Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Conflicts between humans over wildlife management: on the diversity of stakeholder attitudes and implications for conflict management

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conflicts involving wildlife are, in essence, often conflicts between human parties with differing wildlife management objectives. However, the study and management of wildlife conflicts often focuses on the ecological context without addressing disagreements between people over these objectives. This research uses quantitative approaches to examine actors’ views on a complex wildlife-related conflict: a raptor of conservation concern that impacts on game-bird management. Four dominant elements of the debate emerged from initial semi-structured interviews: perceptions of conflict related issues; perceptions of each other; perceived barriers to consensus within the debate; and assessment of proposed practical management solutions. A quantitative survey that built on these elements demonstrates the degree to which perceptions differ between groups and how local variation in these elements may be obscured in a regional or national level debate. The findings emphasise the importance of understanding the social issues involved in wildlife related conflicts if management aims are to be agreed and achieved.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

UK:

United Kingdom

RSPB:

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

RSG:

Raptor study group

SNH:

Scottish Natural Heritage

PCA:

Principal Component Analysis

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

SPA:

Special protection area

SEERAD:

Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department

References

  • Bagchi S, Mishra C (2006) Living with large carnivores: predation on livestock by the snow leopard (Uncia uncia). J Zool 268:217–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett E, Neiland A, Anang E, Bannerman P, Rahman AA, Huq S, Bhuiya S, Day M, Fulford-Gardiner M, Clerveaux W (2001) Towards a better understanding of conflict management in tropical fisheries: evidence from Ghana, Bangladesh and the Caribbean. Mar Pol 25:365–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cihar M, Stankova J (2006) Attitudes of stakeholders towards the Podyii/Thaya River Basin National Park in the Czech Republic. J Env Man 81(3):273–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayton S, Brook A (2005) Can psychology help save the world? A model for conservation psychology. Anal Soc Issues Public Policy 5:87–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conover M (2002) Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: the science of wildlife damage management. Lewis Publishers CRC Press Company Boca Raton Florida, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Endter-Wada J, Blahna D, Krannich R, Brunson M (1998) A framework for understanding social science contributions to ecosystem management. Ecol Appl 8:891–904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etheridge B, Summers RW, Green RE (1997) The effects of illegal killing and destruction of nests by humans on the population dynamics of the hen harrier Circus cyaneus in Scotland. J Appl Ecol 34:1081–1105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham K, Beckerman AP, Thirgood SJ (2005) Human–predator–prey conflicts: ecological correlates, prey losses and patterns of management. Biol Cons 122(2):159–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maguire LA, Boiney LG (1994) Resolving environmental disputes: a framework incorporating decision analysis and dispute resolution techniques. J Env Man 42:31–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marker LL, Mills MGL, MacDonald DW (2003) Factors influencing perceptions of conflict and tolerance toward cheetahs on Namibian farmlands. Cons Biol 17(5):1290–1298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mascia MB, Brosius JP, Dobson TA, Forbes BC, Horowitz L, McKean MA, Turner NJ (2003) Conservation and the social sciences (Editorial). Cons Biol 17(3):649–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packer JJ, Birks JDS (1999) An assessment of British farmers’ and gamekeepers’ experiences, attitudes and practices in relation to the European polecatMustela putorius. Mammal Rev 29(2):75–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redpath SM (1991) The impact of hen harriers on red grouse breeding success. J Appl Ecol 28:659–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redpath SM, Thirgood SJ, Leckie FM (2001) Does supplementary feeding reduce predation of red grouse by hen harriers?. J Appl Ecol 38:1157–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redpath SM, Arroyo BE, Leckie FM, Bacon P, Bayfield N, Gutiérrez RJ, Thirgood SJ (2004) Using decision modeling with stakeholders to reduce human-wildlife conflict: a Raptor-Grouse case study. Cons Biol 18(2):350–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Env Sci Pol 7:385–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schenk A, Hunziker M, Kienast F (2007) Factors influencing the acceptance of nature conservation measures – a qualitative study in Switzerland. J Env Man 83(1):66–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidaway R (2005) Resolving environmental disputes. From conflict to consensus. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg S, Bar-On D (2002) An analysis of the group process in encounters between Jews and Palestinians using a typology for discourse classification. Int J Intercultural Rel 26:199–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoll-Kleemann S (2001) Barriers to nature conservation in Germany: a model explaining opposition to protected areas. J Env Psychol 21:369–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thirgood S, Redpath S, Newton I, Hudson P (2000) Raptors and red Grouse: conservation conflicts and management solutions. Cons Biol 14(1):95–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thirgood SJ, Redpath SM, Campbell S, Smith A (2002) Do habitat characteristics influence predation on red grouse? J Appl Ecol 39(2):217–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valkama J, Korpimaki E, Arroyo B, Beja P, Bretagnolle V, Bro E, Kenward R, Manosa S, Redpath SM, Thirgood S, Vinuela J (2005) Birds of prey as limiting factors of gamebird populations in Europe: a review. Biol Rev 80(2):171–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whitfield DP, McLeod DRA, Watson J, Fielding AH, Haworth PF (2003) The association of grouse moor in Scotland with the illegal use of poisons to control predators. Biol Cons 114:157–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittmer H, Rauschmeyer F, Klauer B (2006) How to select instruments for the resolution of environmental conflicts? Land Use Pol 23:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A (2005) People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Yasmi Y, Schanz H, Salim A (2006) Manifestation of conflict escalation in natural resource management. Env Sci Pol 9:538–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ybarra O, Ramón AC (2004) Diagnosing the difficulty of conflict resolution between individuals from the same and different social groups. J Exp Soc Psych 40:815–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young J, Watt A, Nowicki P, Alard D, Clitherow J, Henle K, Johnson R, Laczko E, McCracken D, Matouch S, Niemela J, Richards C (2005) Towards sustainable land use: identifying and managing conflicts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe. Biodiv Cons 14:1641–1661

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the British Natural Environment Research Council as part of the UK Population Biology Network, Sustainable Livelihoods Programme, Project 3b, and the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD). The authors would like to thank Steve Redpath and Stefano Fiorini for comments on earlier versions of the manuscript, and Jamie Watt for transcriptions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Socioeconomics Group, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Craigiebuckler Drive, Aberdeen, AB15 8QH, UK

    Keith Marshall & Anke Fischer

  2. School of Geography and Geosciences, University of St. Andrews, St Andrews, UK

    Rehema White

Authors
  1. Keith Marshall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rehema White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anke Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith Marshall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marshall, K., White, R. & Fischer, A. Conflicts between humans over wildlife management: on the diversity of stakeholder attitudes and implications for conflict management. Biodivers Conserv 16, 3129–3146 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9167-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9167-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation