Day 7: Attitudes and wildlife conflict

What is human-wildlife conflict?

A situation in which two or more parties with strongly held opinions clash over conservation objectives, with one party perceived as asserting its interests at the expense of another.

Why is human-wildlife conflict often really human-human conflict?

Conflict is fundamentally between people with different attitudes, values, and experiences about wildlife, and biases can intensify it.

What factors make wildlife conflict complex?

Emotions, power, security, politics, differences between scenarios, and varying attitudes and experiences.

Why can cognitive bias contribute to wildlife conflict?

People may make assumptions about others, selectively trust information that supports their views, and make quick decisions without enough context.

What is the first step in resolving human-wildlife conflict?

Identify the root of the conflict so that an appropriate resolution or mitigation strategy can be developed.

What are the three levels of human-wildlife conflict?

Level 1: dispute; Level 2: underlying conflict; Level 3: deep-rooted conflict.

Level 1: Dispute

A conflict involving tangible losses, such as crops, livestock, income, or safety. People may still understand wildlife's needs and generally view others trying to help as genuine or trustworthy.

Level 2: Underlying conflict

A recurring issue that has not been satisfactorily resolved, with accumulated frustration, expectations, perceptions, and resentment toward the species or those addressing the issue.

Level 3: Deep-rooted conflict

A recurring, unresolved issue in which social identity or deeply held values are threatened. The conflict is embedded in broader social issues and value differences.

How can attitudes toward a species indicate Level 1 conflict?

People show empathy or understanding for wildlife's needs and respond neutrally or positively when asked about the species.

How can attitudes toward a species indicate Level 2 conflict?

People express dislike of the species and may demonstrate a strong NIMBY ('not in my backyard') effect.

How can attitudes toward a species indicate Level 3 conflict?

People use strongly negative or disproportionate language, vilify the species, exaggerate harm, or transfer blame.

How can responses about the situation indicate Level 1 conflict?

Concerns focus on tangible impacts, such as lost income or safety risks.

How can responses about the situation indicate Level 2 conflict?

Frustration has accumulated, the situation is seen as a major issue, and the frequency or impact of losses may be exaggerated.

How can responses about the situation indicate Level 3 conflict?

People use polarized language, view the situation as extremely serious, and feel their way of life is threatened.

How do perceptions of other people differ across conflict levels?

Level 1: others are viewed as genuine or trustworthy. Level 2: people become skeptical of others' motivations. Level 3: hostility, blame, sarcasm, and feelings of being misunderstood or unappreciated become prominent.

What is the NIMBY effect?

'Not in my backyard': opposition to a species, activity, or management action because it occurs near one's own home or community.

Why is it incorrect to assume that addressing wildlife-caused losses will resolve conflict?

Conflict may also involve accumulated resentment, mistrust, identity, values, power, or broader social issues beyond the tangible losses.

Why is it incorrect to assume that increasing awareness and changing attitudes will automatically change behavior?

Behavior and conflict are influenced by multiple social and psychological factors, so awareness or attitude change alone may not resolve the underlying problem.

Why are wildlife-conflict solutions not always transferable between situations?

Conflict varies in severity, context, values, relationships, and root causes; a strategy effective in one situation may not work in another.

What are the three components of conflict in negotiation theory?

Substance (what the conflict is about), process (how it is handled), and relationship (who is involved and their relationships).

What is often overlooked when managing wildlife conflict?

Managers often focus on the substance—the tangible wildlife problem—while overlooking the process and relationships involved.

What are best practices for navigating human-wildlife conflict?

Understand the species' ecological needs; understand human social psychology; listen and build relationships; identify the depth and root of conflict; address the appropriate conflict level; and create intrinsic and/or extrinsic value.

What three psychological issues can help explain wildlife conflict?

Trust, anger, and autonomy.

How can a lack of trust contribute to conflict?

Managers may enter after a situation has already gone wrong, and their decisions may not align with what affected people perceive as reality.

How can wildlife managers increase trust?

Build swift trust by being open and vulnerable, practice perspective-taking, and prioritize listening and relationship-building, especially in deep-rooted conflicts.

What is anger in the context of wildlife conflict?

A reaction to perceived injustice, potentially triggered by wildlife encounters, wildlife-caused damage, or how managers handle an interaction.

What can intensify anger during wildlife conflict?

Unfamiliar situations and power imbalances that make people feel the process is unfair.

How can wildlife managers diffuse anger?

Use nonviolent communication, acknowledge perceived injustice, offer apologies of sympathy or responsibility when appropriate, and focus on processes and partnerships in deep-rooted conflicts.

What is psychological reactance?

A response in which people take the opposite action from what a regulation or decision intends because they feel their freedom or autonomy is being restricted.

How can wildlife managers maintain people's sense of autonomy?

Use persuasive communication, social norms, and intrinsic motivation; offer alternative actions; connect peers; and meaningfully collaborate with affected parties in deep-rooted conflicts.

What is the difference between an apology of sympathy and an apology of responsibility?

An apology of sympathy acknowledges someone's distress or experience; an apology of responsibility acknowledges responsibility for a problem or action.

How should conflict-management strategies change as conflict becomes more deep-rooted?

Move beyond addressing tangible losses and place greater emphasis on relationships, trust, listening, fair processes, partnerships, and meaningful collaboration.

What is the central lesson of the black bear school scenario?

Management decisions should not rely only on an initial impression or one source of information. Managers should investigate people's concerns, consider bias, and identify the underlying conflict before deciding what to do.

What are the main takeaways about human-wildlife conflict?

Conflict is complex and rooted in values, attitudes, and social context; it varies in severity and depth; and identifying the underlying issue is critical to managing it.