3 results
10 - The Human Dimensions and the Public Engagement Spectrum of Conservation Translocation
- from Part II - Conservation Translocations: The Key Issues
- Edited by Martin J. Gaywood, University of the Highlands and Islands, John G. Ewen, Zoological Society of London, Peter M. Hollingsworth, Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, Axel Moehrenschlager, IUCN SSC Conservation Translocation Specialist Group
- Foreword by Razan Al Mubarak
-
- Book:
- Conservation Translocations
- Published online:
- 07 December 2022
- Print publication:
- 22 December 2022, pp 303-330
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
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.
18 - Conservation conflict transformation: the missing link in conservation
- from Part III - Approaches to managing conflicts
-
- By Francine Madden, Human–Wildlife Conflict Collaboration, Brian McQuinn, Oxford University
- Edited by Stephen M. Redpath, University of Aberdeen, R. J. Gutiérrez, University of Minnesota, Kevin A. Wood, Bournemouth University, Juliette C. Young, NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
-
- Book:
- Conflicts in Conservation
- Published online:
- 05 May 2015
- Print publication:
- 07 May 2015, pp 257-270
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
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).
7 - Bearing the costs of human–wildlife conflict: the challenges of compensation schemes
-
- By Philip J. Nyhus, Environmental Studies Program, Colby College, USA, Steven A. Osofsky, Wildlife Conservation Society, USA, Paul Ferraro, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, USA, Francine Madden, Washington, DC, USA, Hank Fischer, National Wildlife Federation, Northern Rockies Natural Resource Center, USA
- Edited by Rosie Woodroffe, University of California, Davis, Simon Thirgood, Zoological Society, Frankfurt, Alan Rabinowitz, Wildlife Conservation Society, New York
-
- Book:
- People and Wildlife, Conflict or Co-existence?
- Published online:
- 23 November 2009
- Print publication:
- 25 August 2005, pp 107-121
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
INTRODUCTION
As the cases in this volume vividly illustrate, human conflict with wildlife is a significant – and growing – conservation problem around the world. The risk of wildlife damage to crops, livestock and human lives provides incentives for rural residents to kill wildlife and to reduce the quantity and quality of habitat on private and communal lands.
Recognition among conservationists that the cost of conserving large and sometimes dangerous animals is often borne disproportionately by farmers and others living closest to wildlife has spawned strategies to reduce this imbalance. One popular response is to compensate rural residents for the costs of wildlife damage. By spreading the economic burden and moderating the financial risks to people who coexist with wildlife, conservationists hope to reduce the negative consequences of human–wildlife conflict.
Few systematic efforts have been made to evaluate the efficacy of these programmes or the best way to implement and manage these schemes for endangered species (Sillero-Zubiri and Laurenson 2001). In this chapter, we build on our recent study (Nyhus et al. 2003) which asked whether compensation programmes really help endangered species in conflict with humans. We surveyed 23 international experts in large mammal conservation to learn about common pitfalls associated with running a compensation programme and the resources that managers need to succeed. Here, we also draw on additional published studies and reviews to explore the role of compensation in resolving conflicts between people and wildlife.