Tilting at wildlife

reconsidering human-wildlife conflict

Steve M. Redpath, Saloni Bhatia, Juliette Young

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

73 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Conflicts between people over wildlife are widespread and damaging to both the wildlife and people involved. Such issues are often termed human-wildlife conflicts. We argue that this term is misleading and may exacerbate the problems and hinder resolution. A review of 100 recent articles on human-wildlife conflicts reveals that 97 were between conservation and other human activities, particularly those associated with livelihoods. We suggest that we should distinguish between human-wildlife impacts and human-human conflicts and be explicit about the different interests involved in conflict. Those representing conservation interests should not only seek technical solutions to deal with the impacts but also consider their role and objectives, and focus on strategies likely to deliver long-term solutions for the benefit of biodiversity and the people involved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)222-225
Number of pages4
JournalOryx
Volume49
Issue number2
Early online date11 Nov 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2015

Keywords

  • Conflict resolution
  • human-human conflict
  • human-wildlife conflict
  • human-wildlife impact
  • red grouse
  • conservation conflicts
  • biodiversity conflicts
  • hen harriers
  • management
  • media

Cite this

Tilting at wildlife : reconsidering human-wildlife conflict. / Redpath, Steve M.; Bhatia, Saloni; Young, Juliette.

In: Oryx, Vol. 49, No. 2, 04.2015, p. 222-225.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Redpath, Steve M. ; Bhatia, Saloni ; Young, Juliette. / Tilting at wildlife : reconsidering human-wildlife conflict. In: Oryx. 2015 ; Vol. 49, No. 2. pp. 222-225.
@article{2503570d400f4a13b27751bd8af26f07,
title = "Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human-wildlife conflict",
abstract = "Conflicts between people over wildlife are widespread and damaging to both the wildlife and people involved. Such issues are often termed human-wildlife conflicts. We argue that this term is misleading and may exacerbate the problems and hinder resolution. A review of 100 recent articles on human-wildlife conflicts reveals that 97 were between conservation and other human activities, particularly those associated with livelihoods. We suggest that we should distinguish between human-wildlife impacts and human-human conflicts and be explicit about the different interests involved in conflict. Those representing conservation interests should not only seek technical solutions to deal with the impacts but also consider their role and objectives, and focus on strategies likely to deliver long-term solutions for the benefit of biodiversity and the people involved.",
keywords = "Conflict resolution, human-human conflict, human-wildlife conflict, human-wildlife impact, red grouse, conservation conflicts, biodiversity conflicts, hen harriers, management, media",
author = "Redpath, {Steve M.} and Saloni Bhatia and Juliette Young",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1017/S0030605314000799",
language = "English",
volume = "49",
pages = "222--225",
journal = "Oryx",
issn = "0030-6053",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tilting at wildlife

T2 - reconsidering human-wildlife conflict

AU - Redpath, Steve M.

AU - Bhatia, Saloni

AU - Young, Juliette

PY - 2015/4

Y1 - 2015/4

N2 - Conflicts between people over wildlife are widespread and damaging to both the wildlife and people involved. Such issues are often termed human-wildlife conflicts. We argue that this term is misleading and may exacerbate the problems and hinder resolution. A review of 100 recent articles on human-wildlife conflicts reveals that 97 were between conservation and other human activities, particularly those associated with livelihoods. We suggest that we should distinguish between human-wildlife impacts and human-human conflicts and be explicit about the different interests involved in conflict. Those representing conservation interests should not only seek technical solutions to deal with the impacts but also consider their role and objectives, and focus on strategies likely to deliver long-term solutions for the benefit of biodiversity and the people involved.

AB - Conflicts between people over wildlife are widespread and damaging to both the wildlife and people involved. Such issues are often termed human-wildlife conflicts. We argue that this term is misleading and may exacerbate the problems and hinder resolution. A review of 100 recent articles on human-wildlife conflicts reveals that 97 were between conservation and other human activities, particularly those associated with livelihoods. We suggest that we should distinguish between human-wildlife impacts and human-human conflicts and be explicit about the different interests involved in conflict. Those representing conservation interests should not only seek technical solutions to deal with the impacts but also consider their role and objectives, and focus on strategies likely to deliver long-term solutions for the benefit of biodiversity and the people involved.

KW - Conflict resolution

KW - human-human conflict

KW - human-wildlife conflict

KW - human-wildlife impact

KW - red grouse

KW - conservation conflicts

KW - biodiversity conflicts

KW - hen harriers

KW - management

KW - media

U2 - 10.1017/S0030605314000799

DO - 10.1017/S0030605314000799

M3 - Article

VL - 49

SP - 222

EP - 225

JO - Oryx

JF - Oryx

SN - 0030-6053

IS - 2

ER -