Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Foreword by Georgina Mace
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Introduction to conservation and conflict
- 1 An introduction to conservation conflicts
- 2 Philosophy, conflict and conservation
- PART II Contrasting disciplinary approaches to the study of conflict in conservation
- Part III Approaches to managing conflicts
- Index
- Plate Section
- References
1 - An introduction to conservation conflicts
from Part I - Introduction to conservation and conflict
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2015
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Foreword by Georgina Mace
- Acknowledgements
- Part I Introduction to conservation and conflict
- 1 An introduction to conservation conflicts
- 2 Philosophy, conflict and conservation
- PART II Contrasting disciplinary approaches to the study of conflict in conservation
- Part III Approaches to managing conflicts
- Index
- Plate Section
- References
Summary
The conservation of biodiversity is an increasingly challenging endeavour. Current pressures from a growing human population have led to concerns of a sixth mass extinction event, bringing mounting pressure to find effective ways of conserving biodiversity (Barnosky et al., 2011). However, our ability to meet this challenge is affected by the fact that not everyone supports conservation objectives. People naturally have different interests and priorities, some of which may be diametrically opposed to conservation objectives. In some cases, these differences lead to damaging and costly conflicts that we see emerging across the world and which present major challenges to modern conservation (MacDonald and Service, 2007).
At a cursory glance, the conflicts that surface around conservation often appear to be about impact: the impact of carnivores on livestock; the impact of wind farms on birds; or the impact of protected areas on livelihoods. Consequently, a common approach to these problems has been to build robust science and develop an evidence base to understand these impacts and find ways of reducing them, often through technical solutions. This approach, however, rarely works for the simple reason that many of these conflicts are about much more than impact. So even if we can develop the science to quantify impacts and show how they can be reduced, the conflicts can stubbornly persist. Indeed, beneath the surface of any of the conflicts discussed in this book is a complex layering of diverse issues related to different world views, issues of trust, power imbalances or latent historical issues – issues that lie well outside the sphere of the natural sciences. So, if we really want to understand and tackle these thorny problems, we need insights from other disciplines as well as from the practitioners specialising in resolving conflicts.
The growing recognition of the complexity within conflicts has led many authors to suggest more cross-disciplinary approaches, especially through better integration of ecological and social science (Manfredo and Dayer, 2004; Sillero-Zubiri et al., 2007; Treves, 2009; Dickman, 2010; White and Ward, 2010).
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Conflicts in ConservationNavigating Towards Solutions, pp. 3 - 18Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
, et al. (2011). Has the Earth's sixth mass extinction already arrived?Nature, 471, 51–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2007). The American mink in Europe: status, impacts, and control. Biol. Conserv., 134, 470–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Resolving Human–Wildlife Conflicts: The Science of Wildlife Damage Management. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
(1990). Status and conservation needs of the wolf (Canis lupus) in the Council of Europe member states (No. 47). Council of Europe.Google Scholar
(2010). Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Anim. Conserv., 13, 458–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2010). Stakeholder participation in environmental knowledge production. Futures, 42, 254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2011). Wildlife conflict resolution: a review of problems, solutions and regulation in England. Wildl. Res., 37, 731–748.Google Scholar
(1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
, and (2004). Long-term population changes among breeding shorebirds in the Outer Hebrides, Scotland, in relation to introduced hedgehogs (Erinaceus europeus). Biol. Conserv., 117, 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2004). Concepts for exploring the social aspects of human–wildlife conflict in a global context. Hum. Dimens. Wildl., 9, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2007). Conservation and Sustainable Use: A Handbook of Techniques. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1996). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. Second edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
(2014). The reintroduction of the white-tailed sea eagle to Ireland: people and wildlife. Land Use Pol., 38, 129–137.Google Scholar
, , , and (2010). Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlife conflict. Conserv. Lett., 3, 74–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, et al. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol. Evol., 28, 100–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, and (2014). Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human– wildlife conflict. Oryx, doi: 1001017/S0030605314000799.Google Scholar
, and (2007). Living with wildlife: the roots of conflict and the solutions. In Key Topics in Conservation Biology, eds. and , pp. 266–272. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
and (2008). Hen harriers and red grouse: science, politics and human–wildlife conflict. J. Appl. Ecol., 45, 1550–1554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2009). The human dimensions of conflicts with wildlife around protected areas. In Wildlife and Society: The Science of Human Dimensions, eds. , , , and , pp. 214–228. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
and (2003). Human–carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conserv. Biol., 17, 1491–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2001). The recovery, distribution, and population dynamics of wolves on the Scandinavian peninsula, 1978–1998. Can. J. Zool., 79, 710–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2012). Comment: Uist hedgehogs – lessons learnt in wildlife management. Br. Wildl., 24, 111–116.Google Scholar
and (2010). Interdisciplinary approaches for the management of existing and emerging human–wildlife conflicts. Wildl. Res., 37, 623–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2006). How to select instruments for the resolution of environmental conflicts?Land Use Pol., 23, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000). Predators and people: using human densities to interpret declines of large carnivores. Anim. Conserv., 3, 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (eds) (2005). People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, et al. (2010). The emergence of biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: characteristics and management strategies. Biodivers. Conserv., 19, 3973–3990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, et al. (2013). Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation? Biol. Conserv., 158, 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 29
- Cited by