Chapter 10 explores the dynamics of polarization, identity, and the rejection of evidence in conflicts over biodiversity. It emphasizes how the dismissal of evidence and science has led to entrenched positions and identity-based divisions, where parties become polarized, refusing to engage with opposing views. The chapter uses examples like the trophy hunting debate and ‘flat-earthers’ to illustrate how deeply held beliefs, even when counter to facts, become part of one’s identity. It also discusses how social media amplifies and accelerates polarization, turning conflicts into more extreme, identity-driven battles. Reconciliation in these cases requires acknowledging different truths and using dialogue to bridge divides. The chapter underscores the importance of empathy, listening, and understanding in resolving highly polarized conflicts, where evidence alone is not enough.

Chapter 1 discusses the nature of conflict within biodiversity conservation, emphasizing that protecting nature inevitably involves addressing conflicts over access, benefits, and wildlife management. Such conflicts, often driven by historical, social, and cultural differences, can escalate into complex and prolonged struggles. Human–wildlife conflicts, for instance, are disagreements between people exacerbated by fears, perceptions, and underlying social tensions. The chapter stresses the importance of conflict resolution skills for conservation scientists, who are often unprepared to handle these complex situations. Addressing biodiversity conflicts holistically is essential to protect both nature and local communities’ rights, ensuring fair and equitable access to resources. It concludes by emphasizing the need for foresight and interdisciplinary approaches to prevent and manage conflicts, making long-term conservation efforts sustainable.

In the field of human dimensions of wildlife, managing the complexity of different perspectives on the natural environment is essential for achieving conservation outcomes. The aim of multiparty mediation is to find common ground and solutions over seemingly irreconcilable issues. While mediated processes to support this aim have been implemented in some cases, the full potential of mediation for conflict management is far from fully explored. This is partly due to a lack of opportunities to learn and specialize in this specific field and missing funding and setting up well-defined processes. Three needs to unfold the potential of mediation in human-wildlife conflict (HWC) scenarios to coexistence were identified by the Environmental Mediation Initiative (EMI): (1) an online platform for the search for multiparty mediation by neutral third parties, (2) sharing and transferring knowledge and building capacity within multiparty mediation and (3) targeted funding for the support by mediators.

Jaguars (Panthera onca) are highly sensitive to persecution, habitat loss, and fragmentation, making the identification of suitable habitat critical for conservation planning. Using GPS telemetry data from 172 individuals across seven countries – the largest jaguar dataset to date – we developed multiscale Resource Selection Functions (RSFs) incorporating 15 environmental covariates to model habitat suitability across the species’ historic range. Jaguars selected productive habitats near water and strongly avoided human-modified landscapes, including areas with high human population density and livestock presence. The resulting habitat suitability surface showed strong predictive performance (AUC = 0.88; Boyce Index = 0.91) and correlated with known density estimates and distribution models. Jaguar Conservation Units (JCUs) and Protected Areas (PAs) contained 68.7

Negative human-elephant interactions (HEI) present a significant threat to the long-term conservation of Asian elephant populations and negatively impact the psychological well-being of local communities. The Brahmagiri-Nilgiri Eastern Ghats complex in Kerala is a key landscape for Asian elephant conservation and supports the largest single breeding population across their range. However, negative encounters between people and elephants are increasing in frequency and have become a prominent cause for concern. Despite this, the use of predictive distribution models to map the spatio-temporal patterns of human-elephant interactions across the landscape remains poorly explored. Compiling 1942 individual conflict incidents from compensation records, we dynamically extracted 16 ecological and anthropogenic variables identified in the literature as important drivers of interactions between people and Asian elephants. Using an ensemble modelling framework incorporating 10 algorithms, we constructed predictive distribution models for the wet and dry seasons from 2011 to 2023 to map the spatiotemporal distribution of regions at consistent risk of negative human-elephant interactions. Final consensus models achieved a mean accuracy of 0.91 (AUC) and 0.73 (TSS) respectively and suggested that the top predictor in influencing interactions is human population density. Regions within and adjacent to the Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuaries (I and II) have the highest predicted likelihood of interactions, however risk-level differs according to season. During the dry season, areas including Kidanganad, Nulpuzha, and Pulpalli, within the Kurichiat, Muthanga, and Sulthan Battery Forest ranges, were identified as having the largest land area at risk. Conversely during the wet season, the Tirunelli and Trisshaleri areas in the Tholpetty forest range demonstrated the highest risk. Results provide valuable insights to inform effective mitigation strategies at the landscape-level.

Understanding the ‘human dimensions of wildlife’ – how humans value wildlife, how they affect and are affected by wildlife, and what triggers people to be willing to live with a translocated species – are the first building blocks and vital steps towards the long-term success of a conservation translocation project. However, to be fully meaningful, the understanding of the human dimensions needs to be nested in a social engagement process, which has too often been overlooked or poorly designed by conservation practitioners. A well-developed engagement process has the power to increase the transparency, credibility, and legitimacy of a decision-making process, thus fostering support for a conservation policy, plan, or project – including a conservation translocation. Nevertheless, planning and running a tailored engagement process are not the final steps. Reporting back and evaluating the process is key to ensuring the success of any public involvement. Such an approach keeps the public engaged over time, increases transparency, and legitimises the decision-making process. ‘One size fits all’ stakeholder engagement approaches typically fail to reflect the specific needs of the unique social dynamics within the system and fall short of reconciliation of the relationships, and disentanglement of the deeper roots of conflict. The ‘Levels of Conflict’ model is one tool used to orientate conservation practitioners and stakeholders to the types and depths of conflict in a given situation. Conservation conflicts are microcosms of larger societal conflicts, and conservation conflict transformation (CCT) provides a way of thinking about, understanding, and actively addressing such conflicts. Practitioners of CCT consider disputes as opportunities to constructively engage with the underlying relationships, decision-making processes, and social systems to create an enabling social environment for effective, lasting, broadly supported conservation efforts.

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the 'Save PDF' action button.

Conservation decision is a challenging and risky task when it aims at prioritizing species or protected areas (PAs) to prevent extinction while ensuring fair treatment of all stakeholders. Better conservation decisions are those made upon a broader evidence base that includes both ecological and social considerations. However, in some of the most biodiverse ecosystems on Earth — tropical forests, for instance — multicriteria decision-making has been constrained by the following (i) ecological and social datasets available have been obtained in an independent, non-integrated manner, with social data typically more scarce than ecological ones, and (ii) capacity in social and/or interdisciplinary data analysis among decision-maker is limited. We describe a conservation prioritization exercise that combined findings from independent ecological and social research conducted in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest, and propose methods to integrate, analyze and visualize data. We found that the outcomes based on combined ecological and social research findings were, in some cases, different from those based on any of these lines of evidence alone. Indeed, the input from relatively basic social research significantly changed the outcomes of decision-making based on the results of ecological research. Results corroborate the importance and cost-effectiveness of broadening the interdisciplinary evidence base for conservation decision-making, even when social data is scarce and analytical capacity is limited.

Department of Geography, Birkbeck, University of London, London, United Kingdom, 2 School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Scottsville, South Africa, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim, Norway, 4 Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Department of Forestry and Wildlife Management, Koppang, Norway, 5 Faculty of Humanities, Oslo School of Environmental Humanities, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, 6 Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, Mathematical, Physical and Life Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

The conservation field has evolved to include an understanding of human values and attitudes toward wildlife; however, there is still too little emphasis on, and prioritization of, building understanding of the complex and context-specific social conflicts among people and groups involved with or impacted by conservation actions, including translocation. Both foci add value, but the latter is critical for building receptivity for conservation efforts and more thoughtfully designing appropriate context-specific processes for stakeholder engagement and shared decision-making. A deeper analysis of the social conflict dynamics involving the human relationships among individuals and groups engaged in a conservation conflict is needed as a first step in paving the way for the long-term success of conservation projects. Using a “Levels of Conflict” model offers a starting place for the analysis of social conflict often underpinning conservation translocation efforts. Further, we recommend employing a Conservation Conflict Transformation approach when considering conservation translocations to ensure that stakeholder engagement processes sufficiently engage the system, reconcile deep-rooted conflict among those involved and offer the best chance for shared progress and conservation success.

Conservation BiologyVolume 35, Issue 4 p. 1331-1333 COMMENT Use of ex situ management not necessarily a last resort: reply to Khalatbari et al. 2021 Mohammad S. Farhadinia, Corresponding Author Mohammad S. Farhadinia mohammad.farhadinia@zoo.ox.ac.uk orcid.org/0000-0002-5385-6254 Oxford Martin School and Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Correspondence Mohammad S. Farhadinia, Oxford Martin School and Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, 34 Broad St, Oxford OX1 3BD, UK. Email: mohammad.farhadinia@zoo.ox.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this authorPaul J. Johnson, Paul J. Johnson Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKSearch for more papers by this authorAlexandra Zimmermann, Alexandra Zimmermann orcid.org/0000-0002-4371-3997 Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK North of England Zoological Society (Chester Zoo), Chester, UKSearch for more papers by this authorPhilip J. K. McGowan, Philip J. K. McGowan School of Biology, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UKSearch for more papers by this authorErik Meijaard, Erik Meijaard Borneo Futures, Brunei, DarussalamSearch for more papers by this authorMark Stanley-Price, Mark Stanley-Price Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Abingdon, UKSearch for more papers by this authorDavid W. Macdonald, David W. Macdonald Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Abingdon, UKSearch for more papers by this author Mohammad S. Farhadinia, Corresponding Author Mohammad S. Farhadinia mohammad.farhadinia@zoo.ox.ac.uk orcid.org/0000-0002-5385-6254 Oxford Martin School and Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Correspondence Mohammad S. Farhadinia, Oxford Martin School and Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, 34 Broad St, Oxford OX1 3BD, UK. Email: mohammad.farhadinia@zoo.ox.ac.ukSearch for more papers by this authorPaul J. Johnson, Paul J. Johnson Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UKSearch for more papers by this authorAlexandra Zimmermann, Alexandra Zimmermann orcid.org/0000-0002-4371-3997 Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK North of England Zoological Society (Chester Zoo), Chester, UKSearch for more papers by this authorPhilip J. K. McGowan, Philip J. K. McGowan School of Biology, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UKSearch for more papers by this authorErik Meijaard, Erik Meijaard Borneo Futures, Brunei, DarussalamSearch for more papers by this authorMark Stanley-Price, Mark Stanley-Price Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Abingdon, UKSearch for more papers by this authorDavid W. Macdonald, David W. Macdonald Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Abingdon, UKSearch for more papers by this author First published: 23 June 2021 https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13788 Article impact statement: : Conservationists, mindful of perils of procrastination, should not wait for in situ actions to fail before considering ex situ solutions. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume35, Issue4August 2021Pages 1331-1333 RelatedInformation

Abstract Coexistence of people and large carnivores depends on a complex combination of factors that vary geographically. Both the number and range of the Asiatic lion Panthera leo leo in the Greater Gir landscape, India, has increased since the 1990s. The challenge has been managing the success of conservation, with a particular focus on the spillover population ranging extensively in human-dominated landscapes. To understand the factors conducive to lion survival in this landscape, we undertook an interview-based survey. Overall, people expressed positive, tolerant attitudes towards lions. There was a distinct contrast between people's liking for lions (76.9% of respondents) compared to leopards (27.7%) in spite of greater depredation of livestock by lions (82.6%) than by leopards (17.4%). Younger people and respondents having greater awareness regarding lions expressed positive attitudes. Although community discussions on lions had a positive effect, there was no evidence that land-holding, management interventions, personal encounters with lions, or association of lions with religion affected attitudes. Respondents who had experienced livestock depredation tended to express negative attitudes. Respondents with positive attitudes towards lions favoured non-interventionist strategies for managing lions in the village areas. We advocate consideration of varied factors influencing tolerance of wildlife in conservation planning. We emphasize that site-specific human–wildlife conflict issues such as crop-foraging by wild ungulates and variation in attitudes towards different species should also be considered. Specifically, improved livestock management, motivation of local youth and their participation in awareness campaigns could all further strengthen the prevalent positive attitudes towards lions.

Understanding coexistence between humans and threatened wildlife is a central focus in conservation. Way Kambas National Park in Sumatra Island, Indonesia, harbors one of the largest populations of the critically endangered Sumatran elephant ( Elephas maximus sumatranus ). The people who live alongside this population are affected by intensive crop foraging. Our study investigated the factors which influenced attitudes toward elephants. We then evaluated the implications of reported attitudes for future willingness to live with elephants. We surveyed 660 respondents in 22 villages around the park. People generally reported positive attitudes toward elephants (smartness 95%, usefulness 62%, importance 57%, and pleasantness 53%), apart from where human safety was concerned (safety 11%). Each dimension of attitude was explained by different factors including age, gender, knowledge of elephants, and distance to crop foraging locations. Most respondents (62%) expressed no willingness to coexist with elephants. Such willingness was lower when elephants were perceived to be more dangerous, but higher if beliefs in the benefits of elephants were greater. Efforts to improve crop foraging mitigation practice and to increase people's awareness of elephant benefits may promote support for their conservation. Through this study, we advocate the integration of social science to promote human–wildlife coexistence strategies, an approach that is currently limited in Indonesia.

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the 'Save PDF' action button.

Throughout their range, jaguars (Panthera onca) are persecuted for killing livestock, posing a widespread and serious threat to their survival. Human-jaguar conflict occurs across a very large variety of geographic, agronomic and socio-economic contexts and across heterogeneous communities. We conducted seventeen case studies across seven countries in central and south America to search for patterns in socio-economic predictors of human-jaguar conflict that could help up-scale management of this range-wide jaguar conservation challenge. Our study revealed that within and across case studies there were considerable differences in farmers' education levels, economic dependence on livestock, personal experience with livestock losses, as well as tolerance of and attitudes and social norms towards jaguars. Among this diversity, we sought common predictors of tolerance of jaguars, but found that no quantifiable single contextual factor could be used to predict how farmers perceive jaguars and deal with depredation. While patterns did exist within individual case studies, none of these were consistent across a majority of cases. We conclude that observations of patterns in human-wildlife conflict are valid only for informing action at a local scale, and even if a small number of case studies appear to show similar patterns this does not make the observation universally true. It is important to remember not to generalise from case studies. Nevertheless, although each case is likely to require individual solutions, insights from aggregate or wide-range studies can provide insights into the range of possible scenarios, adding breadth of information to depth of local knowledge.

Coexistence, as a concept and as a management goal and practice, has attracted increasing attention from researchers, managers and decision-makers dedicated to understanding and improving human-wildlife interactions. Although it still lacks a universally agreed definition, coexistence has increasingly been associated with a broad spectrum of human-wildlife interactions, including positive interactions, transcending a conservation focus on endangered wildlife, and involving explicitly considerations of power, equity and justice. In a growingly complex and interconnected human-dominated world, the key to turning human-wildlife interactions into large-scale coexistence is thorough planning. We present an approach for evidence-based, structured, and participatory decision-making in planning for human-wildlife coexistence. More specifically, we propose (i) a conceptual framework for describing the situation and setting the goals, (ii) a process for examining the causes of the situation and creating a theory of change, and (iii) a model for transdisciplinary research and collaboration integrating researchers, decision-makers and residents along with the interests of wildlife. To illustrate the approach, we report on the workshop considering the Jaguars of Iguaçu, a conservation project whose strategy includes the improvement of the relationship between ranchers and jaguars outside Iguaçu National Park, Brazil.

The persistence of endangered species may depend on the fate of a very small number of individual animals. In situ conservation alone may sometimes be insufficient. In these instances, the International Union for Conservation of Nature provides guidelines for ex situ conservation and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) indicates how ex situ management can support the CBD's objectives by providing insurance policies for species. The circumstances that justify its use are uncertain. To evaluate the current in situ extinction risk and ex situ management of 43 critically endangered species of mammalian megafauna, we used nonmetric multidimensional scaling and geopolitical variables related to governance, economics, and national policy within their extant ranges. We then fitted generalized additive models to assess the contribution of each variable to the ordination. Fifteen (almost one-third) of the world's terrestrial mammalian megafauna are not the subject of any ex situ management. Seventy-three percent of these taxa occur in areas characterized by political uncertainty, such as border zones or areas affected by armed conflicts, mainly in Africa and the Middle East. A further 23% of taxa in ex situ programs do not meet sustainability criteria for inbreeding avoidance. Strategic conservation planning, such as the One Plan approach, may improve ex situ management for these taxa. Given the escalating trend in threats afflicting megafauna, ex situ management should be considered more rigorously, particularly in politically unstable regions, to achieve CBD Target 12 (prevent extinction of threatened species).

Abstract Human–wildlife conflicts are complex and defy simple explanations and solutions. The fields of conflict analysis and peacebuilding offer insights into the intensity, intractability, and possible approaches to addressing different kinds of conflict. Building on these fields, as well as advances in conservation practice, we adapt a framework for human–wildlife conflict that consists of three levels of conflict over wildlife: Level 1 conflicts are disputes over issues such as crop or livestock loss or concerns about safety, yet typically involve relatively high tolerance of the damage‐inducing species. In level 2 conflicts, in addition to visible impact of wildlife, there is a history of unsatisfactory attempts to address these issues, creating underlying resentment, tensions, and a sense of injustice among at least one of the parties. Level 3 conflicts are deep‐rooted and become intertwined with the identities of the parties and community involved, and extend to broader tensions over social identities and clashing values and beliefs. Such conflicts require mediated reconciliation dialogues and conflict transformation approaches. A structured understanding how to address a conflict before it escalates to a deeper level is fundamental for managing conservation challenges as complex and dynamic as conflicts over wildlife.

Between 1910 and 2010, range-wide tiger populations plummeted from around 100,000 to an estimated 3,200. Poaching, habitat destruction and human-wildlife conflict have all contributed to this dramatic decrease. In Nepal, the Bardia-Banke Complex, consisting of Bardia National Park (BNP) and Banke National Park (BaNP) and their buffer-zones, is a critical habitat to the Bengal tiger Panthera tigris. Conservation efforts in recent decades have contributed to increasing the tiger population. Despite this increase, no human fatalities associated with human-tiger conflict were reported in the decade prior to 2019: a crucial feature of conservation success. In 2019, ten reported human-tiger incidents resulted in seven human fatalities, three people badly injured, and one tiger taken into captivity. The question of why conflicts involving humans and tigers have suddenly increased requires urgent answers to inform future policy. The development and implementation of case-specific coexistence strategies is a prerequisite to the conservation of this iconic species. This paper explores the complex unintended consequences of conservation success and critically evaluates the circumstances that may explain this recent surge in human deaths and injuries.