Ongeziwe Njomi , Mohammed B. Altoom , Abel Ramoelo , Michael Gebreslasie
{"title":"A systematic review of human-wildlife conflicts in the context of ecological change: Insights from geospatial applications","authors":"Ongeziwe Njomi , Mohammed B. Altoom , Abel Ramoelo , Michael Gebreslasie","doi":"10.1016/j.gecco.2026.e04124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Human-wildlife conflicts (HWCs) are escalating due to the expansion of anthropogenic activities, the growing proximity of human populations to wildlife habitats, and increased resource demands, particularly in developing nations. This review synthesizes peer-reviewed articles at the intersection of human-wildlife conflict, ecological change, and geospatial applications published between 2015 and 2024, using a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework. Bibliometric analysis software, such as VOSviewer, was used for spatial and network analysis, and 220 peer-reviewed articles were included in the final review. These studies, conducted across 47 countries, reflect a growing interest in this topic, with the number of publications increasing from just 1 in 2015–50 in 2024. Based on the country productivity analysis, 1015 authors contributed to this field, with the United States of America having the highest number of contributions, followed by the United Kingdom. The most frequently cited ecological drivers of conflict included habitat loss and fragmentation, land-use <em>changes, and declines in natural prey</em>. Frequently studied wildlife groups included mega-herbivores and large carnivores. The most common conservation statuses were <em>\"endangered,\" \"vulnerable,\" and \"keystone species.\"</em> The most frequent keywords identified were ″<em>human-wildlife conflict″</em>, ″conservation″, and ″<em>livestock depredation”.</em> This study highlights key research trends in HWC, including leading contributors, major conflict drivers, focal species, dominant themes, and widely applied mitigation strategies. These insights may support researchers in selecting appropriate publication outlets and collaboration partners, and in guiding the development of effective strategies and policies to address human-wildlife conflicts.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54264,"journal":{"name":"Global Ecology and Conservation","volume":"66 ","pages":"Article e04124"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Ecology and Conservation","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989426000739","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Human-wildlife conflicts (HWCs) are escalating due to the expansion of anthropogenic activities, the growing proximity of human populations to wildlife habitats, and increased resource demands, particularly in developing nations. This review synthesizes peer-reviewed articles at the intersection of human-wildlife conflict, ecological change, and geospatial applications published between 2015 and 2024, using a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework. Bibliometric analysis software, such as VOSviewer, was used for spatial and network analysis, and 220 peer-reviewed articles were included in the final review. These studies, conducted across 47 countries, reflect a growing interest in this topic, with the number of publications increasing from just 1 in 2015–50 in 2024. Based on the country productivity analysis, 1015 authors contributed to this field, with the United States of America having the highest number of contributions, followed by the United Kingdom. The most frequently cited ecological drivers of conflict included habitat loss and fragmentation, land-use changes, and declines in natural prey. Frequently studied wildlife groups included mega-herbivores and large carnivores. The most common conservation statuses were "endangered," "vulnerable," and "keystone species." The most frequent keywords identified were ″human-wildlife conflict″, ″conservation″, and ″livestock depredation”. This study highlights key research trends in HWC, including leading contributors, major conflict drivers, focal species, dominant themes, and widely applied mitigation strategies. These insights may support researchers in selecting appropriate publication outlets and collaboration partners, and in guiding the development of effective strategies and policies to address human-wildlife conflicts.
期刊介绍:
Global Ecology and Conservation is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal covering all sub-disciplines of ecological and conservation science: from theory to practice, from molecules to ecosystems, from regional to global. The fields covered include: organismal, population, community, and ecosystem ecology; physiological, evolutionary, and behavioral ecology; and conservation science.