Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human-wildlife conflict

Steve M. Redpath, Saloni Bhatia, Juliette Young

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

246 Citations (Scopus)


Conflicts between people over wildlife are widespread and damaging to both the wildlife and people involved. Such issues are often termed human-wildlife conflicts. We argue that this term is misleading and may exacerbate the problems and hinder resolution. A review of 100 recent articles on human-wildlife conflicts reveals that 97 were between conservation and other human activities, particularly those associated with livelihoods. We suggest that we should distinguish between human-wildlife impacts and human-human conflicts and be explicit about the different interests involved in conflict. Those representing conservation interests should not only seek technical solutions to deal with the impacts but also consider their role and objectives, and focus on strategies likely to deliver long-term solutions for the benefit of biodiversity and the people involved.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)222-225
Number of pages4
Issue number2
Early online date11 Nov 2014
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2015


  • Conflict resolution
  • human-human conflict
  • human-wildlife conflict
  • human-wildlife impact
  • red grouse
  • conservation conflicts
  • biodiversity conflicts
  • hen harriers
  • management
  • media


Dive into the research topics of 'Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human-wildlife conflict'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this