Daniela Alba-Patiño , Berta Martín-López , Miguel Delibes-Mateos , Juan M. Requena-Mullor , Antonio J. Castro
{"title":"Environmental justice gaps in human-wildlife conflict research from a social-ecological systems perspective","authors":"Daniela Alba-Patiño , Berta Martín-López , Miguel Delibes-Mateos , Juan M. Requena-Mullor , Antonio J. Castro","doi":"10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Human–wildlife conflicts (HWCs) are increasingly prevalent and complex phenomena that often result in social tensions and environmental injustices. While the social–ecological systems (SES) perspective has been recently applied to understand the dynamics of HWC, little attention has been paid to how environmental justice is addressed in this field. This study presents a systematic review of 85 studies that analyse HWC using a SES lens, with the aim of examining to what extent these studies incorporate the three dimensions of environmental justice: distributive, procedural, and recognition justice. We assessed how social actors were identified, how benefits and cost were distributed, and how these actors were involved in both decision-making and research processes. Our findings reveal that most studies focused on mammals (58 %), and those human–human conflicts caused by human activities affecting wildlife populations and/or their habitats were the most frequently studied category (54 %). While local communities were commonly identified as social actors and resource losers, their participation in research was mostly limited to consultation, with few cases of collaboration or engagement. Moreover, the social actors identified as most affected by conflicts—those experiencing resource and livelihood losses—were not the same as those most involved in decision-making processes. These findings highlight the need to adopt more context-sensitive and justice-oriented approaches to address HWCs, enabling more equitable and effective conservation strategies. A social–ecological perspective helps to recognise the role of shifting social norms in conflict dynamics, while integrating environmental justice enables a deeper understanding of power imbalances.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55375,"journal":{"name":"Biological Conservation","volume":"312 ","pages":"Article 111515"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Conservation","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000632072500552X","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Human–wildlife conflicts (HWCs) are increasingly prevalent and complex phenomena that often result in social tensions and environmental injustices. While the social–ecological systems (SES) perspective has been recently applied to understand the dynamics of HWC, little attention has been paid to how environmental justice is addressed in this field. This study presents a systematic review of 85 studies that analyse HWC using a SES lens, with the aim of examining to what extent these studies incorporate the three dimensions of environmental justice: distributive, procedural, and recognition justice. We assessed how social actors were identified, how benefits and cost were distributed, and how these actors were involved in both decision-making and research processes. Our findings reveal that most studies focused on mammals (58 %), and those human–human conflicts caused by human activities affecting wildlife populations and/or their habitats were the most frequently studied category (54 %). While local communities were commonly identified as social actors and resource losers, their participation in research was mostly limited to consultation, with few cases of collaboration or engagement. Moreover, the social actors identified as most affected by conflicts—those experiencing resource and livelihood losses—were not the same as those most involved in decision-making processes. These findings highlight the need to adopt more context-sensitive and justice-oriented approaches to address HWCs, enabling more equitable and effective conservation strategies. A social–ecological perspective helps to recognise the role of shifting social norms in conflict dynamics, while integrating environmental justice enables a deeper understanding of power imbalances.
期刊介绍:
Biological Conservation is an international leading journal in the discipline of conservation biology. The journal publishes articles spanning a diverse range of fields that contribute to the biological, sociological, and economic dimensions of conservation and natural resource management. The primary aim of Biological Conservation is the publication of high-quality papers that advance the science and practice of conservation, or which demonstrate the application of conservation principles for natural resource management and policy. Therefore it will be of interest to a broad international readership.