Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-bkjnw Total loading time: 0.328 Render date: 2021-10-16T18:28:42.266Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

20 - Finding a way out of conservation conflicts

from Part III - Approaches to managing conflicts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

Stephen M. Redpath
University of Aberdeen
R. J. Gutiéerrez
University of Minnesota
Kevin A. Wood
Bournemouth University
Juliette C. Young
Centre for Ecology
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
Get access


The world is undergoing rapid change from increasing human pressure. The scale and intensity of this change are deeply worrying from a conservation perspective. For example, we see severe threats to species, habitat and ecosystems from poaching (Maisels et al., 2013), the illegal use of poison (Ogada, 2014), overharvesting (Pinsky and Palumbi, 2014) and agricultural expansion (Laurance et al., 2014). In this book we have focused on how those who represent conservation arguments (conservationists) can respond to these types of challenges. These conservation conflicts arise because one side is passionate about the need to conserve biological diversity, whether for moral, intrinsic or anthropocentric reasons, and the other side may be more focused on different objectives related to human livelihoods and well-being. That is not to say that those arguing for human livelihoods do not recognise the need to conserve biodiversity, and vice versa, but each side may question the relative importance of the arguments, or the specific objectives, or the methods used to achieve those objectives. What is clear is that conservationists are antagonists in these conflicts, and this realisation is important because in order to navigate a path out of destructive conflict, conservationists will need to recognise their role in these issues, address the roots of the problem and be clear about their objectives and about how they engage with the other parties (Redpath et al., 2014).

Throughout the book, we have presented a range of richly complex and multilayered examples. Each has its own idiosyncrasies, but together they expose general principles and highlight what is needed to map and manage conservation conflicts. In this final chapter we build on these perspectives and draw out the principles and steps towards collaborative conflict management. While we recognise that conflicts may be a force for good (Coser, 1956), the conflicts presented here are more often damaging and costly both to humans and biodiversity.

Conflicts in Conservation
Navigating Towards Solutions
, pp. 287 - 303
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.)


Adams, W. M. and Sandbrook, C. (2013). Conservation, evidence and policy. Oryx, 47, 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, W. M., et al. (2003). Managing tragedies: understanding conflict over common pool resources. Science, 302, 1915–1916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory, 18, 571.Google Scholar
Beierle, T. C. (1998). Public participation in environmental decisions: an evaluation framework using social goals. Discussion paper 99-06. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Beierle, T. C. and Konisky, D. M. (2001). What are we gaining from stakeholder involvement? Observations from environmental planning in the Great Lakes. Environ. Plann. C: Govern. Pol., 19, 515–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buizer, M., Arts, B. and Kok, K. (2011). Governance, scale and the environment: the importance of recognizing knowledge claims in transdisciplinary areas. Ecol. Soc., 16, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chess, C. and Purcell, K. (1999). Public participation and the environment: do we know what works?Environ. Sci. Technol., 33, 2685–2692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, K. and Burgess, J. (1999). Summary of the London seminar. In: Deliberative and Inclusionary Processes: A Report from Two Seminars, CSERGE Working Paper PA 99-06, eds. O'Riordan, T., Burgess, J. and Szerszynski, B..Google Scholar
Colyvan, M.J. and Regan, H.M. (2011). The conservation game. Biol. Conserv., 144, 1246–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coser, L. (1956). The Function of Social Conflict. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Courchamp, F., Hoffmann, B. D., Russell, J. C., Leclerc, C. and Bellard, C. (2014). Climate change, sea-level rise, and conservation: keeping island biodiversity afloat. Trends Ecol. Evol. ScholarPubMed
Fazey, I., Fazey, J., Salisbury, J., Lindenmayer, D. B. and Dovers, S. (2006). The nature and role of experiential knowledge for environmental conservation. Environ. Conserv., 33, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, F. (2004). Professional expertise in deliberative democracy: facilitating participatory inquiry. The Good Soc., 13, 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, D. J., Coon, T., Prince, M. R., Dion, R. and Bernatchez, L. (2006). Integrating traditional and evolutionary knowledge in biodiversity conservation: a population level case study. Ecol. Soc., 11, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heydon, M. J., Wilson, C. J. and Tew, T. (2011). Wildlife conflict resolution: a review of problems, solutions and regulation in England. Wildl. Res., 37, 731–748.Google Scholar
Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Jones-Walters, L. and Cil, A. (2011). Biodiversity and stakeholder participation. J. Nat. Conserv., 19, 327–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kok, K. and Veldkamp, T. A. (2011). Scale and governance: conceptual considerations and practical implications. Ecol. Soc., 16, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurance, W. F., Sayer, J. and Cassman, K. G. (2014). Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature. Trends Ecol. Evol., 29, 107–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maisels, F., et al. (2013). Devastating decline of forest elephants in Central Africa. PLoS One, 8(3), e59469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meadowcroft, J. (2002). Politics and scale: some implications for environmental governance. Landscape Urban Plan., 61, 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milner-Gulland, E. J. and Rowcliffe, M. J. (2007). Conservation and Sustainable Use: A Handbook of Techniques. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newig, J. and Fritsch, O. (2009). Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level – and effective? Env. Pol. Gov., 19, 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogada, D. L. (2014). The power of poison: pesticide poisoning of Africa's wildlife. Ann. N Y Acad. Sci. DOI: 10.1111/nyas.12405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pilgrim, S. E. and Pretty, J. (2010). Nature and Culture. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Pinsky, M. L. and Palumbi, S. R. (2014). Meta-analysis reveals lower genetic diversity in overfished populations. Molec. Ecol., 23, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramsbotham, O., et al. (eds). (2011). Contemporary Conflict Resolution. Third edition. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, C. M., Fazey, I., Reed, M. S., Stringer, L. C., Robinson, G. M. and Evely, A. C. (2010). Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management. J. Environ. Manage., 91, 1766–1777.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Redpath, S. M., Bhatia, S. and Young, J. (2014). Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx, doi: 1001017/S003O605314000799.Google Scholar
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol. Conserv., 141, 2417–2431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, M. S., et al. (2009). Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manage., 90, 1933–1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, C., Sherlock, K. and Carter, C. (2004). Practical Approaches to Participation. SERP Policy Brief No. 1. Aberdeen: Macaulay Institute.Google Scholar
Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci. Technol. Human Val., 25, 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salafsky, N. (2011). Integrating development with conservation: a means to a conservation end, or a mean end to conservation?Biol. Conserv., 144, 973–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ. Sci. Pol., 7, 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, M. (1996). Deliberative democracy and authority. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev., 90, 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, B. K., Szaro, R. C. and Shapiro, C. D. (2009). Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Washington, DC: Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior.Google Scholar
Wood, K. A., Stillman, R. A., Daunt, F. and O'Hare, M. T. (2013). Evaluating the effects of population management on a herbivore grazing conflict. PLoS ONE, 8, e56287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, K. A., Stillman, R. A., Daunt, F. and O'Hare, M. T. (2014). Chalk streams and grazing mute swans. Br. Wildl., 25, 171–176.Google Scholar
Woodroffe, R., et al. (2005). People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Young, J. C. and Marzano, M. (2012). Embodied interdisciplinarity: what is the role of polymaths in environmental research? Environ. Conserv., 37, 373–375.Google Scholar
Young, J. C., Butler, J. R. A., Jordan, A. and Watt, A. D. (2012). Less government intervention in biodiversity management: risks and opportunities. Biodivers. Conserv., 21, 1095–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. C., et al. (2013a). Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation? Biol. Conserv., 158, 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. C., Jordan, A., Searle, K. R., Butler, A. and Simmons, P. (2013b). Framing scale in participatory biodiversity management may contribute to more sustainable solutions. Conserv. Lett., 6, 333–340.Google Scholar
Young, J. C., et al. (2014). Improving science-policy dialogue to meet the challenges of biodiversity conservation: having conversations rather than talking at one-another. Biodivers. Conserv., 23, 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure 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 or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ 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