Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-prt4h Total loading time: 0.378 Render date: 2021-10-22T01:46:05.220Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

3 - The value of ecological information in conservation conflict

from PART II - Contrasting disciplinary approaches to the study of conflict in conservation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

Stephen M. Redpath
University of Aberdeen
William J. Sutherland
University of Cambridge
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 British countryside is renowned for its pastoral beauty: a rich mosaic of farmland, woodlands, hedgerows and winding lanes where biodiversity flourishes. Yet linger within this apparently serene landscape and you are likely to discover an equally rich mosaic of conflict, which can sometimes be bitter and acrimonious. We see conflicts emerge over a wide range of issues, such as the culling of badgers Meles meles to control disease in cattle, the impact of intensive farming techniques on biodiversity or the illegal killing of predators for the benefit of game species. As we see elsewhere in this book, such conflicts are not restricted to the UK; they occur worldwide. Conflicts differ in details and participants, but they are often similar in challenges and strategies for resolution.

Ecological arguments invariably are part of conservation conflicts. We need to understand what impacts our activities have on species and ecosystems. Typically, in conflicts, the information deficit model is followed (Burgess et al., 1998). This model holds that more expert knowledge (in our case ecological data) and better communication are needed to help raise awareness, develop effective policies and change people's behaviour. Ecology is therefore often seen as providing the necessary objective evidence to enable decisions to be made to address conservation conflict. Consider, for example, the situation of conflicts involving predators. Those whose livelihoods depend on prey species commonly perceive predators as threats. So, ecologists commonly ask if perceptions of impact match ecological data (Sillero-Zubiri et al., 2007; Dickman, 2010). To make a decision about predator management, we need to quantify predation levels, understand how predation varies in time and space and how predators impact prey populations. Once we understand these ecological interactions and impacts, we can then make predictions about when and where different interests may become incompatible and to initiate management decisions. Frequently there may be several different techniques available for reducing impact so we need to know the relative effectiveness of each (Smith et al., 2014). Ecological data and analysis can help us distinguish between the effectiveness of alternative management strategies (see Box 9).

Conflicts in Conservation
Navigating Towards Solutions
, pp. 35 - 48
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.)


Augustine, D. J. and Springer, T. L. (2013). Competition and facilitation between prairie dogs and livestock. Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am., 94, 177–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azevedo, F. C. C. (2008). Food habits and livestock depredation of sympatric jaguars and pumas in the Iguacu National Park area, south Brazil. Biotropica, 40, 494–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azevedo, F. C. C. and Murray, D. L. (2007). Evaluation of potential factors predisposing livestock to predation by jaguars. J. Wildl. Manage., 71, 2379–2386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourne, F. J., et al. (2007). Bovine TB: The Scientific Evidence. Final report of the independent scientific group on cattle TB. London: Defra.Google Scholar
Bunnefeld, N., Hoshino, E. and Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2011). Management strategy evaluation: a powerful tool for conservation?Trends Ecol. Evol., 26, 441–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burgess, J.Harrison, C. and Filius, P. (1998). Environmental communication and the cultural politics of environmental citizenship. Envir. Plann. A, 30, 1445–1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caso, A., et al. (2008). Panthera onca. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Cavalcanti, S. M. C., Marchini, S., Zirnmerrnann, A., Gese, E. M. and Macdonald, D. W. (2010). Jaguars, livestock and people in Brazil: realities and perceptions behind the conflict. In The Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids, eds. Macdonald, D. and Loveridge, A., pp. 383–402. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Conforti, V. A. and Azevedo, F. C. C. (2003). Local perceptions of jaguars (Panthera onca) and pumas (Puma concolor) in the Iguacu National Park, south Brazil. Biol. Conserv., 111, 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawshaw, P. G. Jr. and Quigley, H. B. (2002). Habitos alimentarios del jaguar y el puma en el Pantanal, Brasil, con implicaciones para su manejo y conservacion. In El Jaguar en el Nuevo Milenio, eds. Medellin, R. A., et al., pp. 223–236. Mexico: Ediciones Cientificas Universitarias.Google Scholar
Cresswell, W. (2008). Non-lethal effects of predation in birds. Ibis, 150, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DEFRA (2011). Measures to address bovine TB in badgers: Impact Assessment. London: Defra.
Delahay, R. J., et al. (2009). Managing conflict between humans and wildlife: trends in licensed operations to resolve problems with badgers Meles meles in England. Mammal Rev., 39, 53–66.CrossRefGoogle 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
Dunlap, T. R. (1988). Saving America's Wildlife. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Elton, C. S. (1927). Animal Ecology. London: Sidgwick & Jackson.Google Scholar
Fischer, J. and Lindenmayer, D. B. (2000). An assessment of the published results of animal relocations. Biol. Conserv., 96, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfray, H. C., et al. (2013). A restatement of the natural science evidence base relevant to the control of bovine tuberculosis in Great Britain. Proc. R. Soc. B, 280, 20131634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isasi-Catalá, E. (2010). Is translocation of problematic jaguars (Panthera onca) an effective strategy to resolve human-predator conflicts?CEE review, 08–018 (SR55).Google Scholar
Krebs, C. J. (2001). Ecology: The Experimental Analysis of Distribution and Abundance. New York: Harper-Collins College Publishers.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R. (1997). Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers. London: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
Krebs, J. R., et al. (1998). Badgers and bovine TB: conflicts between conservation and health. Science, 279, 817–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leopold, A. (1933). Game Management. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Lima, S. L. (1998). Nonlethal effects in the ecology of predator–prey interactions. Bioscience, 48, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linnell, J. D., Odden, J. and Mertens, A. (2012). Mitigation methods for conflicts associated with carnivore depredation on livestock. In Carnivore Ecology and Conservation, eds. Boitani, L. and Powell, R. A., pp. 314–332. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Marchini, S. (2003). Pantanal: opinião pública local sobre meio ambiente edesenvolvimento. Rio de Janeiro: Wildlife Conservation Society and Mamiraua Institute.Google Scholar
Marcot, B. G., Steventon, J. D., Sutherland, G. D. and McCann, R. K. (2006). Guidelines for developing and updating Bayesian belief networks applied to ecological modeling and conservation. Can. J. Forest Res., 36, 3063–3074.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
Miller, B., Reading, R. P. and Forest, S. (1996). Prairie Night: Black Footed Ferrets and the Recovery of Endangered Species. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Nyhus, P. J., Osofsky, S. A., Ferraro, P., Fischer, H. and Madden, F. (2005). Bearing the costs of human–wildlife conflict: the challenges of compensation schemes. In People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? eds. Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S. and Rabinowitz, A., pp. 107–121. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O'Meilia, M. E., Knopf, F. L. and Lewis, J. C. (1982). Some consequences of competition between prairie dogs and beef cattle. J. Range Manage., 35, 580–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmeira, F. B., Crawshaw, P. G., Haddad, C. M., Ferraz, K. M. P. and Verdade, L. M. (2008). Cattle depredation by puma (Puma concolor) and jaguar (Panthera onca) in central-western Brazil. Biol. Conserv., 141, 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polisar, J., Maxit, I. and Scognamillo, D. (2003). Jaguars, pumas, their prey base and cattle ranching: ecological interpretation of a management problem. Biol. Conserv., 109, 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, A. R. (1986). Jaguar predation on domestic livestock in Belize. Wildlife Soc. B, 14, 170–174.Google Scholar
Reading, R. P., Mccain, L., Clark, T. W. and Miller, B. J. (2005). Understanding and resolving the black-tailed prairie dog conservation challenge. In People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? eds. Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S. and Rabinowitz, A., pp. 209–223. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Redpath, S. M. and Thirgood, S. J. (1997). Birds of Prey and Red Grouse. London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Redpath, S. M., et al. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol. Evol., 28, 100–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sandercock, B. K., Nilsen, E. B., Brøseth, H. and Pedersen, H. C. (2011). Is hunting mortality additive or compensatory to natural mortality? Effects of experimental harvest on the survival and cause-specific mortality of willow ptarmigan. J. Anim. Ecol., 80, 244–252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sillero-Zubiri, C., Sukumar, R. and Treves, A. (2007). Living with wildlife: the roots of conflict and the solutions. In Key Topics in Conservation Biology, eds. MacDonald, D. W. and Service, K., pp. 266–272. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Smith, A. D., et al. (2008). Experience in implementing harvest strategies in Australia's south-eastern fisheries. Fish. Res., 94, 373–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. K., Mitchell, R., Dicks, L. V. and Sutherland, W. J. (2014). Comparing interventions: the missing link in effective conservation practice. Conserv. Evidence, 11, 2–6.Google Scholar
Soulé, M. E. (1985). What is conservation biology? Bioscience, 35, 727–734.Google Scholar
Stewart, G. B., Pullin, A. S. and Coles, C. F. (2007). Poor evidence-base for assessment of windfarm impacts on birds. Environ. Conserv., 34, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, W. J., Pullin, A. S., Dolman, P. M. and Knight, T. M. (2004). The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol., 19, 305–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thirgood, S. and Redpath, S. (2008). Hen harriers and red grouse: science, politics and human–wildlife conflict. J. Appl. Ecol., 45, 1550–1554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treves, A. and Naughton-Treves, L. (2005). Evaluating lethal control in the management of human–wildlife conflict. In People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? eds. Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S. and Rabinowitz, A., pp. 86–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, D. R., et al. (2013). Bird Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions. Exeter: Pelagic Publishing.Google Scholar
Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S. and Rabinowitz, A. (2005). The impact of human–wildlife conflict on natural systems. In People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? eds. Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S. and Rabinowitz, A., pp. 1–12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeller, K. (2007). Jaguars in the New Millennium Data Set Update: The State of the Jaguar in 2006. New York: Wildlife Conservation Society.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, A., Walpole, M. J. and Leader-Williams, N. (2005). Cattle ranchers’ attitudes to conflicts with jaguar Panthera onca in the Pantanal of Brazil. Oryx, 39, 406–412.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