Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 July 2018 | 10(8): 12082–12085

 

 

The term human-wildlife conflict creates more problems than it resolves: better labels should be considered

 

Priya Davidar

 

Sigur Nature Trust, Chadapatti, Mavinhalla P.O., Nilgiris, Tamil Nadu 643223, India

pdavidar@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

Abstract: A critique of the extensive use of the term human-wildlife conflict to describe a variety of situations involving wildlife.

 

Keywords:  Anthropocene, forest fringes, human-wildlife conflict, species extinction, terminology.

 

 

 

 

 

doi: http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4319.10.8.12082-12085

 

Editor: Mewa Singh, University of Mysore, Mysuru, India.      Date of publication: 26 July 2018 (online & print)

 

Manuscript details: Ms # 4319 | Received 07 June 2018 | Finally accepted 22 June 2018

 

Citation: Davidar, P. (2018). The term human-wildlife conflict creates more problems than it resolves: better labels should be considered. Journal of Threatened Taxa 10(8): 12082–12085; http://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4319.10.8.12082-12085

 

Copyright: © Davidar 2018. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and distribution by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.

 

Funding: None.

 

Competing interests: The author declares no competing interests.

 

Author Details: Priya Davidar is a conservation biologist working on forest ecology, pollination biology and endangered species conservation. She retired as a Professor at the Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences , Pondicherry University. Her current project is analysing tree distributions at the biogeographical scale, and the conservation genetics of endangered species such as the Asian Elephant and Nilgiri Tahr

 

Acknowledgements: I thank Dr. Jean-Philippe Puyravaud for insights into this debate.

 

 

 

 

 

Humans have had an uneasy relationship with wild animals since the dawn of human evolution as they preyed upon, were prey, and competed with wild animals (Knight 2013).  As human populations dispersed across the globe during the Late Quaternary they were the main driver of the extinction of large mammalian fauna (Bartlett et al. 2016).  For example, human dispersal into North America during the Pleistocene probably caused the extinction of 35 genera of mammals (Faith & Surovell 2009).  Sites with mass killing of megafauna by Palaeolithic hunters have been documented across continents (Barnosky et al. 2004).

The remnants of this rivalry can be perceived in cultural practices of traditional societies, and cultural beliefs involving dangerous animals such as werewolves, vampires and others which are a metaphor of the pervasive human belief of the ‘beast within’, ‘bestial’, etc.  Violent killing by humans is denounced in the idiom of natural predation where criminals and enemies are termed ‘jackals’, ‘wolves’, etc. (Knight 2013).

This rivalry is closely inter-twined with human expansion into wilderness habitats (Knight 2013).  Even today, this continues, and tends to be the most intense in settlements at the forest edge, in many cases due to colonization of forests by frontier populations (Rudel & Roper 1997).

The modern depiction of this rivalry is termed human-wildlife conflict (HWC), defined by the IUCN World Parks Congress (Madden 2004) as “…when the needs and behavior of wildlife impact negatively on the goals of humans or when the goals of humans negatively impact the needs of wildlife. These conflicts may result when wildlife damage crops, injure or kill domestic animals, threaten or kill people”.

In terms of usage, a conflict is typically defined as ‘an active disagreement between people with opposing opinions or principles; or fighting between two or more groups of people or countries’ (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/conflict, viewed 08–04–2018).

Therefore, HWC suggests ‘conscious antagonism between wildlife and humans’ and implies that wildlife act consciously and often places wildlife entities on an equal footing with people in the role of combatants, even though they cannot represent themselves in the political sphere against people (Raik et al. 2008; Peterson et al. 2010).  The use of this term in which wildlife are blamed for every encounter or incident places culpability entirely on the wildlife side of the equation, suggesting that wildlife assert their interests to undermine human goals (Woodroffe et al. 2005).  This promotes antagonism towards wildlife that can exacerbate the problem, hinder resolution and can result in people directing their anger, frustration on wildlife with potentially adverse conservation outcomes for endangered species (Peterson et al. 2002; Brook et al. 2003; Redpath et al. 2015).  Besides the HWC approach is often ineffective because it has led to purely technical solutions being proposed that may have worked in particular circumstances but have not addressed the underlying issues (Redpath et al. 2015).  For example translocating wildlife to resolve ‘conflicts’ has often failed to achieve its objectives due to lack of understanding of the species’ behaviour and/or the underlying issues (Athreya et al. 2011).  Often the increasing human population densities and expansion into forest areas that result in such incidents (Newmark et al. 1994) are not addressed.

To the best of my knowledge, the earliest reference to ‘conflict’ between wild animals and humans was in the early 1990s (Sukumar 1991; Newmark et al. 1994).  Before the term ‘conflict’ became popular, more precise terms such as crop raiding and livestock depredation were used to describe incidents involving wildlife (Jhala 1993; Oli et al. 1994).  The use of this term has increased over time: Treves (2009) carried out a Google search based on the keywords “human AND wildlife AND conflict OR depredation OR damage”, and Google Scholar returned 3140 hits between 1992–1999, and 8060 between 2000 and 2007.

Its popularity stems from its simplicity and ease of usage to describe a diversity of situations involving wildlife. Thereby it has become a buzz word used to amplify conservation initiatives, create funding opportunities, increase research productivity and create a sense of urgency that limits the array of potential solutions that may arise when the situation is more accurately described (Peterson et al. 2010).  In many cases the damage or threat is exaggerated for gains, for example, in Japan the scale of concern over bears greatly exceeds the actual damage done by the animals (Knight 2013).

To understand in what context this term human-wildlife conflict is used in conservation literature, Peterson et al. (2010) carried out a meta-analysis of 422 case studies of HWC and found that over 95% of the 422 cases referred to animal damage in some form to (i) resources such as food, (ii) property, or (iii) attacks on people.  Only one case represented a typical example of ‘conflict’ where there was human retaliation against Magpies (Cracticus tibicen) that repeatedly attacked specific humans that they considered threats (Warne & Jones 2003).  Less than 4% related to human-human conflict such as those between conservationists and other parties on how wildlife should be managed (Peterson et al. 2010).

Thus human conflicts are often projected onto wildlife (Knight 2013), and may in fact be a symbolic vehicle for expression of social conflict between people at the local, national and international levels, such as between conservation movements and developers or between people and protected area management termed ‘human-state conflict’ (Knight 2013).  In Japan, widespread concern about the bear is balanced by local support for the bear, based on the premise that given the extent of human colonisation into bear territory, it is humans that are problematic with regard to the bear and not vice versa (Knight 2013).  These human-human conflicts need to be distinguished from human-wildlife impacts.

Therefore, more precise description of the issue at hand may lead to better solutions.  For instance crop raiding is a widespread problem in forest fringe areas where the cultivation of edible crops attracts wild herbivores. When crop raiding is described as crop raiding instead of as ‘conflict’ then better solutions may emerge depending on the location, the crops cultivated and the herbivores in question. Whereas the conflict terminology is provocative and emotional which could create more problem than it solves, particularly if sensationalised by the media (Bhatia et al. 2013; Redpath et al. 2013).  In many cases rodents and monkeys cause more economic loss to people than large mammals such as bears, elephants and the great apes which take a disproportionate amount of the blame (Knight 2013).

 Therefore in the Anthropocene, where the rate of species extinction is accelerating (Sanderson et al. 2002; Barnosky et al. 2011) there is a growing realization that humans need to move beyond their past history which has framed the narrative regarding wildlife.  Finding ways to increase tolerance and coexistence with wildlife (Madden 2004) is needed to slow down the population declines of iconic megafauna.  If not, future generations will no longer have the privilege of sharing their world with large charismatic animals.  There are many examples of human tolerance to wildlife and acceptance of certain levels of loss of crops and livestock (Knight 2013).  To protect human interests, however, innovative solutions need to be explored in forest fringe areas to ameliorate the situation.

This term which is problematic, semantically incorrect and which masks the underlying complexities of particular situations, needs to be avoided.  It is well known that language is a powerful tool that can intensify biases towards ethnic groups, genders or minorities (Keeley 2011).  Therefore the terminology that we apply will make a difference to whether a species survives or disappears forever.

 

 

Human-wildlife conflict is described as “when the needs and behavior of wildlife impact negatively on the goals of humans or when the goals of humans negatively impact the needs of wildlife. These conflicts may result when wildlife damage crops, injure or kill domestic animals, threaten or kill people” (Madden 2004). However, presenting wildlife in an antagonistic, anthropocentric and indiscriminate manner harms conservation of these species (Redpath et al. 2013). The usage of the term ‘conflict’ should be minimized and replaced with accurate terms instead. We propose an example of non-exhaustive list of terms, listed alphabetically that can be expended and refined.

 

Adequate terms

Indicating

Conservation welfare

Emphasis on ethics and moral responsibility towards species and populations

Animal welfare

Emphasis on ethics and moral responsibility towards individuals

Forestry damage

Damages to tree plantations

Crop damage

Damages to agriculture or horticulture crops by invertebrates

Crop raiding

Damages to agriculture or horticulture crop by wild vertebrates

Property damage

Damages to houses, fences, walls, pipes and electrical lines

Livestock predation

Predation of livestock by carnivores

Snake bite

Bites by venomous snakes

Animal attack

Accidental or deliberate attack on people, excluding man-eating incidents

Human predation

Documented man-eating by carnivores

Human-wildlife coexistence

Promotion of wildlife conservation and human needs by terminology that is less antagonistic

Human-wildlife commensalism

Wildlife such as snakes that are of indirect benefit to humans by controlling pests

Human-wildlife competition

How humans and wildlife compete for resources

Human-wildlife tolerance

How humans and wildlife avoid competition

Human attack

Deliberate attack on animals by humans

Dispute over protection

Conflict over protected area management and people – instead of human-state conflict

Stakeholders dispute

Disputes between stakeholders on how to manage wildlife, social issues – instead of human-human conflict

 

 

 

References

 

Athreya, V., M. Odden, J.D. Linnell & K.U. Karanth (2011). Translocation as a tool for mitigating conflict with leopards in human-dominated landscapes of India. Conservation Biology 25: 133–141.

Barnosky, A.D., P.L. Koch, R.S. Feranec, S.L. Wing & A.B. Shabel (2004). Assessing the causes of Late Pleistocene extinctions on the continents. Science 306: 70–75; http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1101476  

Barnosky, A.D., N. Matzke, S. Tomiya, G.O. Wogan, B. Swartz, T.B. Quental, C. Marshall, J.L. McGuire, E.L. Lindsey, K.C. Maguire & B. Mersey (2011). Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 47: 51; http://doi.org/10.1038/nature09678

Bhatia, S., V. Athreya, R. Grenyer & D.W. Macdonald (2013). Understanding the role of representations of human-leopard conflict in Mumbai through media-content analysis. Conservation Biology 27: 588–594; http://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12037

Bartlett, L.J., D.R. Williams, G.W. Prescott, A. Balmford, R.E. Green, A. Eriksson, P.J. Valdes, J.S. Singarayer & A. Manica (2016). Robustness despite uncertainty: regional climate data reveal the dominant role of humans in explaining global extinctions of Late Quaternary megafauna. Ecography 39: 152–161; http://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.01566

Brook, A., M. Zint & R. De Young (2003). Landowners’ responses to an endangered species act listing and implications for encouraging conservation. Conservation Biology 17: 1638–1649; http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523–1739.2003.00258.x

 Faith, J.T. & T.A. Surovell (2009). Synchronous extinction of North America’s Pleistocene mammals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 20641–20645; http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908153106

Jhala, Y.V. (1993). Damage to sorghum crop by blackbuck. International Journal of Pest Management 39: 23–27; http://doi.org/10.1080/09670879309371754

Keely, K. (2011). Dangerous words: recognizing the power of language by researching derogatory terms. The English Journal 100: 55–60.

Knight, J. (2013). Natural Enemies: People-Wildlife Conflicts in Anthropological Perspective. Routledge.

Madden, F. (2004). Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to address human-wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9: 247–257; http://doi.org/10.1080/10871200490505675

Newmark, W.D., D.N. Manyanza, D.M. Gamassa & H.I. Sariko (1994). The conflict between wildlife and local people living adjacent to protected areas in Tanzania: human density as predictor. Conservation Biology 8: 249–255.

Oli, M., I.R. Taylor & M.E. Rogers (1994). Snow Leopard Panthera uncia predation of livestock: an assessment of local perceptions in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Biological Conservation 68: 63–68.

Peterson, M.N., J.L. Birckhead, K. Leong, M.J. Peterson & T.R. Peterson (2010). Rearticulating the myth of human-wildlife conflict. Conservation Letters 3: 74–82; http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755–263X.2010.00099.x

Peterson, M.N., T.R. Peterson, M.J. Peterson, R.R. Lopez & N.J. Silvy (2002). Cultural conflict and the endangered Florida Key Deer. The Journal of Wildlife Management 66: 947–968; http://doi.org/10.2307/3802928

Raik, D.B., A.L. Wilson & D.J. Decker (2008). Power in natural resources management: an application of theory. Society and Natural Resources 21: 729–739.

Redpath, S.M., J. Young, A. Evely, W.M. Adams, W.J. Sutherland, A. Whitehouse, A. Amar, R.A. Lambert, J.D. Linnell, A. Watt & R.J. Gutierrez (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28: 100–109; http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021

Redpath, S.M., S. Bhatia, & J. Young (2015). Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human-wildlife conflict. Oryx 49: 222–225; http://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605314000799

Rudel, T. & J. Roper (1997). The paths to rainforest destruction: cross-national patterns of tropical deforestation, 1975–90. World Development 25: 53–65; http://doi.org/10.1016/S0305–750X(96)00086-1

Sanderson, E.W., M. Jaiteh, M.A. Levy, K.H. Redford, A.V. Wannebo & G. Woolmer (2002). The human footprint and the last of the wild: the human footprint is a global map of human influence on the land surface, which suggests that human beings are stewards of nature, whether we like it or not. BioScience 52: 891–904; http://doi.org/10.1641/0006–3568(2002)052[0891:THFATL]2.0.CO;2

Sukumar, R. (1991). The management of large mammals in relation to male strategies and conflict with people. Biological Conservation 55: 93–102; http://doi.org/10.1016/0006–3207(91)90007–V

Treves, A. (2009). The human dimensions of conflicts with wildlife around protected areas, pp. 214–228. In: Manfredo, M. J. (ed.). Wildlife and Society: The Science of Human Dimensions. Island Press.

Warne, R.M. & D.N. Jones (2003). Evidence of target specificity in attacks by Australian magpies on humans. Wildlife Research 30: 265–267; http://doi.org/10.1071/WR01108

Woodroffe, R., S. Thirgood & A. Rabinowitz (2005). The impact of human-wildlife conflict on natural systems, pp. 1–12. In: Woodroffe, R., S. Thirgood & A. Rabinowitz (eds.). People and Wildlife, Conflict or Co–existence? Conservation Biology Series - Cambridge 9.