept in Hindu religion and folk culture. Zeitschrift Für Ethnologie 106 , 121–137 (1981).

Good, C., Burnham, D. & Macdonald, D. W. A cultural conscience for conservation. Animals 7 , 52 (2017).

Courchamp, F. et al. The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals. PLoS Biol. 16 , e2003997 (2018).

Bond, J. & Mkutu, K. Exploring the hidden costs of human–wildlife conflict in northern Kenya. Afr. Stud. Rev. 61 , 33–54 (2018).

Di Minin, E., Leader-Williams, N. & Bradshaw, C. J. Banning trophy hunting will exacerbate biodiversity loss. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31 , 99–102 (2016).

Dickman, A. et al. Trophy hunting bans imperil biodiversity. Science 365 , 874–874 (2019).

Bruskotter, J. T., Vucetich, J. A., Gilbert, S. L., Carter, N. H. & George, K. A. Tragic trade‐offs accompany carnivore coexistence in the modern world. Conserv. Lett . 15 , e412841 (2022).

Dempsey, J. et al. Biodiversity targets will not be met without debt and tax justice. Nat. Ecol. Evol . 6 , 237–239 (2022).

Hallegatte, S. & Rozenberg, J. Climate change through a poverty lens. Nat. Clim. Change 7 , 250–256 (2017).

Islam, S. N., and Winkel, J. Climate change and social inequality. DESA Working Paper No. 152. New York, NY: United Nations Department of Economic & Social Affairs (2017).

Platteau, J. P. Monitoring elite capture in community-driven development. Dev. Change 35 , 223–246 (2004).

Karanth, K. K. & DeFries, R. Nature-based tourism in Indian protected areas: new challenges for park management. Conserv. Lett. 4 , 137–149 (2011).

Ament, J. M., Collen, B., Carbone, C., Mace, G. M. & Freeman, R. Compatibility between agendas for improving human development and wildlife conservation outside protected areas: insights from 20 years of data. People Nat. 1 , 305–316 (2019).

Geldmann, J., Manica, A., Burgess, N. D., Coad, L. & Balmford, A. A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116 , 23209–23215 (2019).

Naidoo, R. et al. Evaluating the impacts of protected areas on human well-being across the developing world. Sci. Adv. 5 , eaav3006 (2019).

Lichtenfeld, L. L., Trout, C. & Kisimir, E. L. Evidence-based conservation: predator-proof bomas protect livestock and lions. Biodivers. Conserv. 24 , 483–491 (2015).

Persson, J., Rauset, G. R. & Chapron, G. Paying for an endangered predator leads to population recovery. Conserv. Lett. 8 , 345–350 (2015).

Barichievy, C. et al. A demographic model to support an impact financing mechanism for black rhino metapopulations. Biol. Conserv. 257 , 109073 (2021).

Maingi, S. W. Safari tourism and its role in sustainable poverty eradication in East Africa: the case of Kenya. Worldwide Hosp. Tour. Themes 13 , 81–94 (2021).

Homewood, K. M., Trench, P. C. & Brockington, D. Pastoralist livelihoods and wildlife revenues in East Africa: a case for coexistence? Pastoralism: Res. Pol. Pract. 2 , 1–23 (2012).

Thornton, P., Nelson, G., Mayberry, D. & Herrero, M. Impacts of heat stress on global cattle production during the 21st century: a modelling study. Lancet Planet. Health 6 , e192–e201 (2022).

Lessmann, C. & Seidel, A. Regional inequality, convergence, and its determinants–a view from outer space. Eur. Econ. Rev. 92 , 110–132 (2017).

Brooks, T. M. et al. Measuring terrestrial area of habitat (AOH) and its utility for the IUCN Red List. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34 , 977–986 (2019).

Miller, J. R. Mapping attack hotspots to mitigate human–carnivore conflict: approaches and applications of spatial predation risk modeling. Biodivers. Conserv. 24 , 2887–2911 (2015).

Gastineau, A., Robert, A., Sarrazin, F., Mihoub, J. B. & Quenette, P. Y. Spatiotemporal depredation hotspots of brown bears, Ursus arctos, on livestock in the Pyrenees, France. Biol. Conserv. 238 , 108210 (2019).

Kruuk, H. Surplus killing by carnivores. J. Zool. 166 , 233–244 (1972).

Khorozyan, I. et al. Effects of shepherds and dogs on livestock depredation by leopards (Panthera pardus) in north-eastern Iran. PeerJ 5 , e3049 (2017).

Lucherini, M., Guerisoli, M. D. L. M. & Luengos Vidal, E. M. Surplus killing by pumas Puma concolor: rumours and facts. Mammal. Rev. 48 , 277–283 (2018).

Ocaido, M., Muwazi, R. T. & Opuda-Asibo, J. Financial analysis of livestock production systems around Lake Mburo National Park, in South Western Uganda. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 21 , 70 (2009).

Dyson-Hudson, R. & Dyson-Hudson, N. Nomadic pastoralism. Annu. Rev. Anthropol . 9 , 15–61 (1980).

Barber, J. P. The Karamoja District of Uganda: a pastoral people under colonial rule. J. Afr. Hist. 3 , 111–124 (1962).

Oberg, K. Analysis of the Bahima marriage ceremony. Africa 19 , 107–120 (1949).

Purseglove, J. W. Banyankole Agriculture. East Afr. Agric. J. 5 , 198–207 (1939).

Canonici, N. N. Food in Zulu folktales. South. Afr. J. Folk. Stud. 2 , 24–36 (1991).

United Nations. World Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results. UN DESA/POP/2022/TR/NO. 3 (2022).

Tomas, W. M. et al. Sustainability agenda for the Pantanal Wetland: perspectives on a collaborative interface for science, policy, and decision-making. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 12 , 1940082919872634 (2019).

Vale, P. et al. Mapping the cattle industry in Brazil’s most dynamic cattle-ranching state: Slaughterhouses in Mato Grosso, 1967-2016. PLOS One 14 , e0215286 (2019).

De Leeuw, P. N., Bekure, S., & Grandin, B. E. Aspects of livestock productivity in Maasai group ranches in Kenya. ILCA Bull. (1984).

Barua, M., Bhagwat, S. A. & Jadhav, S. The hidden dimensions of human–wildlife conflict: health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biol. Conserv. 157 , 309–316 (2013).

Choudhury, A. Human–elephant conflicts in Northeast India. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 9 , 261–270 (2004).

Sherman, P. B., & Dixon, J. A. Economics of protected areas: a new look at benefits and costs. Earthscan Publications Limited (1990).

Braczkowski, A. et al. Evidence for increasing human‐wildlife conflict despite a financial compensation scheme on the edge of a Ugandan National Park. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2 , e309 (2020c).

Gulati, S., Karanth, K., Nguyet Anh Le, N. & Noack, F. Human casualties are the dominant cost of human–wildlife conflict in India. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 118 , e1921338118 (2021).

Rondinini, C. et al. Global habitat suitability models of terrestrial mammals. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. 366 , 2633–2641 (2011).

Lewis, J. S. et al. Biotic and abiotic factors predicting the global distribution and population density of an invasive large mammal. Sci. Rep. 7 , 44152 (2017).

Strassburg, B. et al. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586 , 724–729 (2020).

O’Bryan, C. J. et al. The importance of indigenous peoples’ lands for the conservation of terrestrial mammals. Conserv. Biol. 35 , 1002–1008 (2021).

Rondinini, C., Wilson, K. A., Boitani, L., Grantham, H. & Possingham, H. P. Tradeoffs of different types of species occurrence data for use in systematic conservation planning. Ecol. Lett. 9 , 1136–1145 (2006).

Henderson, J. V., Storeygard, A. & Weil, D. N. Measuring economic growth from outer space. Am. Econ. Rev. 102 , 994–1028 (2012).

Ebener, S., Murray, C., Tandon, A. & Elvidge, C. C. From wealth to health: modelling the distribution of income per capita at the sub-national level using night-time light imagery. Int. J. Health Geographics 4 , 5 (2005).

Chen, X. & Nordhaus, W. D. Using luminosity data as a proxy for economic statistics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 108 , 8589–8594 (2011).

Jean, N. et al. Combining satellite imagery and machine learning to predict poverty. Science 353 , 790–794 (2016).

FAO Meat live weight, cattle database. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#search/cattle (2021). Accessed 24 April 2021.

Gilbert, M. et al. Global distribution data for cattle, buffaloes, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens and ducks in 2010. Sci. Data 5 , 1–11 (2018).

United Nations University & World Health Organization. Human Energy Requirements: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO/UNU Expert Consultation: Rome, 17–24 October 2001 (Vol. 1 ) Food & Agriculture Org (2004).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China

Alexander R. Braczkowski & Luke Gibson

Resilient Conservation, Centre for Planetary Health and Food Security, Griffith University, 170 Kessels Rd, Nathan, QLD, 4111, Australia

Alexander R. Braczkowski & Duan Biggs

School of Natural Resource Management, Nelson Mandela University, George Campus, Madiba Drive, 6530, George, South Africa

Alexander R. Braczkowski

School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4067, Australia

Christopher J. O’Bryan

Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4067, Australia

Technische Universität Dresden, 01069, Dresden, Germany

Christian Lessmann

Ifo Institute & CESifo, Poschingerstr. 5, 81679, Munich, Germany

Center for Global Wildlife Conservation, State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, 13210, USA

Carlo Rondinini

Department of Political Science, University of California Los Angeles, Bunche Hall, 4289, Los Angeles, USA

Anna P. Crysell

Nature Capital Development, 443 Fillmore Street 380-1418, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA

Sophie Gilbert

Affiliate faculty, Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, 83843, USA

W.H. Bryan Mining and Geology Research Centre Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, Level 4, Sir James Foots Building, St Lucia, QLD, 4067, Australia

Martin Stringer

Olajos-Goslow Chair of Environmental Science and Policy, Northern Arizona University, 624 Knoles Dr, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011, USA

Centre for Complex Systems in Transition, School of Public Leadership, Stellenbosch University, 19 Jonkershoek Rd, Mostertsdrift, Stellenbosch, 7600, South Africa

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: A.P.C., A.R.B., C.J.O., C.L., D.B., L.G., S.G. Data Analysis: C.J.O., A.R.B. Data discussion and review: A.R.B., C.J.O., C.L., D.B., L.G., S.G., A.P.C., C.R., M.S. Writing—original draft: A.R.B., C.J.O., D.B., A.P.C., C.L., L.G., S.G., C.R. Writing—review & editing: A.R.B., C.J.O., C.L., D.B., L.G., S.G., A.P.C., C.R., M.S.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luke Gibson .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Communications Biology thanks Christopher Schell and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Luke R. Grinham. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Peer review file, supplementary information, description of additional supplementary files, supplementary data 1, supplementary data 2, supplementary data 3, reporting summary, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Braczkowski, A.R., O’Bryan, C.J., Lessmann, C. et al. The unequal burden of human-wildlife conflict. Commun Biol 6 , 182 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-04493-y

Download citation

Received : 28 June 2022

Accepted : 17 January 2023

Published : 23 February 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-04493-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Mobile apps for 30×30 equity.

Camille Gaillard
Jenna M. Keany

Nature Sustainability (2024)

The influence of community-based conservation governance arrangements on lion population in the amboseli ecosystem

Margaret Wangui Muriuki
Thuita Thenya
Jane Mutheu Mutune

GeoJournal (2024)

Climate change resilience strategies for safeguarding sustainable tourism in Zimbabwe

Option Takunda Chiwaridzo
Mufaro Dzingirai

Environment, Development and Sustainability (2024)

Puma density, habitat use, and activity patterns across a mosaic landscape of ranches, game reserves, and a protected area in central Argentina

Juan I. Zanón Martínez
Esperanza C. Iranzo
Marcella J. Kelly

European Journal of Wildlife Research (2023)

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field We invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the Constructive Conflict Initiative and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems.

By Michelle LeBaron

July 2003

Culture is an essential part of conflict and conflict resolution. Cultures are like underground rivers that run through our lives and relationships, giving us messages that shape our perceptions, attributions, judgments, and ideas of self and other. Though cultures are powerful, they are often unconscious, influencing conflict and attempts to resolve conflict in imperceptible ways.

Cultures are more than language, dress, and food customs. Cultural groups may share race, ethnicity, or nationality, but they also arise from cleavages of generation, socioeconomic class, sexual orientation, ability and disability, political and religious affiliation, language, and gender -- to name only a few.

Two things are essential to remember about cultures: they are always changing, and they relate to the symbolic dimension of life. The symbolic dimension is the place where we are constantly making meaning and enacting our identities. Cultural messages from the groups we belong to give us information about what is meaningful or important, and who we are in the world and in relation to others -- our identities.

Cultural messages, simply, are what everyone in a group knows that outsiders do not know. They are the water fish swim in, unaware of its effect on their vision. They are a series of lenses that shape what we see and don't see, how we perceive and interpret, and where we draw boundaries. In shaping our values, cultures contain starting points and currencies[1]. Starting points are those places it is natural to begin, whether with individual or group concerns, with the big picture or particularities. Currencies are those things we care about that influence and shape our interactions with others.

Additional insights into are offered by Beyond Intractability project participants.

How Cultures Work

Though largely below the surface, cultures are a shifting, dynamic set of starting points that orient us in particular ways and away from other directions. Each of us belongs to multiple cultures that give us messages about what is normal, appropriate, and expected. When others do not meet our expectations, it is often a cue that our cultural expectations are different. We may mistake differences between others and us for evidence of bad faith or lack of common sense on the part of others, not realizing that common sense is also cultural. What is common to one group may seem strange, counterintuitive, or wrong to another.

Cultural messages shape our understandings of relationships, and of how to deal with the conflict and harmony that are always present whenever two or more people come together. Writing about or working across cultures is complicated, but not impossible. Here are some complications in working with cultural dimensions of conflict, and the implications that flow from them:

Culture is multi-layered -- what you see on the surface may mask differences below the surface.

Therefore, cultural generalizations are not the whole story, and there is no substitute for building relationships and sharing experiences, coming to know others more deeply over time.

Culture is constantly in flux -- as conditions change, cultural groups adapt in dynamic and sometimes unpredictable ways.

Therefore, no comprehensive description can ever be formulated about a particular group. Any attempt to understand a group must take the dimensions of time, context, and individual differences into account.

Culture is elastic -- knowing the cultural norms of a given group does not predict the behavior of a member of that group, who may not conform to norms for individual or contextual reasons.

Therefore, taxonomies (e.g. "Italians think this way," or "Buddhists prefer that") have limited use, and can lead to error if not checked with experience.

Culture is largely below the surface, influencing identities and meaning-making, or who we believe ourselves to be and what we care about -- it is not easy to access these symbolic levels since they are largely outside our awareness.

Therefore, it is important to use many ways of learning about the cultural dimensions of those involved in a conflict, especially indirect ways, including stories, metaphors, and rituals.

Cultural influences and identities become important depending on context. When an aspect of cultural identity is threatened or misunderstood, it may become relatively more important than other cultural identities and this fixed, narrow identity may become the focus of stereotyping , negative projection, and conflict. This is a very common situation in intractable conflicts.

Therefore, it is useful for people in conflict to have interactive experiences that help them see each other as broadly as possible, experiences that foster the recognition of shared identities as well as those that are different.

Since culture is so closely related to our identities (who we think we are), and the ways we make meaning (what is important to us and how), it is always a factor in conflict. Cultural awareness leads us to apply the Platinum Rule in place of the Golden Rule. Rather than the maxim "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," the Platinum Rule advises: "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them."

Culture and Conflict: Connections

Cultures are embedded in every conflict because conflicts arise in human relationships. Cultures affect the ways we name, frame, blame, and attempt to tame conflicts. Whether a conflict exists at all is a cultural question. In an interview conducted in Canada, an elderly Chinese man indicated he had experienced no conflict at all for the previous 40 years.[2] Among the possible reasons for his denial was a cultural preference to see the world through lenses of harmony rather than conflict, as encouraged by his Confucian upbringing. Labeling some of our interactions as conflicts and analyzing them into smaller component parts is a distinctly Western approach that may obscure other aspects of relationships.

Culture is always a factor in conflict, whether it plays a central role or influences it subtly and gently. For any conflict that touches us where it matters, where we make meaning and hold our identities, there is always a cultural component. Intractable conflicts like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir are not just about territorial, boundary, and sovereignty issues -- they are also about acknowledgement, representation, and legitimization of different identities and ways of living, being, and making meaning.

Conflicts between teenagers and parents are shaped by generational culture, and conflicts between spouses or partners are influenced by gender culture. In organizations, conflicts arising from different disciplinary cultures escalate tensions between co-workers, creating strained or inaccurate communication and stressed relationships. Culture permeates conflict no matter what -- sometimes pushing forth with intensity, other times quietly snaking along, hardly announcing its presence until surprised people nearly stumble on it.

Culture is inextricable from conflict, though it does not cause it. When differences surface in families, organizations, or communities, culture is always present, shaping perceptions, attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes.

When the cultural groups we belong to are a large majority in our community or nation, we are less likely to be aware of the content of the messages they send us. Cultures shared by dominant groups often seem to be "natural," "normal" -- "the way things are done." We only notice the effect of cultures that are different from our own, attending to behaviors that we label exotic or strange.

Though culture is intertwined with conflict, some approaches to conflict resolution minimize cultural issues and influences. Since culture is like an iceberg -- largely submerged -- it is important to include it in our analyses and interventions. Icebergs unacknowledged can be dangerous, and it is impossible to make choices about them if we don't know their size or place. Acknowledging culture and bringing cultural fluency to conflicts can help all kinds of people make more intentional, adaptive choices.

Culture and Conflict: How to Respond

Given culture's important role in conflicts, what should be done to keep it in mind and include it in response plans? Cultures may act like temperamental children: complicated, elusive, and difficult to predict. Unless we develop comfort with culture as an integral part of conflict, we may find ourselves tangled in its net of complexity, limited by our own cultural lenses. Cultural fluency is a key tool for disentangling and managing multilayered, cultural conflicts.

Cultural fluency means familiarity with cultures: their natures, how they work, and ways they intertwine with our relationships in times of conflict and harmony. Cultural fluency means awareness of several dimensions of culture, including

Communication,
Ways of naming, framing, and taming conflict,
Approaches to meaning making,
Identities and roles.

Each of these is described in more detail below.

Communication refers to different starting points about how to relate to and with others. There are many variations on these starting points, and they are outlined in detail in the topic Communication, Culture, and Conflict . Some of the major variations relate to the division between high- and low-context communications, a classification devised by Edward T. Hall.[3]

In high-context communication, most of a message is conveyed by the context surrounding it, rather than being named explicitly in words. The physical setting, the way things are said, and shared understandings are relied upon to give communication meaning. Interactions feature formalized and stylized rituals, telegraphing ideas without spelling them out. Nonverbal cues and signals are essential to comprehension of the message. The context is trusted to communicate in the absence of verbal expressions, or sometimes in addition to them. High-context communication may help save face because it is less direct than low-context communication, but it may increase the possibilities of miscommunication because much of the intended message is unstated.

Low-context communication emphasizes directness rather than relying on the context to communicate. From this starting point, verbal communication is specific and literal, and less is conveyed in implied, indirect signals. Low-context communicators tend to "say what they mean and mean what they say." Low-context communication may help prevent misunderstandings , but it can also escalate conflict because it is more confrontational than high-context communication.

As people communicate, they move along a continuum between high- and low-context. Depending on the kind of relationship, the context, and the purpose of communication, they may be more or less explicit and direct. In close relationships, communication shorthand is often used, which makes communication opaque to outsiders but perfectly clear to the parties. With strangers, the same people may choose low-context communication.

Low- and high-context communication refers not only to individual communication strategies, but may be used to understand cultural groups. Generally, Western cultures tend to gravitate toward low-context starting points, while Eastern and Southern cultures tend to high-context communication. Within these huge categories, there are important differences and many variations. Where high-context communication tends to be featured, it is useful to pay specific attention to nonverbal cues and the behavior of others who may know more of the unstated rules governing the communication. Where low-context communication is the norm, directness is likely to be expected in return.

There are many other ways that communication varies across cultures. High- and low-context communication and several other dimensions are explored in Communication, Culture, and Conflict .

Ways of naming, framing, and taming conflict vary across cultural boundaries. As the example of the elderly Chinese interviewee illustrates, not everyone agrees on what constitutes a conflict. For those accustomed to subdued, calm discussion, an emotional exchange among family members may seem a threatening conflict. The family members themselves may look at their exchange as a normal and desirable airing of differing views. Intractable conflicts are also subject to different interpretations. Is an event a skirmish, a provocation, an escalation, or a mere trifle, hardly worth noticing? The answer depends on perspective, context, and how identity relates to the situation.

Just as there is no consensus across cultures or situations on what constitutes a conflict or how events in the interaction should be framed, so there are many different ways of thinking about how to tame it. Should those involved meet face to face, sharing their perspectives and stories with or without the help of an outside mediator? Or should a trusted friend talk with each of those involved and try to help smooth the waters? Should a third party be known to the parties or a stranger to those involved?

John Paul Lederach, in his book Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures, identifies two third-party roles that exist in U.S. and Somali settings, respectively -- the formal mediator and the traditional elder.[4] The formal mediator is generally not known to those involved, and he or she tries to act without favoritism or investment in any particular outcome. Traditional elders are revered for their local knowledge and relationships, and are relied upon for direction and advice, as well as for their skills in helping parties communicate with each other. The roles of insider partial (someone known to the parties who is familiar with the history of the situation and the webs of relationships) and outsider neutral (someone unknown to the parties who has no stake in the outcome or continuing relationship with the parties) appear in a range of cultural contexts. Generally, insider partials tend to be preferred in traditional, high-context settings, while outside neutrals are more common in low-context settings.

These are just some of the ways that taming conflict varies across cultures. Third parties may use different strategies with quite different goals, depending on their cultural sense of what is needed. In multicultural contexts, parties' expectations of how conflict should be addressed may vary, further escalating an existing conflict.

Approaches to meaning-making also vary across cultures. Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars suggest that people have a range of starting points for making sense of their lives, including:

universalist (favoring rules, laws, and generalizations) and particularist (favoring exceptions, relations, and contextual evaluation)
specificity (preferring explicit definitions, breaking down wholes into component parts, and measurable results) and diffuseness (focusing on patterns, the big picture, and process over outcome)
inner direction (sees virtue in individuals who strive to realize their conscious purpose) and outer direction (where virtue is outside each of us in natural rhythms, nature, beauty, and relationships)
synchronous time (cyclical and spiraling) and sequential time (linear and unidirectional).[5]

When we don't understand that others may have quite different starting points, conflict is more likely to occur and to escalate. Even though the starting points themselves are neutral, negative motives are easily attributed to someone who begins from a different end of the continuum.[6]

For example, when First Nations people sit down with government representatives to negotiate land claims in Canada or Australia, different ideas of time may make it difficult to establish rapport and make progress. First Nations people tend to see time as stretching forward and back, binding them in relationship with seven generations in both directions. Their actions and choices in the present are thus relevant to history and to their progeny. Government negotiators acculturated to Western European ideas of time may find the telling of historical tales and the consideration of projections generations into the future tedious and irrelevant unless they understand the variations in the way time is understood by First Nations people.

Of course, this example draws on generalizations that may or may not apply in a particular situation. There are many different Aboriginal peoples in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and elsewhere. Each has a distinct culture, and these cultures have different relationships to time, different ideas about negotiation, and unique identities. Government negotiators may also have a range of ethno cultural identities, and may not fit the stereotype of the woman or man in a hurry, with a measured, pressured orientation toward time.

Examples can also be drawn from the other three dimensions identified by Hampden-Turner and Trompenaars. When an intractable conflict has been ongoing for years or even generations, should there be recourse to international standards and interveners, or local rules and practices? Those favoring a universalist starting point are more likely to prefer international intervention and the setting of international standards. Particularlists will be more comfortable with a tailor-made, home-grown approach than with the imposition of general rules that may or may not fit their needs and context.

Specificity and diffuseness also lead to conflict and conflict escalation in many instances. People, who speak in specifics, looking for practical solutions to challenges that can be implemented and measured, may find those who focus on process, feelings, and the big picture obstructionist and frustrating. On the other hand, those whose starting points are diffuse are more apt to catch the flaw in the sum that is not easy to detect by looking at the component parts, and to see the context into which specific ideas must fit.

Inner-directed people tend to feel confident that they can affect change, believing that they are "the masters of their fate, the captains of their souls."[7] They focus more on product than process. Imagine their frustration when faced with outer-directed people, whose attention goes to nurturing relationships, living in harmony with nature, going with the flow, and paying attention to processes rather than products. As with each of the above sets of starting points, neither is right or wrong; they are simply different. A focus on process is helpful, but not if it completely fails to ignore outcomes. A focus on outcomes is useful, but it is also important to monitor the tone and direction of the process. Cultural fluency means being aware of different sets of starting points, and having a way to speak in both dialects, helping translate between them when they are making conflict worse.

These continua are not absolute, nor do they explain human relations broadly. They are clues to what might be happening when people are in conflict over long periods of time. We are meaning-making creatures, telling stories and creating understandings that preserve our sense of self and relate to our purpose. As we come to realize this, we can look into the process of meaning making for those in a conflict and find ways to help them make their meaning-making processes and conclusions more apparent to each other.

This can be done by storytelling and by the creation of shared stories, stories that are co-constructed to make room for multiple points of view within them. Often, people in conflict tell stories that sound as though both cannot be true. Narrative conflict-resolution approaches help them leave their concern with truth and being right on the sideline for a time, turning their attention instead to stories in which they can both see themselves.

Another way to explore meaning making is through metaphors. Metaphors are compact, tightly packaged word pictures that convey a great deal of information in shorthand form. For example, in exploring how a conflict began, one side may talk about its origins being buried in the mists of time before there were boundaries and roads and written laws. The other may see it as the offspring of a vexatious lawsuit begun in 1946. Neither is wrong -- the issue may well have deep roots, and the lawsuit was surely a part of the evolution of the conflict. As the two sides talk about their metaphors, the more diffuse starting point wrapped up in the mists of time meets the more specific one, attached to a particular legal action. As the two talk, they deepen their understanding of each other in context, and learn more about their respective roles and identities.

Identities and roles refer to conceptions of the self. Am I an individual unit, autonomous, a free agent, ultimately responsible for myself? Or am I first and foremost a member of a group, weighing choices and actions by how the group will perceive them and be affected by them? Those who see themselves as separate individuals likely come from societies anthropologists call individualist. Those for whom group allegiance is primary usually come from settings anthropologists call collectivist, or communitarian.

In collectivist settings, the following values tend to be privileged:

cooperation
filial piety (respect for and deference toward elders)
participation in shared progress
reputation of the group
interdependence

In individualist settings, the following values tend to be privileged:

competition
independence
individual achievement
personal growth and fulfillment
self-reliance

When individualist and communitarian starting points influence those on either side of a conflict, escalation may result. Individualists may see no problem with "no holds barred" confrontation, while communitarian counterparts shrink from bringing dishonor or face-loss to their group by behaving in unseemly ways. Individualists may expect to make agreements with communitarians, and may feel betrayed when the latter indicate that they have to take their understandings back to a larger public or group before they can come to closure. In the end, one should remember that, as with other patterns described, most people are not purely individualist or communitarian. Rather, people tend to have individualist or communitarian starting points, depending on one's upbringing, experience, and the context of the situation.

There is no one-size-fits-all approach to conflict resolution, since culture is always a factor. Cultural fluency is therefore a core competency for those who intervene in conflicts or simply want to function more effectively in their own lives and situations. Cultural fluency involves recognizing and acting respectfully from the knowledge that communication, ways of naming, framing, and taming conflict, approaches to meaning-making, and identities and roles vary across cultures.

[1] See also the essays on Cultural and Worldview Frames and Communication Tools for Understanding Cultural Differences .

[2] LeBaron, Michelle and Bruce Grundison. 1993. Conflict and Culture: Research in Five Communities in British Columbia, Canada . Victoria, British Columbia: University of Victoria Institute for Dispute Resolution.

[3] Hall, Edward T. 1976. Beyond Culture . Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

[4] Lederach, John Paul. 1995. Preparing for Peace. Conflict Transformation Across Cultures . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, pp. 94.

[5] Hampden-Turner, Charles and Fons Trompenaars. 2000. Building Cross Cultural Competence. How to Create Wealth from Conflicting Values. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

[6] There is also the set of essays on framing which is closely related to the idea of meaning making.

[7] Ibid., 244.

Use the following to cite this article: LeBaron, Michelle. "Culture and Conflict." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2003 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/culture-conflict >.

Additional Resources

The intractable conflict challenge.

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts. More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

Democracy Lighthouse + More on Communicating with Friends and Family -- Sharing several new ideas that have come to us recently on controlling affective polarization and threats to democracy from the family level on up.
Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of June 23, 2024 -- More useful and interesting reading from colleagues and others in allied fields.
Democratic Subversion - Part 2 -- Part 2 of 2 newsletters looking at an old, but eerily accurate, description of political events in the United States over the last ten-twenty years, explaining why we are well on our way to a destroyed democracy and what we can do about it.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability or the Conflict Information Consortium.

Beyond Intractability

Unless otherwise noted on individual pages, all content is... Copyright © 2003-2022 The Beyond Intractability Project c/o the Conflict Information Consortium All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources.

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage, Sidebars, and Landing Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability Privacy Policy The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors c/o Conflict Information Consortium Mailing Address: Beyond Intractability, #1188, 1601 29th St. Suite 1292, Boulder CO 80301, USA Contact Form

production_1

3 Ways to Make Conflict Less Destructive

Two ropes pulling on a larger rope to shape its path

“Do you think you could sum up the essence of all you’ve learned in one sentence?”

That was the question my friend Jim Collins, the famed leadership author, suddenly asked me as we were hiking up a mountain a few years ago.

“You’ve been wandering around the world for the last 45 years,” he continued, “working in some of the world’s toughest conflicts from the Cold War to the Middle East, from strikes to boardroom battles. What can help us in these times of intense conflict?”

I am an anthropologist by training. If I were a Martian anthropologist looking at us now, I would say we live in a time of great paradox. Never before in human evolution have we enjoyed such an abundance of opportunities to solve the world’s problems and live the life we want for ourselves and our children. And yet at the same time, with the rapid changes and disruptions, we face a wave of destructive conflict that’s polarizing every facet of life from family to work to community to our world—and paralyzing our ability to work together.

How do we navigate this stormy time to be able to realize the enormous opportunities we have at hand?

First, we need to be realistic: we can’t end conflict. Nor should we . In fact, we may actually need more conflict, not less—and by that, I mean the healthy conflict that allows us to engage our differences, grow, and change what needs to be changed. The choice we face is not to get rid of conflict but to transform it from destructive fighting into creative, constructive, collaborative negotiation.

So what do we need to transform our conflicts and navigate these tumultuous times?

More Must-Reads from TIME

Welcome to the Noah Lyles Olympics
Melinda French Gates Is Going It Alone
What to Do if You Can’t Afford Your Medications
How to Buy Groceries Without Breaking the Bank
Sienna Miller Is the Reason to Watch Horizon
Why So Many Bitcoin Mining Companies Are Pivoting to AI
The 15 Best Movies to Watch on a Plane
Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Introduction

First Online: 21 October 2020

Cite this chapter

William P. Kiblinger 2

107 Accesses

Why has there been so much human conflict throughout history, and why does it persist? What causes it, and what can we do about it? These are seemingly simple questions, but easy answers are difficult to find. Part of the problem has to do with the complex nature of the concepts involved: human conflict and human nature. When we think of conflict, we may readily imagine violent warfare, but what kind of warfare precisely? In political terms, we may ask whether it is internecine, intertribal, or interstate; whether it is endemic warfare, a mercenary war, or a proxy war; and so forth. To complicate matters further, we must ask whether the violent conflict necessarily involves warfare per se. A survey of violence of all types will also find instances of bodily injury, verbal assault, cultural destruction, political oppression, and even injurious magic. Thus, human conflict may be personal, interfamilial, or coalitionary; it may be economic, psychological, or spiritual; and so forth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Integrative Summary for Definitions of War, Torture, and Terrorism

Overview: Conflict in Human Experience

Apel, Karl-Otto. 1987. Dilthey’s Distinction Between “Explanation” and “Understanding” and the Possibility of Its “Mediation.”. Journal of the History of Philosophy 25 (1): 131–149.

Article Google Scholar

Carter, Bob, and Alison Sealey. 2002. Language, Structure and Agency: What Can Realist Social Theory Offer to Sociolinguistics? Journal of Sociolinguistics 4 (1): 3–20.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Irenäus. 1979. The Biology of War and Peace: Men, Animals and Aggression . New York: Viking.

Google Scholar

Elias, Robert. 1993. Victims Still: The Political Manipulation of Crime Victims . Newbury Park: Sage.

Book Google Scholar

———. 1997. A Culture of Violent Solutions. In The Web of Violence: From Interpersonal to Global . Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Engel Merry, Sally. 2009. Gender Violence: A Cultural Perspective . Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Galtung, Johan. 1997. Is There a Therapy for Pathological Cosmologies? In The Web of Violence: From Interpersonal to Global . Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Gat, Azar. 2015. Proving Communal Warfare Among Hunter-Gatherers: The Quasi-Rousseauan Error. Evolutionary Anthropology 24: 111–126.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures . New York: BasicBooks.

Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hamby, S., and J. Grych. 2013. The Web of Violence: Exploring Connections among Different Forms of Interpersonal Violence and Abuse . Amsterdam: Springer.

High, Casey. 2010. Warriors, Hunters, and Bruce Lee: Gendered Agency and the Transformation of Amazonian Masculinity. American Ethnologist 37 (4): 753–770.

Keane, Webb. 2003. Self-Interpretation, Agency, and the Objects of Anthropology: Reflections on a Genealogy. Comparative Studies in Society and History 45 (2): 222–248.

Kockelman, Paul. 2007. Agency: The Relation between Meaning, Power, and Knowledge. Current Anthropology 48 (3): 375–401.

Lorenz, Konrad. 1966. On Aggression . New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.

Mahmood, Saba. 2005. Politics of Piety: The Islamic Revival and the Feminist Subject . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Pepinsky, Harold E. 1991. The Geometry of Violence and Democracy . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Sahlins, Marshall. 1963. Poor Man, Rich Man, Big Man, Chief: Political Types in Melanesia and Polynesia. Comparative Studies in Society and History 5 (3): 285–302.

———. 1976. Culture and Practical Reason . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

———. 1985. Islands of History . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

———. 2000[1988]. Cosmologies of Capitalism: The Trans-Pacific Sector of “The World System.”. In Culture in Practice: Selected Essays , 415–469. New York: Zone Books.

Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford Jr., Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986. Frame Alignment Process, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review 51: 464–481.

Turpin, Jennifer, and Lester R. Kurtz, eds. 1997. The Web of Violence: From Interpersonal to Global . Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Winthrop University, Rock Hill, SC, USA

William P. Kiblinger

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William P. Kiblinger .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations, rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Kiblinger, W.P. (2020). Introduction. In: Kiblinger, W.P. (eds) Human Conflict from Neanderthals to the Samburu: Structure and Agency in Webs of Violence. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46824-8_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46824-8_1

Published : 21 October 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-46823-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-46824-8

eBook Packages : History History (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Tools and Resources
Customer Services
Affective Science
Biological Foundations of Psychology
Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
Developmental Psychology
Educational/School Psychology
Forensic Psychology
Health Psychology
History and Systems of Psychology
Individual Differences
Methods and Approaches in Psychology
Neuropsychology
Organizational and Institutional Psychology
Personality
Psychology and Other Disciplines
Social Psychology
Sports Psychology
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Conflict management.

Patricia Elgoibar , Patricia Elgoibar University of Barcelona
Martin Euwema Martin Euwema Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
and Lourdes Munduate Lourdes Munduate University of Seville
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.5
Published online: 28 June 2017

Conflicts are part of nature and certainly part of human relations, between individuals, as well as within and between groups. Conflicts occur in every domain of life: family, work, and society, local and global. Conflict management, therefore, is an essential competency for each person. People differ largely in their emotional and behavioral responses to conflict and need to learn how to behave effectively in different conflict situations. This requires a contingency approach, first assessing the conflict situation, and then choosing a strategy, matching the goals of the party. In most situations, fostering cooperative relations will be most beneficial; however, this is also most challenging. Therefore, constructive conflict management strategies, including trust building and methods of constructive controversy, are emphasized. Conflict management, however, is broader than the interaction of the conflicting parties. Third-party interventions are an essential element of constructive conflict management, particularly the assessment of which parties are intervening in what ways at what escalation stage.

cooperation
competition
conflict behavior
conglomerate conflict behavior
constructive conflict management
conflict resolution strategies

Definition of Conflict

Conflicts are part of nature, and certainly part of human relations. People experience conflict with other persons, in teams or in groups, as well as between larger entities, departments, organizations, communities, and countries. Conflicts appear at home, at work, and in our spare-time activities with friends, with people we love and with people we hate, as well as with our superiors and with our subordinates and coworkers. Parties need to accept conflicts as part of life dynamics and learn to deal with them effectively and efficiently. Conflict management refers to the way we manage incompatible actions with others, where others can be a person or a group.

Conflict is a component of interpersonal interactions; it is neither inevitable nor intrinsically bad, but it is commonplace (Coleman, Deutsch, & Marcus, 2014 ; Schellenberg, 1996 ). In the 20th century , Lewin ( 1935 ) concluded that an intrinsic state of tension motivates group members to move toward the accomplishment of their desired common goals. Later on, Parker Follett ( 1941 ) explored the constructive side of conflict and defined conflict as the appearance of difference, difference of opinions or difference of interests. Deutsch ( 1949 ) developed this line of thought and analyzed the relation between the way group members believe their goals are related and their interactions and relationships.

A common definition of conflict argues that there is a conflict between two (or more) parties (individuals or groups) if at least one of them is offended, or feels bothered by the other (Van de Vliert, 1997 ; Wall & Callister, 1995 ). Traditionally, conflict has been defined as opposing interests involving scarce resources and goal divergence and frustration (Pondy, 1967 ). However, Deutsch ( 1973 ) defined conflict as incompatible activities: one person's actions interfere, obstruct, or in some way get in the way of another's action. Tjosvold, Wan, and Tang ( 2016 ) proposed that defining conflict as incompatible actions is a much stronger foundation than defining conflict as opposing interests, because conflicts also can occur when people have common goals (i.e., they may disagree about the best means to achieve their common goals). The key contribution of Deutsch’s ( 1973 ) proposal is that incompatible activities occur in both compatible and incompatible goal contexts. Whether the protagonists believe their goals are cooperative or competitive very much affects their expectations, interaction, and outcomes as they approach conflict (Tjosvold et al., 2016 ).

Characteristics of Conflict

Euwema and Giebels ( 2017 ) highlighted some key elements of conflict.

Conflict implies dependence and interdependence. Parties rely to some extent on the other parties to realize their goals (Kaufman, Elgoibar, & Borbely, 2016 ). This interdependence can be positive (a cooperative context), negative (a competitive context), or mixed. Positive interdependence is strongly related to cooperative conflict behaviors, while negative interdependence triggers competitive behaviors (Johnson & Johnson, 2005 ). Interdependence also reflects the power difference between parties. A short-term contractor on a low-paid job usually is much more dependent on the employer than vice versa. Many conflicts, however, can be seen as “mixed motive” situations.

Conflicts are mostly mixed motive situations because parties have simultaneous motives to cooperate and motives to compete. Parties are, on the one hand, dependent on each other to realize their goal, and, on the other hand, they are at the same time competitors. For example, two colleagues on a team are cooperating for the same team result; however, there is competition for the role as project leader. In a soccer team, the players have a team goal of working together to win, but they can be competing to be the top scorer. The mixed motive structure is very important to understand conflict dynamics. When conflicts arise, the competitive aspects become more salient, and the cooperative structure often is perceived less by parties. Interventions to solve conflict, therefore, are often related to these perceptions and the underlying structures.

Conflict is a psychological experience. Conflict is by definition a personal and subjective experience, as each individual can perceive and manage the same conflict in a different manner. Conflict doesn’t necessarily have an objective basis (Van de Vliert, 1997 ). It depends on the perception of the specific situation, and the perception is by definition subjective and personal.

Conflict concerns cognitive and affective tension. When someone perceives blocked goals and disagreements, he or she can also, although not necessarily, feel fear or anger. Many authors consider that conflict is emotionally charged (Nair, 2007 ; Pondy, 1967 ; Sinaceur, Adam, Van Kleef, & Galinky, 2013 ), although the emotion doesn’t need to be labeled necessarily as a negative emotion. Some people actually enjoy conflict. Emotional experiences in conflict are also scripted by cultural, historical, and personal influences (Lindner, 2014 ).

Conflict can be unidirectional. One party can feel frustrated or thwarted by the other while the second party is hardly aware of, and doesn’t perceive the same reality of, the conflict.

Conflict is a process. Conflict is a dynamic process that does not appear suddenly, but takes some time to develop and passes through several stages (Spaho, 2013 ). Conflict is the process resulting from the tension in interpersonal interactions or between team members because of real or perceived differences (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ; Thomas, 1992 ; Wall & Callister, 1995 ).

Type of Conflict: Task, Process, and Relationship Conflict

Early conflict and organizational research concluded that conflict interferes with team performance and reduces satisfaction due to an increase in tension and distraction from the objective (Brown, 1983 ; Hackman & Morris, 1975 ; Pondy, 1967 ; Wall & Callister, 1995 ). Jehn ( 1995 ) differentiated between task and relational conflict, and later also included process conflict (De Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012 ). Task conflict refers to different opinions on content (Jehn & Mannix, 2001 ). Examples of task conflict are conflict about distribution of resources, about procedures and policies, and judgment and interpretation of facts (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ). Process conflict refers to how tasks should be accomplished (Jehn, Greer, Levine, & Szulanski, 2008 ). Examples are disagreements about logistic and delegation issues (Jehn et al., 2008 ). Finally, relationship conflict refers to “interpersonal incompatibility” (Jehn, 1995 , p. 257). Examples of relationship conflict are conflict about personal taste, political preferences, values, and interpersonal style (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ). All three types of conflict—task, process, and personal (relational) conflicts—are usually disruptive, especially personal conflict, which is highly disruptive (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ; Jehn, 1995 , 1997 ). A review and meta-analysis by De Wit et al. ( 2012 ) showed that, under specific conditions, task conflict can be productive for teams. Moreover, conflict can wreck a team’s efforts to share information and reach a consensus (Amason & Schweiger, 1994 ). Therefore, research supporting the benefit of task and relationship conflict is not conclusive and each situation varies. What seems to be clear is that managing conflict efficiently to avoid escalation is a priority for teams.

Conflict Behavior, Conflict Management, and Conflict Resolution

Conflict behavior, conflict management, and conflict resolution are different layers of a conflict process and therefore should be distinguished. Conflict behavior is any behavioral response to the experience of frustration, while conflict management is the deliberate action to deal with conflictive situations, both to prevent or to escalate them. Also, conflict management is differentiated from conflict resolution, which is specific action aimed to end a conflict.

Conflict Behavior

Conflict behavior is the behavioral response to the experience of conflict (Van de Vliert et al., 1995 ). Conflict behavior is defined as one party’s reaction to the perception that one’s own and the other party’s current aspiration cannot be achieved simultaneously (Deutsch, 1973 ; Pruitt, 1981 ; Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994 ). It is both what people experiencing conflict intend to do, as well as what they actually do (De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Kluwer, & Nauta, 2001 ; Van de Vliert, 1997 ). In conflict situations people often respond primarily, following their emotions, more or less conscientiously.

Many factors affect how people respond to the experience of conflict. Social psychology shows the processes are largely unconscious (Wilson, 2004 ). For example, how people respond to intimidating behavior by their supervisor might be primarily influenced by the context and individual perception, as well as previous relations with persons in authority, including parents and teachers (Gelfand & Brett, 2004 ; Van Kleef & Cote, 2007 ). These natural behavioral responses are also referred to as “conflict styles.” They are rooted in our personality and can differ in context. Some people will naturally respond by being friendly and accommodating, where others will start arguing or fighting (Barbuto, Phipps, & Xu, 2010 ; Kilmann & Thomas, 1977 ; Van Kleef & Cote, 2007 ).

Conflict behavior becomes more effective once we are more aware of our natural tendencies and are also able not to act upon them, and instead to show flexibility in behavioral approaches. This is where conflict behavior becomes conflict management. Therefore, one can be a naturally highly accommodating person who will spontaneously give in to others who make demands, but one will be more effective after learning to assess the situation at hand and to carefully decide on a response, which might be quite different from the natural or spontaneous reaction.

Dual-Concern Model

The dual-concern model holds that the way in which parties handle conflicts can de described and is determined by two concerns: concern for self (own interests) and concern for others (relational interests) (Blake & Mouton, 1964 ; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ; Rahim, 1983 ; Thomas, 1992 ; Van de Vliert, 1999 ) (see Figure 1 ). Usually, the two concerns define five different conflict behaviors: forcing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and problem solving or integrating. These behaviors are studied at the level of general personal conflict styles, closely connected to personality, as well as at the level of strategies and tactics (Euwema & Giebels, 2017 ).

The different conflict styles have been studied intensively, with three approaches. A normative approach, wherein integrating (also known as problem solving) is seen as the preferred behavior for conflict resolution; a contingency approach, exploring conditions under which each of the behaviors is most appropriate; and a conglomerate approach, focusing on a combination of the behaviors (see “ Conglomerate Conflict Behavior ”).

Figure 1. Dual-concern model.

In forcing, one party aims to achieve his or her goal by imposing a solution onto the other party. Concern for one’s own interests and own vision is what matters. There is little attention and care for the interests and needs of the other party, or the relationship with the other (Euwema & Giebels, 2017 ). This style is appropriate when the outcome is important for one party but trivial to the opponent, or when fast decision making is necessary. It becomes inappropriate when issues are complex, when both parties are equally powerful, when the outcome is not worth the effort for one party, or when there is enough time to make a collective decision. Moreover, forcing decisions can seriously damage a relationship and contribute to bullying in the workplace (Baillien, Bollen, Euwema, & De Witte, 2014 ); however, normative forcing, which is referring to rules and imposing them, can be effective (De Dreu, 2005 ). Note that some alternative terms that have been used for forcing in the literature are competitive , contending , or adversarial behavior .

With avoiding, one party aims to stay out of any confrontation with the other. This behavior prevents efforts to yield, to negotiate constructively, or to compete for one’s own gains. The conflict issue receives little attention, usually because the avoiding party thinks he or she won’t gain from entering into the conflict (Euwema & Giebels, 2017 ; Van de Vliert, 1997 ). Avoiding may be used when the benefits of resolving the conflict are not worth confronting the other party, especially when the problem is trivial or minor; when no good solutions are available for now; or when time is needed (Van Erp et al., 2011 ). An important motive for avoiding also is to prevent loss of face and to maintain the relationship. This is particularly true in collectivistic cultures, particularly in Asian societies (Oetzel et al., 2001 ). Avoiding is inappropriate when the issues are important to a party, when the parties cannot wait, or when immediate action is required (Rahim, 2002 ). Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim ( 1994 ) distinguished between long-term avoidance, which is a permanent move to leave the conflict, and short-term avoidance, defined as temporary inaction.

Accommodating

Accommodating is giving in or going along with the ideas, wishes, and needs of the other party. Accommodating usually is the result of a low concern for one’s own conflictive interests combined with a high concern for the interests and needs of the other party. Giving in often is related to a strong need for harmony and a sensitivity to the needs of the other. Accommodation is useful when a party is not familiar with the issues involved in the conflict, when the opponent is right, when the issue is much more important to the other party, and in order to build or maintain a long-term relationship, in exchange for future consideration when needed. Giving in also can be an educational strategy, giving space to the other to find out what the effect will be. Accommodating is less appropriate when the issue is of great concern, when accommodation creates frustration, or when accommodation reinforces dynamics of exploitation (Spaho, 2013 ). Note that an alternative term for this concept that can be found in the literature is yielding .

Compromising

Compromising involves searching for a middle ground, with an eye on both one’s own interest and the interest of the other. The premise is that both parties must find a middle ground where everyone receives equal consideration, meaning that each party makes some concession (Van de Vliert, 1997 ). Compromising is appropriate when a balance of forces exists and the goals of parties are mutually exclusive (Buddhodev, 2011 ). Compromise leads to a democratic solution; however, it may prevent arriving at a creative solution to the problem and a limited effort to increase resources before distributing them (Spaho, 2013 ).

Problem Solving or Integrating

Problem solving is a win–win strategy aimed at “optimizing rather than satisfying the parties” (Van de Vliert, 1997 , p. 36). Great value is attached to one’s own interests and vision, but also a lot of attention is given to the needs, ideas, and interests of the other. One looks for open and creative solutions that meet both interests. Problem solving or integrating is useful in dealing with complex issues, and it allows both parties to share skills, information, and other resources to redefine the problem and formulate alternative solutions. It is, however, inappropriate when the task is simple or trivial, and when there is no time. Also, it is more difficult to develop when the other party does not have experience in problem solving or when the parties are unconcerned about the outcomes (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ). Note that some alternative terms that can be found in the literature for this concept are cooperation and collaboration .

The dual-concern model is used as a contingency model, describing which conflict behaviors are used best under what conditions (Van de Vliert et al., 1997 ), and also as a normative model, promoting integrating behaviors as the most effective style, particularly when it comes to joined outcomes and long-term effectiveness. Forcing, in contrast, is often described as a noncooperative behavior, with risk of escalated and unilateral outcomes (Blake & Mouton, 1964 ; Burke, 1970 ; Deutsch, 1973 ; Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ; Rahim, 2010 ; Thomas, 1992 ). As a result, authors define forcing and integrating as two opposed behavioral approaches (Tjosvold, Morishima, & Belsheim, 1999 ). Following this model, many scholars during the 1970s and 1980s proposed that individuals use a single behavior in conflict, or that the behaviors should be seen as independent. Therefore, the antecedents and effects of different conflict behaviors are often analyzed separately (Tjosvold, 1997 ; Volkema & Bergmann, 2001 ). However, parties usually try to achieve personal outcomes, and try to reach mutual agreements by combining several behaviors in a conflict episode (Van de Vliert, 1997 ). This is the basic assumption of the conglomerate conflict behavior (CCB) theory (Van de Vliert, Euwema, & Huismans, 1995 ), which established that conflict behaviors are used in a compatible manner, sequentially or simultaneously.

Conglomerate Conflict Behavior (CCB)

In the dual-concern model, a contrast is made between forcing (contending with an adversary in a direct way) and integrating (reconciling the parties’ basic interests) as two opposed behavioral approaches (Tjosvold et al., 1999 ). However, the CCB framework assumes that individual reactions to conflict typically are complex and consist of multiple components of behavior (Van de Vliert, 1997 , Van de Vliert et al., 1995 ). The CCB theory covers the idea that behavioral components may occur simultaneously or sequentially and that the combination drives toward effectiveness (Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007 ; Medina & Benitez, 2011 ). The theory has been supported in studies analyzing conflict management effectiveness in different contexts, such as in managerial behavior (Munduate, Ganaza, Peiro, & Euwema, 1999 ), in military peacekeeping (Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007 ) and by worker representatives in organizations (Elgoibar, 2013 ).

The main reason that people combine different behaviors is because conflicts are often mixed-motive situations (Euwema, Van de Vliert, & Bakker, 2003 ; Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007 ; Walton & McKersie, 1965 ). Mixed-motive situations are described as situations that pose a conflict between securing immediate benefits through competition, and pursuing benefits for oneself and others through cooperation with other people (Komorita & Parks, 1995 ; Sheldon & Fishbach, 2011 ). Therefore, a person's behavior in a conflict episode is viewed as a combination of some of the five forms of conflict behaviors. An example of sequential complex behavior is to first put the demands clearly (forcing), followed by integrating (searching for mutual gains, and expanding the pie), and finally compromising, where distributive issues are dealt with in a fair way. An example of serial complexity can be found in multi-issue conflict, when for some issues conflict can be avoided, while for high priorities, demands are put on the table in a forcing way. Another CCB pattern is the conglomeration of accommodating and forcing. This pattern is sometimes referred to as “logrolling” (Van de Vliert, 1997 , p. 35), and it is a classic part of integrative strategies, to maximize the outcomes for both parties. Logrolling behavior consists of accommodating the high-concern issues of the other party and forcing one’s own high-concern issues. This approach is usually helpful in multi-issue trade negotiations; however, it requires openness of both parties to acknowledging key interests.

How to Explore Your Tendency in Conflict

The most famous and popular conflict behavior questionnaires are:

MODE (Management of Differences Exercise). MODE, developed in 1974 by Thomas and Killman, presents 30 choices between two options representing different conflict styles.

ROCI (Rahim's Organizational Conflict Inventory). The ROCI is a list of 28 items that measures the five styles of conflict behavior described.

Dutch Test of Conflict Handling. This list of 20 items measures the degree of preference for the five styles (Van de Vliert & Euwema, 1994 ; De Dreu et al., 2001 , 2005 ). It has been validated internationally.

Conflict management is deliberate action to deal with conflictive situations, either to prevent or to escalate them. Unlike conflict behavior, conflict management encompasses cognitive responses to conflict situations, which can vary from highly competitive to highly cooperative. Conflict management does not necessarily involve avoidance, reduction, or termination of conflict. It involves designing effective strategies to minimize the dysfunctions of conflict and to enhance the constructive functions of conflict in order to improve team and organizational effectiveness (Rahim, 2002 ).

Conflicts are not necessarily destructive (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008 ; Euwema, Munduate, Elgoibar, Pender, & Garcia, 2015 ), and research has shown that constructive conflict management is possible (Coleman, Deutsch, & Marcus, 2014 ). The benefits of conflict are much more likely to arise when conflicts are discussed openly, and when discussion skillfully promotes new ideas and generates creative insights and agreements (Coleman et al., 2014 ; De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008 ; Euwema et al., 2015 ; Tjosvold, Won, & Chen, 2014 ). To make a constructive experience from conflict, conflict needs to be managed effectively.

Deutsch’s classic theory of competition and cooperation describes the antecedents and consequences of parties’ cooperative or competitive orientations and allows insights into what can give rise to constructive or destructive conflict processes (Deutsch, 1973 , 2002 ). The core of the theory is the perceived interdependence of the parties, so that the extent that protagonists believe that their goals are cooperative (positively related) or competitive (negatively related) affects their interaction and thus the outcomes. Positive interdependence promotes openness, cooperative relations, and integrative problem solving. Perceived negative interdependence on the other hand, induces more distance and less openness, and promotes competitive behavior, resulting in distributive bargaining or win–lose outcomes (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ).

Whether the protagonists believe their goals are cooperative or competitive very much affects their expectations, interactions, and outcomes. If parties perceive that they can reach their goals only if the other party also reaches their goals, the goal interdependence is positively perceived and therefore parties will have higher concern for the other’s goals and manage the conflict cooperatively (De Dreu et al., 2001 ; Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). On the contrary, if one party perceives that they can reach their goals only if the other party fails to obtain their goals, the interdependence becomes negatively perceived and the approach to conflict becomes competitive (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). Goals can also be independent; in that case, conflict can be avoided (the parties don’t need to obstruct each other’s goals to be successful). Therefore, how parties perceive their goals’ interdependence affects how they negotiate conflict and whether the conflict is constructively or destructively managed (Alper et al., 2000 ; Deutsch, 1973 ; Johnson & Johnson, 1989 ; Tjosvold, 2008 ).

Successfully managing conflict cooperatively requires intellectual, emotional, and relational capabilities in order to share information, to contribute to value creation, and to discuss differences constructively (Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). In contrast, a competitive-destructive process leads to material losses and dissatisfaction, worsening relations between parties, and negative psychological effects on at least one party—the loser of a win–lose context (Deutsch, 2014 ).

Deutsch’s theory proposes that emphasizing cooperative goals in conflict by demonstrating a commitment to pursue mutually beneficial solutions creates high-quality resolutions and relationships, while focusing on competitive interests by pursuing one’s own goals at the expense of the other’s escalates conflict, resulting in imposed solutions and suspicious relationships (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ).

In summary, Deutsch’s theory states that the context in which the conflict process is expressed drives parties toward either a cooperative or a competitive orientation in conflicts (Alper et al., 2000 ; Deutsch, 2006 ; Johnson & Johnson, 1989 ). In other words, a cooperative context is related to a cooperative conflict pattern, and a competitive context is related to a competitive conflict pattern. When parties have a cooperative orientation toward conflict, parties discuss their differences with the objective of clarifying them and attempting to find a solution that is satisfactory to both parties—both parties win (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992 ). On the contrary, in competition, there is usually a winner and a loser (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992 ) (see Table 1 ). In the CCB model, the patterns can include cooperative (i.e., integrating) and competitive (i.e. forcing) behavior; however, the cooperative pattern will be dominated by integrating while the competitive pattern will be dominated by forcing (Elgoibar, 2013 ).

Table 1. Characteristics of Cooperative and Competitive Climates

Cooperative climate	Competitive climate

Source : Coleman, Deutsch, and Marcus ( 2014 ).

How to Manage Conflicts Constructively

The need for trust.

Trust is commonly defined as a belief or expectation about others’ benevolent motives during a social interaction (Holmes & Rempel, 1989 ; Rousseau et al., 1998 ). Mutual trust is one important antecedent as well as a consequence of cooperation in conflicts (Deutsch, 1983 ; Ferrin, Bligh, & Kohles, 2008 ). As Nahapiet and Ghoshal pointed out, “Trust lubricates cooperation, and cooperation itself breeds trust” ( 1998 , p.255). There is ample evidence that constructive conflict and trust are tightly and positively related (Hempel, Zhang, & Tjosvold, 2009 ; Bijlsma & Koopman, 2003 ; Lewicki, Tonlinson, & Gillespie, 2006 ).

Successful constructive conflict management requires maximal gathering and exchange of information in order to identify problems and areas of mutual concern, to search for alternatives, to assess their implications, and to achieve openness about preferences in selecting optimal solutions (Bacon & Blyton, 2007 ; Johnson & Johnson, 1989 ; Tjosvold, 1999 ). Trust gives parties the confidence to be open with each other, knowing that the shared information won’t be used against them (Zaheer & Zaheer, 2006 ). Various studies revealed that trust leads to constructive conglomerate behaviors and to more integrative outcomes in interpersonal and intergroup conflicts (Lewicki, Elgoibar, & Euwema, 2016 ; Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998 ; Ross & LaCroix, 1996 ).

How can trust be promoted? Developing trust is challenging (Gunia, Brett, & Nandkeolyar, 2014 ; Hempel et al., 2009 ). Numerous scholars have noted that trust is easier to destroy than to create (Hempel et al., 2009 ; Meyerson et al., 1996 ). There are two main reasons for this assertion. First, trust-breaking events are often more visible and noticeable than positive trust-building actions (Kramer, 1999 ). Second, trust-breaking events are judged to have a higher impact on trust judgments than positive events (Slovic, 1993 ). Furthermore, Slovic ( 1993 ) concluded that trust-breaking events are more credible than sources of good news. Thus, the general belief is that trust is easier to destroy than it is to build, and trust rebuilding may take even longer than it took to create the original level of trust (Lewicki et al., 2016 ).

However, there is room for optimism, and different strategies have been shown to promote trust. As held in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964 ), risk taking by one party in supporting the other party has been found to signal trust to the other party (Serva et al., 2005 ). Yet, fears of exploitation make trust in conflict management and negotiation scarce. Therefore, the use of trust-promoting strategies depends on the specific situation, and parties need practical guidance on how and when to manage conflict constructively by means of promoting mutual trust.

How does the possibility of trust development between parties depend on the conflict context? Based on this practical question, some strategies for trust development have been proposed (Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012 ; Gunia, Brett, & Nandkeolyar, 2012 ; Lewicki et al., 2016 ). In relationships where trust is likely, the following strategies can help: assume trustworthiness, prioritize your interests and give away a little information about them, engage in reciprocity (concessions), highlight similarities and spend time together, get to know your counterpart personally and try to be likable, behave consistently and predictably, and paraphrase your counterpart’s positions. In relationships where trust seems possible: emphasize common goals; focus on the subject, not on the people; look to the future and find a shared vision; mix questions and answers about interests and priorities—the fundamental elements of information sharing—with making and justifying offers; take a break; suggest another approach; call in a mediator; and forgive the other party’s mistakes. In relationships where trust is not possible, more cautious strategies can help: make multi-issue offers; think holistically about your counterpart’s interests; engage in reciprocity (concessions); express sympathy, apologize, or compliment your counterpart; and look for preference patterns in your counterpart’s offers and responses.

Constructive Controversy

C onstructive controversy is defined as the open-minded discussion of conflicting perspectives for mutual benefit, which occurs when protagonists express their opposing ideas that obstruct resolving the issues, at least temporarily (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). Indicators of constructive controversy include listening carefully to each other’s opinion, trying to understand each other’s concerns, and using opposing views to understand the problem better. These skills are considered vitally important for developing and implementing cooperative problem-solving processes successfully and effectively.

Deutsch ( 2014 ) stated that there haven’t been many systematic discussions of the skills involved in constructive solutions to conflict, and he proposed three main types of skills for constructive conflict management:

Rapport-building skills are involved in establishing effective relationships between parties (such as breaking the ice; reducing fears, tensions, and suspicion; overcoming resistance to negotiation; and fostering realistic hope and optimism).

Cooperative conflict-resolution skills are concerned with developing and maintaining a cooperative conflict resolution process among the parties involved (such as identifying the type of conflict in which the parties are involved; reframing the issues so that conflict is perceived as a mutual problem to be resolved cooperatively; active listening and responsive communication; distinguishing between effective relationships between parties and positions; encouraging, supporting, and enhancing the parties; being alert to cultural differences and the possibilities of misunderstanding arising from them; and controlling anger).

Group process and decision-making skills are involved in developing a creative and productive process (such as monitoring progress toward group goals; eliciting, clarifying, coordinating, summarizing, and integrating the contributions of the various participants; and maintaining group cohesion).

Tjosvold et al. ( 2014 ) and Johnson et al. ( 2014 ) also elaborate on the skills needed for facilitating open-minded discussions and constructive controversy. They developed four mutually reinforcing strategies for managing conflict constructively:

Developing and expressing one’s own view. Parties need to know what each of the others wants and believes, and expressing one’s own needs, feelings, and ideas is essential to gaining that knowledge. By strengthening expression of their own positions, both parties can learn to investigate their position, present the best case they can for it, defend it vigorously, and try at the same time to refute opposing views. However, expressing one’s own position needs to be supplemented with an open-minded approach to the other’s position.

Questioning and understanding others’ views. Listening and understanding opposing views, as well as defending one’s own views, makes discussing conflicts more challenging but also more rewarding; therefore, the parties can point out weaknesses in each other’s arguments to encourage better development and expression of positions by finding more evidence and strengthening their reasoning.

Integrating and creating solutions. The creation of new alternatives lays the foundation for genuine agreements about a solution that both parties can accept and implement. However, protagonists may have to engage in repeated discussion to reach an agreement, or indeed they may be unable to create a solution that is mutually acceptable, and then they can both learn to become less adamant, to exchange views directly, and to show that they are trying to understand and integrate each other’s ideas so that all may benefit.

Agreeing to and implementing solutions. Parties can learn to seek the best reasoned judgment, instead of focusing on “winning”; to criticize ideas, not people; to listen and understand everyone’s position, even if they do not agree with it; to differentiate positions before trying to integrate them; and to change their minds when logically persuaded to do so.

Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution processes are aimed at ending a conflict. So, while conflict management can also include escalation, conflict resolution searches for a way of ending the conflict. The difference between resolution and management of conflict is more than semantic (Robbins, 1978 ). Conflict resolution means reduction, elimination, or termination of conflict.

To find a resolution, parties have to bring an extra piece of information, relate the information they have differently, or transform the issue, change the rules, change the actors or the structure, or bring in a third party (Vayrynen, 1991 ). The most popular conflict resolution processes are: negotiation, mediation, conflict coaching, and arbitration (Rahim, 2002 ). Conflict resolution can also be accomplished by ruling by authorities. Integration of the different techniques sequentially or simultaneously has been shown to support optimal conflict resolution (Jones, 2016 ).

Negotiation

Negotiation is a process in which the parties attempt to jointly create an agreement that resolves a conflict between them (Lewicki & Tomlinson, 2014 ). Walton and McKersie ( 1965 ) were the first to identify the two polar yet interdependent strategies known as distributive and integrative negotiation. Distributive negotiation means that activities are instrumental to the attainment of one party’s goals when they are in basic conflict with those of the other party. Integrative negotiation means that parties’ activities are oriented to find common or complementary interests and to solve problems confronting both parties. Other scholars also focused on the opposite tactical requirements of the two strategies, using a variety of terms, such as contending versus cooperating (Pruitt, 1981 ), claiming value versus creating value (Lax & Sebenius, 1987 ), and the difference between positions and interests (Fisher & Ury, 1981 ).

If a distributive strategy is pursued too vigorously, a negotiator may gain a greater share of gains, but of a smaller set of joint gains, or, worse, may generate an outcome in which both parties lose. However, if a negotiator pursues an integrative negotiation in a single-minded manner—being totally cooperative and giving freely accurate and credible information about his/her interests—he or she can be taken advantage of by the other party (Walton & McKersie, 1965 ). The different proposals that have been formulated to cope with these central dilemmas in negotiation are mainly based on a back-and-forth communication process between the parties, which is linked to the negotiators’ interpersonal skills (Brett, Shapiro, & Lytle, 1998 ; Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Rubin et al., 1994 ).

Mediation is process by which a third party facilitates constructive communication among disputants, including decision making, problem solving and negotiation, in order to reach a mutually acceptable agreement (Bollen, Munduate, & Euwema, 2016 ; Goldman, Cropanzano, Stein, & Benson, 2008 ; Moore, 2014 ). Using mediation in conflict resolution has been proven to prevent the negative consequences of conflict in the workplace (Bollen & Euwema, 2010 ; Bollen et al., 2016 ), in collective bargaining (Martinez-Pecino et al., 2008 ), in inter- and intragroup relations (Jones, 2016 ), and in interpersonal relations (Herrman, 2006 ). However, mediation is not a magic bullet and works better in conflicts that are moderate rather than extreme, when parties are motivated to resolve the conflict, and when parties have equal power, among other characteristics (Kressel, 2014 ).

Conflict Coaching

Conflict coaching is a new and rapidly growing process in the public as well as private sector (Brinkert, 2016 ). In this process, a conflict coach works with a party to accomplish three goals (Jones & Brinkert, 2008 ): (a) analysis and coherent understanding of the conflict, (b) identification of a future preferred direction, and (c) skills development to implement the preferred strategy. Therefore, a conflict coach is defined as a conflict expert who respects the other party’s self-determination and aims to promote the well-being of the parties involved. Giebels and Janssen ( 2005 ) found that, when outside help was called in, parties in conflict experienced fewer negative consequences in terms of individual well-being than people who did not ask for third-party help.

Sometimes, the leader of a team can act as conflict coach. A study by Romer and colleagues ( 2012 ) showed that a workplace leader’s problem-solving approach to conflicts increased employees’ perception of justice and their sense that they had a voice in their workplace, as well as reduced employees’ stress (De Reuver & Van Woerkom, 2010 ; Romer et al., 2012 ). In contrast, the direct expression of power in the form of forcing behavior can harm employees’ well-being (Peterson & Harvey, 2009 ). A forcing leader may become an additional party to the conflict (i.e., employees may turn against their leader; Romer et al, 2012 ).

Conflict coaching and mediation are different processes. First, in conflict coaching, only one party is involved in the process, while in mediation, the mediator helps all the parties in conflict to engage in constructive interaction. Second, conflict coaching focuses on direct skills instructions to the party (i.e., negotiation skills). In that, conflict coaching is also a leadership development tool (Romer et al., 2012 ). There is a growing tendency to integrate conflict coaching and workplace mediation, particularly in preparation for conflict resolution, because the coach can help the coached party to investigate options and weigh the advantages of the different options (Jones, 2016 ).

Arbitration

Arbitration is an institutionalized procedure in which a third party provides a final and binding or voluntary decision (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2014 ; Mohr & Spekman, 1994 ). Arbitration allows the parties to have control over the process, but not over the outcomes. Therefore, arbitration differs from negotiation, mediation, and conflict coaching, in which the parties decide the agreement themselves (Posthuma & Dworkin, 2000 ; Lewicki et al., 2014 ). In arbitration, the third party listens to the parties and decides the outcome. This procedure is used mainly in conflicts between organizations, in commercial disputes, and in collective labor conflicts (Beechey, 2000 ; Elkouri & Elkouri, 1995 ).

Decision Making by Authorities

The strategies of negotiation, mediation, conflict coaching, and arbitration have in common that the parties together decide about the conflict process, even when they agree to accept an arbitration. This is different from how authorities resolve conflict. Decision making by authorities varies from parents’ intervening in children’s fights to rulings by teachers, police officers, managers, complaint officers, ombudsmen, and judges. Here, often one party complains and the authority acts to intervene and end the conflict. This strategy is good for ending physical violence and misuse of power. However, the authorities’ decisive power is limited, and therefore in most situations authorities are strongly urged to first explore the potential for conflict resolution and reconciliation among the parties involved. The authority can act as an escalator for the process, or as a facilitator, and only in cases of immediate threat can intervene or rule as a last resort. Authorities who employ this strategy can improve the learning skills of the parties and can impose upon the parties an acceptance of responsibility, both for the conflict and for the ways to end it.

It is important to emphasize the natural and positive aspects of conflict management. Conflict occurs in all areas of organizations and private lives and its management is vital for their effectiveness. Through conflict, conventional thinking is challenged, threats and opportunities are identified, and new solutions are forged (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). Therefore, when conflict occurs, it shouldn’t be avoided but should be managed constructively.

Key Questions for Human-Elephant Conflict Research

By Gail Thomson, o riginally published in Conservation Namibia

I am indebted to three elephant experts for their input into this article..

Human-elephant conflict: Managing elephants in a landscape that includes rural human communities is a major challenge in countries where elephant populations are increasing as a result of successful conservation measures. Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe, in particular, must find ways to help their citizens living in rural areas to coexist with these great grey beasts that can be enchanting or terrifying, depending on your point of view.

In a previous article on the topic of elephants, hunting and coexistence with human communities, I pointed out that research findings on elephants must be balanced with the perspectives and needs of rural communities to make reasonable policies. Although the problems associated with human-elephant conflict were considered, we did not focus on addressing the conflict itself. In this article, we go a bit deeper into the role that research can play in managing human-elephant conflict. Namibia would benefit greatly from targeted research in this area that answers key questions for wildlife managers. If you are a student or researcher thinking about topics that can have real-world conservation outcomes, listen up.

First, let’s establish the difference between hunting elephants in order to reduce conflict with local communities and hunting to generate revenue and meat (the latter is called conservation hunting in Namibia, and trophy or sport hunting elsewhere). The conservation hunting concept is based on the principle that people living with elephants and other wildlife should benefit materially from their presence. Generating revenue and meat from elephants increases tolerance for the species and thus indirectly promotes human-elephant coexistence . Conservancies in Namibia use the income from conservation hunting to employ over 600 community game guards that assist with reporting conflict incidents and wildlife monitoring. At the national and conservancy level, conservation hunting income also contributes to the Human-Wildlife Conflict Self-Reliance Scheme , thus playing an important general role in addressing conflict. Conservation hunting is not, however, the primary topic discussed here.

The main issue I want to address is how hunting directly affects human-elephant relations in the areas where it occurs. Elephant hunting includes what is known in Namibia as problem animal control hunts, whereby specific individuals that frequently cause damages are killed. In terms of elephant behaviour, population numbers and demographics, all forms of hunting are likely to affect human-elephant interactions in some way. Figuring out what that effect might be and how hunting can be managed to improve human-elephant relations in the long term is a promising area of research. It is my hope that some of the questions below may spark the interest of Namibian researchers to delve deeper into these issues.

Human-elephant coexistence may be an unrealistic goal in areas where farm infrastructure was built when no elephants were present and the farmers living there see no direct or indirect benefits from elephant presence. Where coexistence is not possible in the short- or medium-term, options other than the ones presented here may have to be explored – like translocation or, as a last resort, culling. The research questions presented here are specifically for areas where elephant presence generates enough benefits such that reducing the costs associated with them can lead to human-elephant coexistence.

1) What effect does hunting have on long-term elephant damage?

Problem animal hunts, particularly, are meant to reduce human-elephant conflict. Research from Kenya reveals that male elephants cause more conflict (either in groups or as singletons) than females, and that some males can be classed as habitual crop raiders, while others only raid occasionally. Furthermore, habitual raiders may teach younger males their same bad habits. Removing habitual raiders from the population therefore appears to be a sound course of action for reducing conflict, at least in the short term.

With a long-term view, however, removing habitual raiders may just make space for other males to fill their shoes, thus not addressing the problem . Additionally, identifying habitual raiders is difficult, as many incidents happen at night and tracking a conflict-causing animal requires an extremely swift response to reports of damage that is not always possible. The question remains: if all else is equal (i.e. elephant and human density, habitat and agricultural practices), how does removing individual problem-causing elephants affect the long-term trend in human-elephant conflict? Conflict incidents and problem animal hunts are recorded in Event Books and through the hunting permit system, so this information can be used as a starting point for research in Namibia.

2) How does hunting influence elephant behaviour around people?

We already know that the total absence of older males leads to younger males becoming unusually aggressive to humans and other species. It is also possible that elephants that witness a hunt could become aggressive due to increased stress levels , but solid evidence for this is lacking. On the other side of the coin, there is increasing research on using a landscape of fear to reduce conflict with humans by using the animals’ instinctive desire to avoid risk.

An animal’s landscape of fear is based on their life experience and lessons from their parents (or others in their social groups) that tell them which parts of their environment or times of day are more or less risky. This is very similar to the way we decide how to move around our cities based on crime levels that we have experienced or heard about through our social circles. Theoretically, at least, one could manipulate the elephants’ landscape of fear to reduce the number of individuals willing to approach a village or enter a crop field (risky spaces), while encouraging their use of wildlife corridors and protected areas as safe spaces in the landscape.

The research challenge is to figure out how hunting contributes to either exacerbating the problem through increased elephant aggression or reducing the problem by creating a landscape of fear. Detailed records of all elephant hunts (for any purpose), followed by behavioural studies of affected elephant groups and supported by Event Book data would help us to understand the link between hunting and elephant behaviour. This understanding can be used in turn to create hunting guidelines that will limit human-elephant conflict.

3) Can non-lethal methods ultimately replace problem animal control?

The two questions above reveal that there are some uncertainties regarding how hunting can be used to reduce human-elephant conflict in the long term. When these questions are answered, lethal control must be considered alongside the non-lethal options for reducing conflict. Protecting crops and water installations at conflict hotspots should reduce the need for lethal control over time. Non-lethal elephant deterrents (e.g. burning chilli bombs or applying chilli oil to fences) could be used alongside occasional hunts to maintain and reinforce the landscape of fear around villages and crops.

One of the key drawbacks of implementing long-term non-lethal control methods is the cost. Some options can be installed using external funds , while others come at a cost to individual farmers (e.g. paying for diesel to pump water that elephants drink). In some cases, an external party makes the initial investment, but on-going maintenance is left to the farmer. By contrast, the meat of a hunted elephant is distributed among the affected people and the hunting fee may be used to offset losses incurred. Lethal control may therefore be a more attractive option for those who suffer the direct consequences of elephant damage and are expected to implement non-lethal methods (at least partially) at their own cost.

The effectiveness of non-lethal methods should be subjected to the same level of scrutiny as lethal methods, particularly to determine its long-term effectiveness, cost and practicality in the field. A method that relies solely on investment of the farmer’s time and money is unlikely to win more support than bringing in a hunter to deal with a problem animal. For any given non-lethal control method introduced into a community, we need to know how well it worked over what period of time and whether or not the farmers feel that they could integrate the method into their day-to-day lives.

Understanding the researcher’s role

Experts in human-wildlife conflict know that this particular field of science is even more influenced by human factors (e.g. relationships) than other areas of science. Coexistence with elephants is like a giant puzzle that involves turning over many important pieces through research and experience. The pieces we focused on here include the direct links between hunting and human-elephant conflict, yet the indirect links can be just as important. These include political willpower, historical context, local culture and benefits derived from elephants. While research can provide some important puzzle pieces, it takes people from a diverse array of stakeholders to solve the puzzle itself.

Solving the puzzle of human-wildlife conflict requires trust, communication and a willingness to listen and learn. If research results are used to try and force people to adopt certain ideas or methods (even if they work), they are almost guaranteed to fail. Alternatively, research can be part of a collaborative learning process whereby everyone is involved in identifying the right questions, developing sound methods to test possible solutions and discussing the results. If you have been inspired by these research questions, remember to include others in your search for answers.

HOW TO GET THE MOST OUT OF AFRICA GEOGRAPHIC:

Travel with us . Travel in Africa is about knowing when and where to go, and with whom. A few weeks too early / late and a few kilometres off course and you could miss the greatest show on Earth. And wouldn’t that be a pity? Browse our ready-made packages or answer a few questions to start planning your dream safari .
Subscribe to our FREE newsletter / download our FREE app to enjoy the following benefits.
Plan your safaris in remote parks protected by African Parks via our sister company https://ukuri.travel/ - safari camps for responsible travellers

Gail Thomson is a carnivore conservationist and science communicator who has worked in South Africa, Namibia and Botswana on human-carnivore conflict, community conservation and wildlife monitoring. Her published scientific work includes journal articles, chapters in scientific books and technical reports. She edits and writes for Conservation Namibia as part of her consulting work for the Namibian Chamber of Environment .

Friend's Email Address

Your Email Address

Human-Wildlife Conflict: Vehicle Collisions With Animals Report

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Insight into the conflicts, recommendation, works cited.

The human-wildlife conflict is an issue that is becoming a very serious threat to the life of most of the endangered species the world over. According to most case studies in different parts of the world, there is a clear demonstration of the conflict and how severe it is. To avoid overlooking the matter, an analysis of the problem is of great essence which will help in boosting the conservation efforts of the species which are now proving to be endangered (Hans, 180). This paper will be based on the issue of motor vehicle collisions with world animals with a focus on European countries.

The issue of collisions between wildlife and motor vehicles is a major challenge in most countries owing to the unpredictability of the animals’ closing in correspondence to the vast sizes of the parks and lands which border major roadways in most European and African countries (Mishra, 341).

Most of the stakeholders who have an interest in this matter have considered the threat that is involved to road safety both to the human population and to the wildlife population. Though there has been a gross underestimation of the danger which is posed there is a dire need of taking this matter with the weight that it deserves (Hoare, 162).

There are measures of mitigating the accidents which mainly focus on the techniques applied in the prevention of the animals from crossing at some points or alerting motorists of the possibilities of such cases happening. Having no other control measures which can be fixed very fast, and the rise in the number of casualties, the conflict tends to be a great danger. Research has it that the problem has been known to cost millions of dollars to society (Naughton-Treves, 30).

The advent of technology has given rise to methods of mitigating the risks involved to a higher notch. This is however not an immediate action because the technologies which are proposed have to be verified on their functionality. There needs to be a rigorous process of validation which will then lead to a need for more funds. In Canada, for example, the collisions range from above five large animals colliding with motor vehicles hourly. Most of the accidents happen to go unnoticed due to underreporting thus an assumption of the gravity of the issue by most involved stakeholders (Messmer, 100).

To improve on the mitigation approaches when it comes to this matter, there should be a balance between the protection that is granted to human beings as well as to the wild animals (Koganow, 56). In this case, there can be more awareness campaigns that will aid in educating motorists in the dangers involved. At the same time, a policy for reporting the accidents should be formulated and also measures which can aid in prediction such that the matter is put in control (Harris and Gallagher, 33).

Human-wildlife conflicts exist in a wide variety of ways where motor vehicle collisions are just an example. The preventive measures proposed should focus on the protection of both human victims as well as animals (Butler, 27). This is because the conflict has a direct effect on both people and the animals such as loss of lives and damage to properties.

Butler, J. The economic costs of wildlife predation on livestock in Gokwe communal land, Zimbabwe. African Journal of Ecology , 38(1): 23-30. 2000.

Hans, B. Local perceptions of Waza national Park, northern Cameroon. Environmental Conservation , 30 (2): 175-181. 2003

Harris, L.D and Gallagher, P.B, New initiatives for wildlife conservation: the need for movement corridors. In: Preserving communities and corridors . 1st ed. (Ed:Mackintosh,G) Defenders of Wildlife, Washington,DC, 11-34. 1989.

Hoare, R. The present and future use in the management of African larger mammals. Environmental Conservation , 19 (2): 160-164. 1992

Messmer, T. A. The emergence of Human Wildlife conflict: turning challenges into opportunities. International Biodegradation and Biodeterioration , 45(3): 97- 102. 2000

Mishra C. Livestock depredation by larger animals in the Indian trans-Himalaya: conflict perceptions and conservation prospects. Environmental Conservation , 24(4): 338-343. 1997

Naughton-Treves, L. Farming the forest edge: Vulnerable places and people around Kibale national Park, Uganda. Geographical Review , 87(1): 27-46. 1997

Koganow, G., Animal Collisions-Balance and Priority , Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, Canada 1997.

Seat Belts And Seat Belt Laws
Structural Analysis of Relevance Propagation Models
Marine Surveying, Inspection and Safety Practices
Amazon Rainforest's Destruction: Leading Issues
Indicators of Hydrogen Assessment for a Dam Project
Environmental Psychology: The Problem of Protection
Do India and China Have a Right to Pollute the Environment?
Environmental Degradation and the Use of Technology in the Agricultural Sector
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, January 3). Human-Wildlife Conflict: Vehicle Collisions With Animals. https://ivypanda.com/essays/human-wildlife-conflict/

"Human-Wildlife Conflict: Vehicle Collisions With Animals." IvyPanda , 3 Jan. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/human-wildlife-conflict/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Human-Wildlife Conflict: Vehicle Collisions With Animals'. 3 January.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Human-Wildlife Conflict: Vehicle Collisions With Animals." January 3, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/human-wildlife-conflict/.

1. IvyPanda . "Human-Wildlife Conflict: Vehicle Collisions With Animals." January 3, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/human-wildlife-conflict/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Human-Wildlife Conflict: Vehicle Collisions With Animals." January 3, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/human-wildlife-conflict/.

United States Institute of Peace

Home ▶ Publications

Human Rights and Conflict

Exploring the Links between Rights, Law, and Peacebuilding

By: Julie Mertus; Jeffrey Helsing; editors

Publication Type: Book

This much-needed volume brings these perspectives together to create a composite picture of the relationship between human rights and conflict. The relationship between human rights and conflict is dynamic, complex, and powerful, constantly shaping and reshaping the course of both peace and war.

The relationship between human rights and conflict is dynamic, complex, and powerful, constantly shaping and reshaping the course of both peace and war. Yet, despite its importance, our understanding of this relationship has long been fragmentary, chiefly because three different schools of thought—human rights, conflict resolution, and international law—have offered three different and often contradictory perspectives. This much-needed volume brings these perspectives together to create a composite picture of the relationship between human rights and conflict. The book’s distinguished contributors do not disguise the differences among them—indeed, some chapters are followed by commentaries offering an alternative view of the same subject—but they also explore the numerous ways in which human rights advocates, negotiators, peacebuilders, and relief agencies can advance and reinforce each other’s work. Human Rights and Conflict is divided into three parts, each capturing the role played by human rights at a different stage in the conflict cycle. From human rights abuses that precipitate violence, through third-party interventions and humanitarian relief efforts, to the negotiation of peace agreements and the building of peace, the volume lays out the actors and issues involved and analyzes the attendant dynamics and dilemmas. Comprehensive, authoritative, and highly readable, this volume is an invaluable resource for professors and their students. With its cutting-edge analyses and timely coverage (of Iraq and counterterrorism measures, for instance), it also offers considerable food for thought for seasoned practitioners and advocates.

About the Authors

Related publications.

Israel and Hezbollah Change the Rules, Test Redlines — Will it lead to War?

Wednesday, June 26, 2024

By: Mona Yacoubian

Tensions between Israel and the Lebanese Shia militia Hezbollah are at their highest point since their 2006 war. They have exchanged tit-for-tat attacks since October, displacing tens of thousands from northern Israel and southern Lebanon. But in recent weeks, both sides have escalated the violence and rhetoric. USIP’s Mona Yacoubian looks at what’s driving this escalation, what each side is trying to tell the other and the diplomatic efforts underway to lower the temperature.

Type: Question and Answer

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

First Ladies of Peace: Women’s Role in Reducing Conflict in Africa

Tuesday, June 25, 2024

By: Fatoumatta Bah Barrow; Joyce Banda

Women have long been key partners and leaders in peace across Africa, and the African First Ladies Peace Mission (AFLPM) was created to help further women’s representation in promoting peace and security throughout the continent. Fatoumatta Bah Barrow, the first lady of The Gambia and the president of AFLPM, and former Malawi President Joyce Banda discuss how USIP and AFLPM are working together to reduce and prevent violent conflict.

Conflict Analysis & Prevention ; Gender

Gaza at the G7: The Daunting Divide between Rhetoric and Reality

Thursday, June 20, 2024

By: Lucy Kurtzer-Ellenbogen ; Robert Barron

The ongoing war in Gaza was only one of several items on the agenda for last week’s summit of leading Western economies, known as the Group of 7 (G7). But, given the global attention on Gaza and coming on the heels of the Biden administration’s most recent push to achieve a cease-fire — including sponsorship of a U.N. Security Council resolution toward that end — questions around the prospects for a negotiated pause in fighting and hostage agreement dominated the discussions.

Type: Analysis

Five Factors Shaping the Future of Egypt-Israel Relations

Thursday, June 13, 2024

By: Ambassador Hesham Youssef

The Gaza war has strained Egyptian-Israeli relations to an unprecedented level and raised questions about the future of their 1979 peace treaty that has been a cornerstone of Arab-Israeli peace. U.S. officials met recently in Cairo with their Israeli and Egyptian counterparts against a backdrop of mutually diminishing confidence between the two parties, particularly following Israel’s ground offensive in Rafah. This comes on the heels of a shooting incident between Israeli and Egyptian forces that left at least one Egyptian soldier dead, and Egypt joining South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Along with Qatar, Egypt is a key broker in the current Israel-Hamas cease-fire efforts and engages in extensive security cooperation with the U.S. and Israel.

Entertainment
Environment
Information Science and Technology
Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Business

Essay Samples on Conflict

How to resolve conflict without violence: building peaceful communities.

Conflict is an inevitable aspect of human interactions, and while disagreements are a natural part of life, it is essential to address and resolve them without resorting to violence. By employing effective methods and strategies, individuals and communities can navigate conflicts constructively, fostering harmonious relationships...

Conflict Resolution

The UPS Teamsters Strike: Navigating Negotiations and Economic Impact

The Looming UPS Teamsters Strike After months of negotiations, the UPS Teamsters union and UPS management reached a tentative agreement on July 26, 2023, potentially averting a nationwide strike. The Teamsters strike had been authorized for early August if a deal was not reached, which...

Employee Engagement

The Enduring Issue of Conflict: From Imperialism to WWI and WWII

Introduction Conflict is a very significant enduring issue in history. Conflict is a serious disagreement or argument. There can be conflict between individuals, groups of people, and even nations, is significant because it affects a lot of people and has long-lasting effects. Some issues of...

Enduring Issue
Imperialism

Conflict Theory and Ageism in Aging Discrimination

The advantage characteristic of the conflict theory is that it creates a continuous constant, drive for the middle and upper topmost class of young people to accumulate compile, wealth to maintain preserve their social class. This is good because it ensures guarantee the economy grows....

Discrimination

The Link Between Identity and Purpose in Life in "Never Let Me Go"

It is known to man that when one knows what when you can find your purpose find a sense of identity to yourself. In “Never Let Me Go” The story focuses on Kathy H., who portrays herself as a guardian, talking about looking after organ...

Book Review
Never Let Me Go

Stressed out with your paper?

Consider using writing assistance:

100% unique papers
3 hrs deadline option

Ton Of Conflict In Sonny's Blues

There is a ton of conflict at work in 'Sonny's Blues.' The general clash in this story is between black presence and white society, and this has unequivocally affected how the storyteller sees the world. He depicts this battle of experiencing childhood in Harlem, where...

Sonny's Blues

My Personal Opinion on the Types of Conflict Resolution

Normally there are four types of conflict resolution strategies: Avoiding, Competing, Accommodating, and Collaborating. Avoiding is about a withdraw of a conflict. Competing is about a team being divided into two parties and instead of being collaborative they just fight and compete about who idea...

Collaboration
Conflict Resolution Theory

Kokata: Traditional Conflict Resolution Mechanism of the Kambata People of SNNPRS

Governments may find it usually difficult to find solution for a conflict of any type-be within a particular group, between groups or relating to between their own and outside groups, for example border conflict. This may be as they aspire to address conflict only using...

Analysis of the Salam Model of Conflict Resolution

Man is essentially a social being who necessarily must interact and compete with other members of his social setting to achieve anything. The Holy Qur’an alludes to this innate quality of man when it states that “And everyone has a goal which dominates him; vie,...

Competition

Theme of Conflict In 'A View From The Bridge'

Conflict is a theme which has quite a large role in this play because all the characters have a little bit of conflict between each other. In 1930s Brooklyn, there was conflict between two cultures due to Italians moving over to America. This caused conflict...

A View From The Bridge
Arthur Miller

Don Nardo's The Persian Gulf War and Its Detalisation of Conflicts

The Persian Gulf War By Don Nardo goes into detail about the conflict between Iran and Iraq, Kuwait, United States and more. In the introduction it starts off by stating “The world was stunned on August 2, 1990, by alarming news.[...]¨(7). The alarming news was...

Persian Gulf

Conflict among Nations as a Global Issue Throughout History

Throughout history, enduring issues have developed across time and societies. One such issue is conflict, this is a disagreement between two opposing parties. This issue is significant as it can destroy empires, encourage innovations, and kill or displace civilians. You can see the significance of...

Controversial Issue

An Argument for Constructing a Resolution Strategy for Ethnic Conflict

Global conflict refers to the disputes between different nations or states. It also refers to the conflicts between organizations and people in various nation-states. Furthermore, it applies to inter-group conflicts within a country in cases where one group is fighting for increased political, economic, or...

Ethnic Identity
Religious Pluralism

Different Conflict Situations In A Diverse Workplace

Joanne Barrett, a recruitment specialist states that when in a workplace with employees of different cultures, backgrounds, beliefs and values, conflict is bound to happen. Showing respect towards fellow colleagues in the organisation is important as to help solve it. Barret suggested that employers and...

How Conflict Can Be Normal In All Relationships

While conflict can be normal in all relationships, it should be a last resort by all means. Relationships should be a mutual effort and be based on communication. Reason being, it can lead to an unhealthy relationship, create a negative perception of the relationship, and...

Relationship

Issue Of Conflict Mineral Mining In Congo

It is no major secret that the area of land that makes up the Democratic Republic of the Congo (referred to in this paper by its shortened name, the Congo) has been in a state of conflict for the past 40 years or more, with...

Natural Resources

Reflection On Conflicts And Its Management In My Company

There is no universal explanation of what a conflict is, but can be considered, any situation in which the people’s perspectives, interests, goals, principles, or feelings are divergent. To ensure cooperation and productivity in any given company, every aspect of conflict must be appropriately dealt...

The War In Yemen: Roots Of The Conflict

The current war in Yemen has been ongoing for three years, since 2015. The Houthi rebels and Yemen’s government are in a bloody war. Roots for conflict started with the failure of a political change when the then president handed over his power to his...

What Is History

Cultural Conflicts In Multinational Corporations: Michelin Company Case

Michelin was established in the 1800s in France. There are over 120,000 employee around the world and most 20,000 people are working in North America. In 2004, the department of North America faced some challenges includes decreasing in performance and lack of competitiveness. After evaluation,...

Best topics on Conflict

1. How to Resolve Conflict Without Violence: Building Peaceful Communities

2. The UPS Teamsters Strike: Navigating Negotiations and Economic Impact

3. The Enduring Issue of Conflict: From Imperialism to WWI and WWII

4. Conflict Theory and Ageism in Aging Discrimination

5. The Link Between Identity and Purpose in Life in “Never Let Me Go”

6. Ton Of Conflict In Sonny’s Blues

7. My Personal Opinion on the Types of Conflict Resolution

8. Kokata: Traditional Conflict Resolution Mechanism of the Kambata People of SNNPRS

9. Analysis of the Salam Model of Conflict Resolution

10. Theme of Conflict In ‘A View From The Bridge’

11. Don Nardo’s The Persian Gulf War and Its Detalisation of Conflicts

12. Conflict among Nations as a Global Issue Throughout History

13. An Argument for Constructing a Resolution Strategy for Ethnic Conflict

14. Different Conflict Situations In A Diverse Workplace

15. How Conflict Can Be Normal In All Relationships

Stakeholders
Advertising
Comparative Analysis
Advertising Analysis

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

Information

Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

Active Journals
Find a Journal
Proceedings Series
For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Librarians
For Publishers
For Societies
For Conference Organizers
Open Access Policy
Institutional Open Access Program
Special Issues Guidelines
Editorial Process
Research and Publication Ethics
Article Processing Charges
Testimonials
Preprints.org
SciProfiles
Encyclopedia

Article Menu

Subscribe SciFeed
Recommended Articles
Google Scholar
on Google Scholar
Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Human–elephant conflict in sri lanka: a critical review of causal explanations.

1. Introduction

2. theoretical considerations and methods, 3.1. colonial elephant hunting and capture.

“ Had the motive which incites to the destruction of the elephant in Africa and India prevailed in Ceylon, and had the elephants there been provided with tusks, they would long since have been annihilated for the sake of their ivory. ”

“ The opening of roads and the clearing of the mountain forests of Kandy for the cultivation of coffee, have forced the animals to retire to the low country; where again they have been followed by large parties of European sportsmen; and the Singhalese themselves, being more freely provided with arms than in former times, have assisted in swelling the annual slaughter. ”

3.2. Poaching

3.3. habitat loss and human and elephant population dynamics.

“ For a wide-ranging species like the elephant, this [loss of habitat available] means that the animal’s flexibility to buffer the effects of local resource depletion by moving elsewhere [sic.] is lost. Such a situation has led to an escalation of conflicts between man and elephant in Sri Lanka. ”

3.4. Elephant Crop-Raiding Behaviour and Socio-Economic Grievances

3.5. problem animals.

“ 12 elephants had died and 05 [sic.] of them had died of malnutrition and lack of sufficient foods. Further, another two elephants had died due to unattended translocation to the holding ground. It was observed that the health condition of the elephants retained at the holding ground remained at a poor level and no follow-up action had been taken on the health of these animals ”

3.6. Agricultural Modernisation and Failed Cohabitation

3.7. conservation and social justice, 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

Fernando, P. Managing elephants in Sri Lanka: Where we are and where we need to be. Ceylon J. Sci. Biol. Sci. 2015 , 44 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Fernando, P.; De Silva, M.C.R.; Jayasinghe, L.; Janaka, H.; Pastorini, J. First country-wide survey of the Endangered Asian elephant: Towards better conservation and management in Sri Lanka. Oryx 2019 , 55 , 46–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Thenakoon, T.M.S.P.K.; Thisara Kandambige, L.S.; Liyanage, C. Impact of human-elephant conflict on livelihood: A case study from a rural setting of Sri Lanka. Int. J. Appl. Res. 2017 , 3 , 1107–1111. [ Google Scholar ]
Fernando, P.; Jayewardene, J.; Prasad, T.; Hendavitharana, W.; Pastorini, J. Current status of Asian Elephants in Sri Lanka. Gajah 2011 , 35 , 93–103. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Trautman, T.R. Elephants and Kings. An Environmental History ; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
Chögyel, T. The Life of the Buddha ; Penguin: London, UK, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
Courchamp, F.; Jaric, I.; Albert, C.; Meinard, Y.; Ripple, W.J.; Chapron, G. The paradoxical extinction of the most charismatic animals. PLoS Biol. 2018 , 16 , e2003997. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] [ Green Version ]
Perera, B.M.A.O. The human-elephant conflict: A review of current status and mitigation methods. Gajah 2009 , 30 , 41–52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Menon, V.; Tiwari, S.K. Population status of Asian elephants Elephas maximus and key threats. Int. Zoo Yearboook 2019 , 53 , 17–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Mithen, S. The Hunter—Gatherer Prehistory of Human—Animal Interactions. Anthrozoös 1999 , 12 , 195–204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Broughton, J.M.; Weitzel, E.M. Population reconstructions for humans and megafauna suggest mixed causes for North American Pleistocene extinctions. Nat. Commun. 2018 , 9 , 1–12. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Nogues-Bravo, D.; Rodriguez, J.; Hortal, J.; Batra, P.; Araújo, M.B. Climate Change, Humans, and the Extinction of the Woolly Mammoth. PLoS Biol. 2008 , 6 , e79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Treves, A.; Santiago-Ávila, F.J. Myths and assumptions about human-wildlife conflict and coexistence. Conserv. Biol. 2020 , 34 , 811–818. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
Nyhus, P.J. Human–Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2016 , 41 , 143–171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Peterson, M.; Birckhead, J.; Leong, K.; Peterson, M.; Peterson, T.R. Rearticulating the myth of human-wildlife conflict. Conserv. Lett. 2010 , 3 , 74–82. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Redpath, S.; Bhatia, S.; Young, J. Tilting at wildlife: Reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx 2014 , 49 , 222–225. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Baynham-Herd, Z.; Redpath, S.; Bunnefeld, N.; Molony, T.; Keane, A. Conservation conflicts: Behavioural threats, frames, and intervention recommendations. Biol. Conserv. 2018 , 222 , 180–188. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Aukes, E.J.; Bontje, L.E.; Slinger, J.H. Narrative and frame analysis: Disentangling and refining two close relatives by means of a large infrastructural technology case. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2020 , 21 , 28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Geiger, W. (Ed.) Mahavamsa ; Asian Educational Services: New Delhi, India, 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
Paranavitana, S. The Triumph of Duttagamini ; Ceylon University Press: Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, 1959; Volume 1, pp. 145–163. [ Google Scholar ]
Santiapillai, C.; Wijeyamohan, S. Conservation and the History of Human–Elephant Relations in Sri Lanka. In Conflict, Negotiation, and Coexistence. Rethinking Human-Elephant Relations in South Asia ; Locke, P., Buckingham, J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New Delhi, India, 2016; pp. 229–241. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
De Silva, K.M. A History of Sri Lanka ; Vijitha Yapa Publications: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
Olivier, R. Distribution and Status of the Asian Elephant. Oryx 1978 , 14 , 379. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Fernando, P. Elephants in Sri Lanka: Past, present and future. Loris 2000 , 22 , 28–44. [ Google Scholar ]
Santiapillai, C. The Difficulty in Estimating the Total Population Size of Wild Elephants in Sri Lanka. Ceylon J. Sci. Biol. Sci. 2014 , 42 , 101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
De Butts, A. Rambles in Ceylon ; W.H. Allen and Co.: London, UK, 1841. [ Google Scholar ]
Lorimer, J.; Whatmore, S. After the ‘king of beasts’: Samuel Baker and the embodied historical geographies of elephant hunting in mid-nineteenth-century Ceylon. J. Hist. Geogr. 2009 , 35 , 668–689. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Tennent, J.E. Ceylon: An Account of the Island. Physical, Historical and Topographical , 4th ed.; Longman, Green, Longman and Roberts: London, UK, 1860; Volume 2. [ Google Scholar ]
Grove, R. Green Imperialism. Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism, 1600–1860 ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
Jayewardene, J. The care and management of domesticated Asian elephants in Sri Lanka. In Giants in Our Hands. Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Domesticated Asian Elephant ; Baker, I., Kashio, M., Eds.; FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific: Bangkok, Thailand, 2002; pp. 43–45. [ Google Scholar ]
Bandara, R.; Tisdell, C. Conserving Asian Elephants: Economic Issues Illustrated by Sri Lankan Concerns ; University of Queensland: Brisbane, Australia, 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
Sukumar, R. The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1989. [ Google Scholar ]
Kurt, F.; Hartl, G.B.; Tiedemann, R. Tuskless bulls in Asian elephant Elephas maximus. History and population genetics of a man-made phenomenon. Acta Thériol. 1995 , 40 , 125–143. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Chaiklin, M. Ivory in Early Modern Ceylon: A Case Study in What Documents Don’t Reveal. Int. J. Asian Stud. 2009 , 6 , 37–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Santiapillai, C.; Silva, A.; Karyawasam, C.; Esufali, S.; Jayaniththi, S.; Basnayake, M.; Unantenne, V.; Wijeyamohan, S. Trade in Asian elephant ivory in Sri Lanka. Short Communications. Oryx 1999 , 33 , 176–180. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Duffy, R. Nature Crime. How We’re Getting Conservation Wrong ; Yale University Press: London, UK; New Haven, CT, USA, 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
Aryal, A.; Morley, C.; McLean, I.G. Conserving elephants depend on a total ban of ivory trade globally. Biodivers. Conserv. 2018 , 27 , 2767–2775. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Neme, L. One Country will Destroy Its Ivory—And Pray for Elephants. 2016. Available online: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/01/160125-sri-lanka-elephants-buddhism-ivory-stockpile-cites/ (accessed on 14 March 2020).
Prakash, T.G.S.L.; Indrajith, W.A.A.D.U.; Aththanayaka, A.M.C.P.; Karunarathna, S.; Botejue, M.; Nijman, V.; Henkanaththegedara, S. Illegal capture and internal trade of wild Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in Sri Lanka. Nat. Conserv. 2020 , 42 , 51–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Department of Census and Statistics. The Population of Sri Lanka ; Department of Census and Statistics: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1974. [ Google Scholar ]
Department of Census and Statistics. Census of Population and Housing 2012 ; Department of Census and Statistics: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
Jayewardene, J. Elephant drives in Sri Lanka. Gajah 1994 , 13 , 30–39. [ Google Scholar ]
Bandara, R.; Tisdell, C. Asian Elephants as Agricultural Pests: Damages, Economics of Control and Compensation in Sri Lanka ; University of Queensland: Brisbane, Australia, 2002; p. 65. [ Google Scholar ]
Santiapillai, C. Mitigation of human-elephant conflicts in Sri Lanka. Gajah 1996 , 15 , 1–6. [ Google Scholar ]
Santiapillai, C.; Wijeyamohan, S.; Bandara, G.; Athurupana, R.; Dissanayake, N.; Read, B.; Dissanayake, D.M.N.J. An assessment of the human-elephant conflict in Sri Lanka. Ceylon J. Sci. Biol. Sci. 2010 , 39 , 21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Ekanayaka, S.K.K.; Campos-Arceiz, A.; Rupasinghe, M.; Pastorini, J.; Fernando, P. Patterns of crop raiding by Asian elephants in a human-dominated landscape in Southeastern Sri Lanka. Gajah 2011 , 34 , 20–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Tudge, C. Asia’s elephants: No place to hide—African elephants are being killed for their ivory. But their Asian cousins are being threatened just as surely by subtler forces. New Sci. 1994 , 141 , 34–37. [ Google Scholar ]
Haturusinghe, H.S.; Weerakoon, D.K. Crop raiding behaviour of elephants in the Northwestern Region of Sri Lanka. Gajah 2012 , 36 , 26–31. [ Google Scholar ]
DWC. Department of Wildlife Conservation Performance Report 2018 ; Report 90; DWC: Battaramulla, Sri Lanka, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
DWC. Department of Wildlife Conservation Performance Report 2017 ; Report 87; DWC: Battaramulla, Sri Lanka, 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
De Silva, S.; Webber, C.E.; Weerathunga, U.S.; Pushpakumara, T.V.; Weerakoon, D.K.; Wittemyer, G. Demographic Variables for Wild Asian Elephants Using Longitudinal Observations. PLoS ONE 2013 , 8 , e82788. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
DWC. Department of Wildlife Conservation Performance Report 2012 ; DWC: Battaramulla, Sri Lanka, 2013; p. 225. [ Google Scholar ]
Fernando, P.; Leimgruber, P.; Prasad, T.; Pastorini, J. Problem-Elephant Translocation: Translocating the Problem and the Elephant? PLoS ONE 2012 , 7 , e50917. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Fernando, P.; Wikramanayake, E.; Weerakoon, D.; Jayasinghe, L.; Gunawardene, M.; Janaka, H. Perceptions and Patterns of Human–Elephant Conflict in Old and New Settlements in Sri Lanka: Insights for Mitigation and Management. Biodivers. Conserv. 2005 , 14 , 2465–2481. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
National Audit Office. Performance of the Horowpothana Elephant Holding Ground ; Report No: IEN/F/DWC/19/PR/11; National Audit Office: Baththaramulla, Sri Lanka, 2019; p. 50. [ Google Scholar ]
De Alwis, S. Experiments with Elephants: How Sustainable are Elephant-Holding Grounds? 2020. Available online: http://www.dailymirror.lk/news-features/Experiments-with-elephants-How-sustainable-are-elephant-holding-grounds/131-181293 (accessed on 14 March 2020).
Mendis, R. The Problem with Problem Elephants. 2019. Available online: https://ceylontoday.lk/features-more/3613 (accessed on 14 March 2020).
Anuradha, J.M.P.N.; Fujimura, M.; Inaoka, T.; Sakai, N. The Role of Agricultural Land Use Pattern Dynamics on Elephant Habitat Depletion and Human-Elephant Conflict in Sri Lanka. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 2818. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Ranaweerage, E. Agricultural lifestyle, perspectives and conservational issues in protected areas: A study of human-elephant conflict in Pidurangala in the Central Province of Sri Lanka. Geogr. Rev. Jpn. Ser. B 2012 , 85 , 17–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Pastorini, J.; Nishantha, H.G.; Janaka, H.K.; Isler, K.; Fernando, P. Water-Body Use by Asian elephants in Southern Sri Lanka. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2010 , 3 , 412–422. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Gunatilleke, N.; Pethiyagoda, R.; Gunatilleke, S. Biodiversity of Sri Lanka. J. Nat. Sci. Found Sri Lanka 2008 , 36 , 25–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Lorimer, J. Elephants as companion species: The lively biogeographies of Asian elephant conservation in Sri Lanka. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2010 , 35 , 491–506. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Sriyananda, S. Sri Lanka’s Wildlife Conservation Disrupted by Political Influences Say Conservationists. 2019. Available online: http://www.ft.lk/opinion/Sri-Lanka-s-Wildlife-Conservation-Disrupted-by-Political-Influences-Say-Conservationists/14-680215 (accessed on 14 March 2020).
Benadusi, M. Elephants Never Forget: Capturing Nature at the Border of Ruhuna National Park (Yala), Sri Lanka. Capital. Nat. Soc. 2014 , 26 , 77–96. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
De Silva, S.; Srinivasan, K. Revisiting social natures: People-elephant conflict and coexistence in Sri Lanka. Geoforum 2019 , 102 , 182–190. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Brockington, D. Fortress Conservation: The Preservation of the Mkomazi Game Reserve, Tanzania ; International African Institute: Oxford, UK, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
Köpke, S.; Withanachchi, S.S.; Pathiranage, R.; Withanachchi, C.R.; Udayakanthi, T.G.D.; Nissanka, N.M.T.S.; Warapitiya, C.; Nissanka, L.N.A.B.M.; Rana-singhe, R.A.N.N.; Senarathna, T.M.C.D.; et al. Political ecology of human-elephant conflict in the Sri Lankan dry zone. Unpublished Manuscript.
Webb, J.L.A. Tropical Pioneers: Human Agency and Ecological Change in the Highlands of Sri Lanka, 1800–1900 ; Ohio University Press: Athens, OH, USA, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
Jayewardene, J. The Elephant in Sri Lanka ; Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
Brockington, D.; Duffy, R.; Igoe, J. Nature Unbound: Conservation, Capitalism and the Future of Protected Areas ; Routledge/Earthscan: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
Fischer, J.; Batary, P.; Bawa, K.S.; Brussaard, L.; Chappell, M.J.; Clough, Y.; Daily, G.C.; Dorrough, J.; Hartel, T.; Jackson, L.E.; et al. Conservation: Limits of Land Sparing. Science 2011 , 334 , 593. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Tscharntke, T.; Clough, Y.; Wanger, T.C.; Jackson, L.; Motzke, I.; Perfecto, I.; Vandermeer, J.; Whitbread, A. Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biol. Conserv. 2012 , 151 , 53–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Robbins, P. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction , 3rd ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Malden, MA, USA; Oxford, UK, 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
Mapa, R.B.; Kumuragame, D.; Gunarathne, W.D.I.; Dassanayake, A.R. Land use in Sri Lanka; past, presents and the future. In Proceedings of the 17th World Congress of Soil Scientist (WCSS 2002), Bangkok, Thailand, 14–21 August 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
Withanachchi, S.S.; Köpke, S.; Withanachchi, C.R.; Pathiranage, R.; Ploeger, A. Water Resource Management in Dry Zonal Paddy Cultivation in Mahaweli River Basin, Sri Lanka: An Analysis of Spatial and Temporal Climate Change Impacts and Traditional Knowledge. Climate 2014 , 2 , 329–354. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Zubair, L. Modernisation of Sri Lanka’s Traditional Irrigation Systems and Sustainability. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2005 , 10 , 161–195. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Kumar, M.A.; Vijayakrishnan, S.; Singh, M. Whose Habitat Is It Anyway? Role of Natural and Anthropogenic Habitats in Conservation of Charismatic Species. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 2018 , 11 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Lindström, S.; Mattsson, E.; Nissanka, S. Forest cover change in Sri Lanka: The role of small scale farmers. Appl. Geogr. 2012 , 34 , 680–692. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Suthakar, K.; Bui, E.N. Land use/cover changes in the war-ravaged Jaffna Peninsula, Sri Lanka, 1984–early 2004. Singap. J. Trop. Geogr. 2008 , 29 , 205–220. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Prakash, T.G.S.L.; Wijeratne, A.L.; Fernando, P. Human-elephant conflict in Sri Lanka: Patterns and extent. Gajah 2020 , 51 , 16–25. [ Google Scholar ]
Desai, A.A.; Riddle, H.R. Human-Elephant Conflict in Asia ; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Asian Elephant Support: Washington, DC, USA, 2016; p. 92. [ Google Scholar ]
Emel, J.; Wilbert, C.; Wolch, J. Animal geographies. Soc. Anim. 2002 , 10 , 407–412. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Gillespie, K.; Collard, R.-C. (Eds.) Critical Animal Geographies: Politics, Intersections and Hierarchies in a Multispecies World ; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
Hovorka, A.J. Animal geographies III: Species relations of power. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2018 , 43 , 749–757. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Lorimer, J.; Srinivasan, K. Animal Geographies. In The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Cultural Geography , 1st ed.; Johnson, N.C., Schein, R.H., Winders, J., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
Margulies, J.; Bersaglio, B. Furthering post-human political ecologies. Geoforum 2018 , 94 , 103–106. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Lorimer, J. Wildlife in the Anthropocene: Conservation after Nature ; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
Kopnina, H. Wild Animals and Justice: The Case of the Dead Elephant in the Room. J. Int. Wildl. Law Policy 2016 , 19 , 219–235. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Igoe, J.; Brockington, D. Neoliberal conservation: A brief introduction. Conserv. Soc. 2007 , 5 , 432–449. [ Google Scholar ]
Büscher, B.; Sullivan, S.; Neves, K.; Igoe, J.; Brockington, D. Towards a Synthesized Critique of Neoliberal Biodiversity Conservation. Cap. Nat. Soc. 2012 , 23 , 4–30. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Büscher, B.; Dressler, W.; Fletcher, R. (Eds.) Nature Inc.: Environmental Conservation in the Neoliberal Age ; The University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ, USA, 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
Jazeel, T. ‘Nature’, nationhood and the poetics of meaning in Ruhuna (Yala) National Park, Sri Lanka. Cult. Geogr. 2005 , 12 , 199–227. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
Van De Water, A.; Matteson, K. Human-elephant conflict in western Thailand: Socio-economic drivers and potential mitigation strategies. PLoS ONE 2018 , 13 , e0194736. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Compaore, A.; Sirima, D.; Hema, E.M.; Doamba, B.; Ajong, S.N.; Di Vittorio, M.; Luiselli, L. Correlation between increased human-elephant conflict and poaching of elephants in Burkina Faso (West Africa). Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2020 , 66 , 24. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Newhouse, D.L.; Becerra, P.S.; Doan, D. Sri Lanka Poverty and Welfare: Recent Progress and Remaining Challenges ; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
Global Food Security Index. Global Food Security Index 2019 ; EIU/Corteva: Wilmington, DE, USA, 2019; p. 48. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Narrative	Main Causal Explanation	Examples in Literature
Colonial legacy as historical cause	Colonial hunting and land-use change in British Ceylon led to elephant population decrease and habitat loss	Tennent (1860); Lorimer and Whatmore (2009); Jayewardene (1994b)
Poaching	Remote demand fuels criminal poaching operations	Santiapillai et al. (1999)
Population growth and habitat loss	Human population growth drives encroachment on elephant ranging grounds; elephants and humans prove to be incompatible	Jayewardene (1994a); Santiapillai (1996); Santiapillai and Wijeyamohan (2016)
Crop raiding and socio-economic grievances	Elephant crop raiding impacts household economic security, leading to defensive measures lethal to elephants	Bandara and Tisdell (2002); Santiapillai et al. (2010); Fernando (2000); Fernando et al. (2019)
Problem elephants	Male elephant individuals” problematic behaviours primarily cause conflicts	Haturusinghe and Weerakoon (2012); Ekanayaka et al. (2011)
Agricultural modernisation—failed cohabitation	Changes in agricultural productions systems or loss of traditional ecological knowledge promote conflicts	Anuradha et al. (2019); Lorimer (2010); de Silva and Srinivasan (2019); Ranaweerage (2012)
(Neoliberal) conservation and social justice	Rigid conservation practices in protected areas, designed to attract tourists, disenfranchise local people and facilitate escalating conflicts	Benadusi (2015); de Silva and Srinivasan (2019)

MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

Köpke, S.; Withanachchi, S.S.; Pathiranage, R.; Withanachchi, C.R.; Gamage, D.U.; Nissanka, T.S.; Warapitiya, C.C.; Nissanka, B.M.; Ranasinghe, N.N.; Senarathna, C.D.; et al. Human–Elephant Conflict in Sri Lanka: A Critical Review of Causal Explanations. Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 8625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158625

Köpke S, Withanachchi SS, Pathiranage R, Withanachchi CR, Gamage DU, Nissanka TS, Warapitiya CC, Nissanka BM, Ranasinghe NN, Senarathna CD, et al. Human–Elephant Conflict in Sri Lanka: A Critical Review of Causal Explanations. Sustainability . 2021; 13(15):8625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158625

Köpke, Sören, Sisira S. Withanachchi, Ruwan Pathiranage, Chandana R. Withanachchi, Deepika U. Gamage, Thushantha S. Nissanka, Chinthana C. Warapitiya, Banu M. Nissanka, Nirangani N. Ranasinghe, Chathurika D. Senarathna, and et al. 2021. "Human–Elephant Conflict in Sri Lanka: A Critical Review of Causal Explanations" Sustainability 13, no. 15: 8625. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158625

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

IAS Preparation
UPSC Preparation Strategy
Human Wildlife Conflict

Human - Wildlife Conflict

Human-Wildlife Conflict refers to the negative interaction between humans and wildlife that result in losses in terms of life, property or resources.

Due to an expanding human population, it is almost inevitable that humans will encroach into the natural habitats of the animal kingdom. As a result, many nations have included mitigation of human-wildlife conflict as part of their national environmental team.

This article will give details about Human-Wildlife Conflict within the context of the IAS Exam . One would also read key findings of the latest UNEP and WWF Report titled, ‘Future for All’ based on Human-Wildlife Conflict.

Download the international organizations’ reports that are important to be read for UPSC, in the linked article.

Definition of Human Wildlife-Conflict

Human-wildlife conflict is defined by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) as “any interaction between humans and wildlife that results in negative impacts of human social, economic or cultural life, on the conservation of wildlife populations, or on the environment.”

The IUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict Task Force describes human-wildlife conflict as struggles that emerge when the presence or behaviour of wildlife poses an actual or perceived, direct and recurring threat to human interests or needs, leading to disagreements between groups of people and negative impacts on people and/or wildlife.

Factors leading to Human-Wildlife Conflict

The factors leading to Human-Wildlife Conflict are the result of humans coming in proximity to natural habitats of wildlife. For instance, crops are raised by herbivores and livestock by carnivores, leading the farmers that depend on both to take extreme measures in preventing the loss of wildlife.

With a rapidly increasing human population and high biodiversity, interactions between people and wild animals are becoming more and more prevalent.
Habitat disturbance is the destruction of the home of wild animals. Humans kill or chase wild animals by digging, cutting, sealing by stones and smoking in their natural habitat.
Other factors include large scale habitat destruction through deforestation overgrazing by livestock and expansion of human settlements and agriculture.

To know more about Biodiversity in general, visit the linked article.

Human-Animal Conflict – Latest Findings

Among the number of elephants died because of electrocution, Odisha accounted for 41, followed by Tamil Nadu and Assam for 34 and 33 respectively.
Odisha also tops the list of highest number of elephant deaths caused by trains which is (12 out of 45), followed by West Bengal (11) and Assam (9).
Elephants death by Poaching were highest in Meghalaya (12 out of 29) while poisoning deaths were highest in Assam.
Odisha accounted for the highest number of these deaths at 322, followed by Jharkhand at 291 (including 133 in 2021-22 alone), West Bengal at 240, Assam at 229, Chhattisgarh at 183, and Tamil Nadu at 152.



Human Killed by Elephants	533	461	585
Deaths of Elephants by Trains	12	14	19
Deaths of Elephants by electrocution	65	76	81
Deaths of Elephants by poaching	14	9	6
Elephants death by poisoning	14	9	06

Among tigers, too, 29 were killed by poaching between 2019 and 2021, while 197 tiger deaths are under scrutiny.
Tigers killed 125 humans in reserves between 2019 and 2021. Maharashtra accounted for nearly half these deaths, at 61.



Human Killed by Tigers	31	44	50
Natural Deaths of Tigers	4	20	44
Poaching Deaths of Tigers	4	8	17
Unnatural Deaths of Tigers (excluding poaching)	2	0	3
Tigers death under scrutiny	104	71	22
Seizure	13	7	10

Steps to Mitigate Human-Wildlife Conflict

There are many steps that can be taken to mitigate human-wildlife conflict, but the most successful ones are those that involve local community members in the planning, implementation, and maintenance.

Still, there are other examples of Human-Wildlife conflict mitigations

Translocation of problematic animals: Relocating supposed “problem” animals from a site of conflict to a new place is a mitigation technique used in the past, although recent research has shown that this approach can have detrimental impacts on species and is largely ineffective.

Erection of fences or other barriers: Building barriers around cattle bomas (livestock enclosure), creating distinct wildlife corridors, and erecting beehive fences around farms to deter elephants have all demonstrated the ability to be successful and cost-effective strategies for mitigating human-wildlife conflict.

Compensation: in some cases, governmental systems have been established to offer monetary compensation for losses sustained due to human-wildlife conflict. These systems hope to deter the need for retaliatory killings of animals and to financially incentivize the coexisting of humans and wildlife.

Predator-deterring guard dogs: The use of guard dogs to protect livestock from depredation has been effective in mitigating human-carnivore conflict around the globe. A recent review found that 15.4% of study cases researching human-carnivore conflict used livestock-guarding dogs as a management technique, with animal losses on average 60 times lower than the norm.

A Future For All Report 2021

It is a report jointly published by World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). It was released on July 8, 2021. Title of the report – A future for all – the need for human-wildlife co-existence.

Highlights of the Report

More than 75 per cent of the world’s wild cat species, and also many other terrestrial and marine carnivore species such as polar bears and Mediterranean monk seals, and large herbivores such as elephants globally, are affected by conflict-related killings.
Effects of climate change,
Loss of habitat from deforestation,
Illegal wildlife trade,
Infrastructure development
Conflict with humans
The report suggests an approach of coexistence between humans and wildlife, and involvement of local communities, as it is not possible to wholly suppress human-wildlife conflict.
Successful example – Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area in Southern Africa; the local communities installed fixed and mobile lion-proof corrals for night-time protection in risk-prone areas, which led to a 95% reduction in livestock killings in 2016, and there were zero retaliatory killings of lions in 2016 (compared to 17 killed in 2012 and 2013). This approach allowed previously threatened lion populations to recover.
The report highlights that reducing human-wildlife conflict can benefit biodiversity, local communities, and society, contributing to sustainable development and production.

Call To Action

The report asks the international communities, national and regional governments and also private sector to integrate few approaches as mentioned below to achieve peaceful coexistence of humans and wildlife.

To integrate human-wildlife coexistence as a goal/target in Convention on Biological Diversity’s ( CBD )2050 vision of ‘living in harmony with nature and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Framework.
To provide financial support to the programmes related to mitigation of Human-Wildlife Conflict.
To develop transparent and inclusive local and regional institutions to manage land use and human-wildlife conflict.
To roll out nationwide human-wildlife conflict information programmes, that include monitoring and education on impacts and solutions.
To develop laws and regulations, in order to control the human-wildlife conflict.
To demonstrate the benefits of human-wildlife conflict minimisation in value chains.
To rethink developments or projects that will result in the worsening of the conflict situation, especially in places where human-wildlife conflict can’t be managed, while ensuring that all development complements the needs of local people.
To develop innovations and adopt management practices that restore natural habitat connectivity and mitigate the human-wildlife conflict.

Human-Wildlife Conflict – UPSC Notes:- Download PDF Here

For notes on UPSC Environment and Ecology , visit the linked article.

Frequently Asked Questions Related to Human-Wildlife Conflict

Is human-wildlife conflict restricted to terrestrial animals, what other methods can be adopted to further mitigate human wildlife conflict.

Protecting key areas for wildlife, creating buffer zones and investing in alternative land uses are some of the solutions. Other include:

Community-based natural resource management. Compensation / insurance. Payment for Environmental Services. Wildlife friendly products.

For more information about upcoming Government Exams , visit the linked article. More exam-related preparation materials will be found through the links given below:

IAS 2024 - Your dream can come true!

Download the ultimate guide to upsc cse preparation, register with byju's & download free pdfs, register with byju's & watch live videos.

Skip to primary navigation
Skip to main content
Skip to primary sidebar

UPSC Coaching, Study Materials, and Mock Exams

Enroll in ClearIAS UPSC Coaching Join Now Log In

Call us: +91-9605741000

Human-Animal conflict

Last updated on November 30, 2022 by ClearIAS Team

Table of Contents

The conflict between humans and wildlife (HWC) arises when animals directly and repeatedly endanger human lives or safety.

Many other species groups, including elephants, pigs, deer, monkeys, sharks, birds of prey, and rhinos, as well as the majority of large carnivores are impacted by HWC.

The second-largest human population in the world, along with sizable numbers of tigers, Asian elephants, one-horned rhinos, Asiatic lions, and other species, make India one of the most affected nations.

Although people and wildlife have coexisted for millennia, HWC is now a major global concern for both development and conservation. It is also becoming more regular, serious, and pervasive.

Why are they growing?

Increasing interaction: As human populations and space demands rise, people and wildlife are interacting more and vying for the same resources, leading to more human-wildlife conflict.For instance: In order to fulfil the increasing demand, agricultural and plantation buffer zones between human settlements and woods are being destroyed, which has increased the interface with animals.
Fragmentation of habitats: The loss of animal life and fragmentation of natural habitats are the results of development operations such as building roads and railroads across animal habitats.
Land use changes: The construction of communities near woods and the building of reservoirs have changed the natural habitat of animals, which has caused them to shift their behaviour and migratory paths.For instance: Illegal buildings along the Nilgiri elephant corridor are a key contributing factor to elephant assaults in the area.
Climate change: As a result of increased flooding, forest fires, and droughts brought on by climate change, animals are now being forced to abandon their natural habitats in search of food and shelter. For instance, during monsoons, animals in Kaziranga National Park shift to higher ground as a result of rising water levels. Due to the dense population in the Karbi-Anglong Hills, there are more interactions between humans and wildlife.
There are only 9.67% of worldwide protected areas on land and in the sea. As a result, most of the species don’t dwell in protected areas. For instance, 35% of the tiger ranges in India are currently outside of protected areas.
Increase of Alien Invasive Species: Wild herbivores’ access to food has decreased as a result of invasive plants like Prosopis juliflora and Lantana camara infesting forests. Herbivores leave the forest to graze on agricultural crops as a result.
Conservation efforts’ success: Successes in species conservation have occasionally led to the development of a new HWC.For instance, the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972’s ban on hunting has caused the population of vermin like wild boars and nilgai to explode. Due to their incursion into farmlands, as a result, there have been major crop failures.
Poaching: When predators’ prey base is reduced due to illegal poaching, it compels them to forage in adjacent villages. This causes these carnivores to kill cattle, putting them in confrontation with people.

Outcomes OF Human-Animal conflict

Loss of life and livelihood: Human-wildlife conflict causes species to become extinct while posing dangers to communities’ property, livelihoods, health, and safety.
Loss of biodiversity: Conflict between people and animals is one of the biggest risks to biodiversity, according to a report by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).
Disease transmission: Many zoonotic diseases are transmitted through wild animals. A rise in HWC could lead to the transmission of new diseases to people that are comparable to COVID-19. For instance, the Kyasanur Forest Disease (KFD), often known as monkey fever, has been blamed for a number of deaths in the Shivamogga district of Karnataka state in recent years and fruit bats are thought to be the source of the Nipah virus outbreak in Kerala.
A difficulty for conservation efforts: Conflicts that recur make people less interested in protecting forests and wildlife, which has an impact on conservation efforts.
Impact on Sustainable Development: Though not specifically listed, HWC is a crucial theme for achieving the objectives of biodiversity conservation, especially SDG 15. (life on land).
HWC occasionally causes social outrages and calls into question the course of human growth and development, which has an impact on societal morality. For example, a national outcry was caused when a pregnant elephant died in Kerala in May 2020 after eating pineapples that had been loaded with firecrackers.

Human-Animal conflict can be controlled by adopting measures for protecting wildlife in India.

Measures for protecting wildlife in India

The 1972 Wildlife Protection Act: According to the Act, the government has established Protected Areas such as National Parks, Sanctuaries, Conservation Reserves, and Community Reserves and has placed sanctions on individuals who engage in illegal hunting. The six schedules make up the protection status of numerous plants and animals under the Act.
NBWL, the National Board for Wildlife : In accordance with the WPA’s 1972 rules, NBWL was established. It serves as the principal authority for examining all issues involving wildlife and approving projects in and near national parks and sanctuaries. The promotion of conservation and development of wildlife and forests is the responsibility of the NBWL, which is presided over by the prime minister.
To stop the criminal trade in wildlife and endangered species, the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) was founded under the WPA in 1972.
Institutions for doing research : To carry out research on wildlife conservation, specialised organisations like the Wildlife Institute of India, the Bombay Natural History Society, and the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History were founded.
Conservation Programs : Specific projects have been devised, such as Project Tiger, Project Elephant, and Project Rhino, to stop the population decline and safeguard important species.
Eco-sensitive zones : The term “Eco-Sensitive Zone” refers to a delicate area that is 10 kilometres away from a protected area, such as a national park or a wildlife sanctuary. To act as a sort of shock absorber around the protected regions, an Eco-Sensitive Zone is designated.
Project RE-HAB : To prevent elephant attacks on human settlements using honey bees and so minimise the loss of both human and elephant lives, the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) launched Project RE-HAB (Reducing Elephant-Human Attacks using Bees). Under the National Honey Mission of KVIC, Project RE-HAB is a sub-mission.
While Project RE-HAB employs bee boxes as a fence to deter elephant attacks, the Honey Mission uses apiaries to improve bee populations, honey output, and beekeepers’ revenue. In March 2021, the pilot project was started at four places near the village of Chelur in the Karnataka district of Kodagu.

Also Read: Environment Presentation #3: Biodiversity Protection Schemes by Government of India (clearias.com)

Download Timetable and Study Plan ⇓

(1) ⇒ UPSC Mains Test Series 2024

(2) ⇒ UPSC Prelims Test Series 2025

(3) ⇒ UPSC Fight Back 2025

(4) ⇒ UPSC Prelims cum Mains 2025

Way forward

The conflict between people and nature will always exist. As a result, improving the safety of people and wildlife while fostering cohabitation should be the main objective of HWC management.
To help communities who live near forests lessen their reliance on them, the government should promote socioeconomic development and offer them alternatives for sustainable livelihoods.
The government should give communities the technical know-how and organisational support they need to integrate coexistence into their planning and management.
In order to promote sustainable coexistence, conservation plans for species that are prone to the conflict must take into account both current conditions and potential future conflicts.
Interdisciplinary approaches are crucial for comprehending the nature of a given dispute, identifying what is required for its resolution, and ensuring access to the appropriate expertise and resources.
In order to generate synergies in HWC management and HWC risk prevention, strategic partnerships between governments, humanitarian, and conservation organisations should be developed.
In order to obtain the best results for health and wellbeing, one health is a collaborative, multisectoral, and trans-disciplinary strategy that takes into account the links among people, animals, plants, and their shared environment.
HWC should be acknowledged as a crucial region for sustainable development and wildlife preservation. In order to realise the 2050 vision of “living in peace with nature,” human-wildlife coexistence must be incorporated into the implementation of the SDG framework and made an official goal of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) process.

Article Witten By :Atheena Fathima Riyas

Top 10 Best-Selling ClearIAS Courses

Upsc prelims cum mains (pcm) gs course: unbeatable batch 2025 (online), rs.75000 rs.29000, upsc prelims test series (pts) 2025 (online), rs.9999 rs.4999, upsc mains test series (mts) (online), rs.19999 rs.9999, csat course 2025 (online), current affairs course 2025: important news & analysis (online), ncert foundation course (online), essay writing course for upsc cse (online), ethics course for upsc cse (online), fight back: repeaters program with daily tests (online or offline), rs.55000 rs.25000.

About ClearIAS Team

ClearIAS is one of the most trusted learning platforms in India for UPSC preparation. Around 1 million aspirants learn from the ClearIAS every month.

Our courses and training methods are different from traditional coaching. We give special emphasis on smart work and personal mentorship. Many UPSC toppers thank ClearIAS for our role in their success.

Download the ClearIAS mobile apps now to supplement your self-study efforts with ClearIAS smart-study training.

Reader Interactions

Don’t lose out without playing the right game!

Follow the ClearIAS Prelims cum Mains (PCM) Integrated Approach.

Join ClearIAS PCM Course Now

UPSC Online Preparation

Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)
Indian Administrative Service (IAS)
Indian Police Service (IPS)
IAS Exam Eligibility
UPSC Free Study Materials
UPSC Exam Guidance
UPSC Prelims Test Series
UPSC Syllabus
UPSC Online
UPSC Prelims
UPSC Interview
UPSC Toppers
UPSC Previous Year Qns
UPSC Age Calculator
UPSC Calendar 2024
About ClearIAS
ClearIAS Programs
ClearIAS Fee Structure
IAS Coaching
UPSC Coaching
UPSC Online Coaching
ClearIAS Blog
Important Updates
Announcements
Book Review
ClearIAS App
Work with us
Advertise with us
Privacy Policy
Terms and Conditions
Talk to Your Mentor

Featured on

and many more...

ClearIAS Programs: Admissions Open

Thank You 🙌

UPSC CSE 2025: Study Plan

IAS/IPS/IFS Online Coaching: Target CSE 2025

Cover the entire syllabus of UPSC CSE Prelims and Mains systematically.

Subscribe clearias youtube channel.

Get free study materials. Don’t miss ClearIAS updates.

Subscribe Now

Download Self-Study Plan

Analyse Your Performance and Track Your Progress

Download Study Plan

Content Search

Human rights as a tool for crisis prevention and early warning.

A mobile justice team assists Ukrainian refugees and survivors of violence directly in their communities in Moldova.

Attachments

Preview of UNDP Rule of Law and Human Rights 2023.pdf

Washington D.C. – With conflicts reaching their highest levels in nearly 80 years, the world cannot afford more turmoil. In too many corners of the world people lose lives and homes, face injustice and inequality. Suffering can stop and sustainable peace can be achieved when prevention is grounded in human rights principles, said the participants of UNDP’s Annual Meeting on Rule of Law and Human Rights.

Over 200 participants joined in Washington D.C. and online to reflect on Human Rights Risks: Prevention and Response in Action, including the speakers from the African Union Commission, Japan, the State of Palestine, Ukraine, the United States of America, as well as from UN agencies, academia and civil society,

When national human rights actors are strong and equipped with evidence, human rights can serve as a tool for crisis prevention and early warning.

“Human rights are a bedrock of peace, security and development. Investment in human rights, especially amidst crisis, translates into a faster recovery. It means that people who lost their loved ones or their homes, can get closure and rebuild their lives. UNDP is engaging partners to restore dignity, justice and humanity,” said Shoko Noda, Assistant Secretary General and Director of UNDP’s Crisis Bureau.

Universal human rights should be a given; however, in many parts of the world, they are not and need to be proactively promoted and incentivized. All parties to the conflicts need to respect and abide by human rights principles and humanitarian law. And be accountable, if they are not.

The meeting spotlighted the essential role of national human rights institutions (NHRIs) in fostering a culture of human rights. Their monitoring, reporting and investigating human rights abuses – critical during times of conflict – can reduce the likelihood of egregious state offenses, including torture.

“ Human rights are, by design, a conflict-prevention tool. Societies where human rights are respected are better equipped to handle tensions. Data obtained through human rights monitoring serves as an early warning system. An important question is what we do about it and how we act ,” – said Ilze Brands-Kehris, Assistant Secretary-General and Director of the New York Office of OHCHR.

The private sector and businesses can influence the dynamics of conflict and peace. Businesses operating in conflict zones must address the unique human rights challenges with heightened due diligence processes.

Effective prevention and response to human rights risks require strong partnerships. UNDP’s Global Programme for Strengthening the Rule of Law, Human Rights, Justice and Security for Sustainable Peace and Development is a vehicle for partnerships on human rights, people-centred justice and security.

At the meeting, the Global Programme’s annual report was presented, showcasing UNDP’s impact in over 100 countries globally, with a focus on crisis and conflict contexts.

EUAA: Asylum applications in April down by almost one-third, compared to the peak of autumn 2023

Violent extremism, climate change and human security.

Home / Essay Samples / Science / Elephant / Human & Elephant Conflict

Human & Elephant Conflict

Category: Sociology , Science
Topic: Animal Ethics , Elephant , Zoo

Pages: 3 (1228 words)

Downloads: -->

Why there an animal/human conflict?

Ethic, morale, hunting and recreation, what do zoos do.

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Ocean Essays

Cell Essays

Microbiology Essays

Natural Selection Essays

Mountains Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->

Why Peace Is So Tricky for Humans

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Most Popular

CORE COMPONENTS

Human-wildlife conflict

What is the issue?

Why is this important?

What can be done?

More information:

Related content

Coexistence between human and wildlife: the nature, causes and mitigations of human wildlife conflict around Bale Mountains National Park, Southeast Ethiopia

Introduction

Materials and methods

Data collection methods

Sampling size and sampling technique

Data analysis

Nature and extent of human wildlife conflict

Crop damage

Habitat disturbance

Livestock depredation

Killings of wildlife

Root causes of human–wildlife conflicts

Minimizing and mitigations of human wildlife conflict

Conclusions

Availability of data and materials

Abbreviations

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Consent for publication

Competing interests

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

BMC Ecology

What is human-wildlife conflict?

What are some causes of human-wildlife conflict?

Expanding human populations

Agricultural expansion

Climate change

Competition for resources

How does human-wildlife conflict harm animals?

Examples of how IFAW is working to prevent human-wildlife conflict?

Our work can’t get done without you. Please give what you can to help animals thrive.

The unequal burden of human-wildlife conflict

Similar content being viewed by others

Lessons from COVID-19 for wildlife ranching in a changing world

A pan-African spatial assessment of human conflicts with lions and elephants

Patterns of livestock depredation and Human–wildlife conflict in Misgar valley of Hunza, Pakistan

Potential burden hotspots

Carnivore species in highly sensitive conflict areas

Food security impacts

Economic disparities in national cattle production

Mapping large carnivore habitat

Mapping per capita income

Estimating cattle prices

Mapping cattle distribution

Mapping burden hotspots

Estimating food security impacts

Estimating economic disparities in national cattle production

Reporting summary

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Peer review

Additional information

Supplementary information

About this article

Share this article

This article is cited by

The influence of community-based conservation governance arrangements on lion population in the amboseli ecosystem

Climate change resilience strategies for safeguarding sustainable tourism in Zimbabwe

Puma density, habitat use, and activity patterns across a mosaic landscape of ranches, game reserves, and a protected area in central Argentina

Quick links

Beyond Intractability

How Cultures Work