Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-4nk8m Total loading time: 0.353 Render date: 2021-10-16T10:24:06.559Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

18 - Conservation conflict transformation: the missing link in conservation

from Part III - Approaches to managing conflicts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

Francine Madden
Affiliation:
Human–Wildlife Conflict Collaboration
Brian McQuinn
Affiliation:
Oxford University
Stephen M. Redpath
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
R. J. Gutiérrez
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Kevin A. Wood
Affiliation:
Bournemouth University
Juliette C. Young
Affiliation:
NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
Get access

Summary

Conservation conflicts are an increasing threat to many species of wildlife around the world (Madden, 2004; Michalski et al., 2006). As we have seen earlier in this book, conservation conflicts often serve as proxies for underlying social conflicts, including struggles over group recognition, empowerment, identity and status (Coate and Rosati, 1988; Burton, 1990; Satterfield, 2002; Madden, 2004; Dickman, 2010; Madden and McQuinn, 2014). Such complexity undermines the receptivity of diverse stakeholders to find common ground that would benefit both people and wildlife. As a result, conservation goals are adversely impacted (Madden, 2004; Redpath et al., 2013). Moreover, conservationists’ lack of explicit capacity to transform these social conflicts further compromises the broader goals of conservation and limits their ability to find resolution and commitment on the substantive issues. Even where stakeholder engagement is acknowledged, recommended or conducted (e.g. Treves et al., 2009; Barlow et al., 2010, Redpath et al., 2013; Box 9), such well-meaning efforts often do not address the full suite of underlying social and psychological conflicts at play, nor do they create the necessary social conditions for positive, transformative change. For instance, if the act of bringing stakeholders together to address wildlife impacts or conservation solutions does not also provide a sufficient process for genuinely improving relationships among individuals, building trust and empowering people early, increasing equitable and inclusive decision-making among stakeholders, even palatable decisions on substantive issues may ultimately be rejected by key stakeholders.

In our work we have adapted an approach to conservation from a niche within peace-building: conflict transformation (CT). At its core, CT conceptualises current disputes as opportunities to constructively change the underlying relationships, decision-making processes and social systems that can serve as a foundation for sustainable conservation action (Lederach et al., 2007; Madden and McQuinn, 2014). In this sense, a CT orientation recognises conflict as a natural, and potentially constructive and creative, part of human interaction. Hence, the transformation of conflict implies that the goal is not necessarily to end conflict, but to harness its ebb and flow as a means to sustain dynamic problem-solving within a given context (Deutsch, 1973; Lederach, 2003).

Type
Chapter
Information
Conflicts in Conservation
Navigating Towards Solutions
, pp. 257 - 270
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, M. B., Olson, L. and Doughty, K. (2003). Confronting War: Critical Lessons for Peace Practitioners. Cambridge, MA: The Collaborative for Development Action.Google Scholar
Barlow, A. C. D., Greenwood, C. J., Ahmad, I. U. and Smith, J. L. D. (2010). Use of an action-selection framework for human–carnivore conflict in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Conserv. Biol., 24, 1338–1347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beggs, C. (2012). Wildlife Conflict Management: In Practice in Mozambique. http://wildnet.org/sites/default/files/WCN_Newsletter_Fall12.pdf
Bonine, K., Reid, J. and Dalzen, R. (2003). Training and education for tropical conservation. Conserv. Biol., 17, 1209–1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruskotter, J. T. and Shelby, L. B. (2010). Human dimensions of large carnivore conservation and management. Hum. Dimens. Wildl., 15, 311–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, J. (1990). Conflict: Basic Human Needs. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canadian Institute for Conflict Resolution. (2000). Becoming a Third-Party Neutral: Resource Guide. Ottawa, Ontario: Ridgewood Foundation for Community-Based Conflict Resolution.
Coate, R. A. and Rosati, J. A. (1988). The Power of Human Needs in World Society. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
Coleman, P. T. and Deutsch, M. (2012). Psychological components of sustainable peace: an introduction. In Psychological Components of Sustainable Peace, eds. Coleman, P. T. and Deutsch, M., pp. 1–14. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, P. T., Vallacher, R., Bartoli, A., Nowak, A. and Bui-Wrzosinska, L. (2011). Navigating the landscape of conflict: applications of dynamical systems theory to addressing protracted conflict. In The Non-Linearity of Peace Processes: Theory and Practice of Systemic Conflict Transformation, eds. Körppen, D., Ropers, N. and Gießmann, H. J., pp. 39–56. Opladen /Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Verlag.Google Scholar
Decker, D. J., Riley, S. J. and Siemer, W. F. (2012). Human dimensions of wildlife management. In Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management, second edition, eds. Decker, D. J., Riley, S. J. and Siemer, W. F., pp. 3–14. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. (1973). The Resolution of Conflict. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dickman, A. J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Anim. Conserv., 13, 458–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, C., Koziell, I., McQuinn, B. and Stein, J. (2005). Approaching the table: transforming conservation-community conflict into opportunity. In Beyond the Arch: Community and Conservation in Greater Yellowstone and East Africa. 7th Biennial Scientific Conference on the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, ed. Biel, A. Wondrak, pp. 82–95. Mammoth Hot Springs: Yellowstone National Park.Google Scholar
Francis, D. (2002). People, Peace, and Power: Conflict Transformation in Action.London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medlin, D. and Shikaki, K. (2007). Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 7357–7360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Innes, J. E. and Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems. J. Am. Plann. Assoc., 65, 412–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.Google Scholar
Lederach, J. P. (2003). The Little Book of Conflict Transformation. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.Google Scholar
Lederach, J. P., Neufeldt, R. and Culbertson, H. (2007). Reflective Peacebuilding: A Planning, Monitoring and Learning Toolkit. Notre Dame, IN: The Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame and Catholic Relief Services.Google Scholar
Lindstrom, M. J. and Smith, Z. A. (2001). The National Environmental Policy Act: Judicial Misconstruction, Legislative Indifference, and Executive Neglect. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Llambí, L. D., et al. (2005). Participatory planning for biodiversity conservation in the High Tropical Andes: are farmers interested? Mt. Res. Dev., 25, 200–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovallo, D. and Sibony, O. (2010). The Case for Behavioral Strategy. Boston, MA: McKinsey.Google Scholar
Madden, F. (2004). Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Hum. Dimens. Wildl., 9, 247–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madden, F. and McQuinn, B. (2014). Conservation's blind spot: a case for conflict transformation in wildlife conservation. Biol. Cons, 178, 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalski, F., Boulhosa, R. L. P., Faria, A. and Peres, C. A. (2006). Human–wildlife conflicts in a fragmented Amazonian forest landscape: determinants of large felid depredation on livestock. Anim. Conserv., 9, 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, C. W. (1986). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Naughton-Treves, L., Grossberg, R. and Treves, A. (2003). Paying for tolerance: rural citizens’ attitudes toward wolf depredation and compensation. Conserv. Biol., 17, 1500–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, M. A. (2003). Beyond Wolves: The Politics of Wolf Recovery and Management. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Raik, D. B., Lauber, T. B., Decker, D. J. and Brown, T. L. (2005). Managing community controversy in suburban wildlife management: adopting practices that address value differences. Hum. Dimens. Wildl., 10, 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ralls, K. and Starfield, A. M. (1995). Choosing a management strategy: two structured decision-making methods for evaluating the predictions of stochastic simulation models. Conserv. Biol., 9, 175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T. and Miall, H. (2011). Contemporary Conflict Resolution. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Redpath, S. M., et al. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol. Evol., 28, 100–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rothman, J. (1997). Resolving Identity-Based Conflict: In Nations, Organizations, and Communities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
Sample, V. A., Ringgold, P. C., Block, N. E. and Giltmier, J. W. (1999). Forestry education: adapting to the changing demands on professionals. J. Forest., 97, 4–10.Google Scholar
Satterfield, T. (2002). Anatomy of a Conflict: Identity, Knowledge and Emotion in Old-growth Forests. Michigan: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
Sites, P. (1990). Needs as analogues of emotions. In Conflict: Human Needs Theory, ed. Burton, J. W., pp. 7–33. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Treves, A., Wallace, R. B. and White, S. (2009). Participatory planning of interventions to mitigate human–wildlife conflict. Conserv. Biol., 23, 1577–1587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, G. and Daniels, S. (1997). Foundations of natural resource conflict: conflict theory and public policy. In Conflict Management and Public Participation in Land Management, eds. Solberg, B. and Miina, S., pp. 13–36. Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
5
Cited by

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×