The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlife conflict
Open accessAbstract
Human–wildlife conflict has emerged as the central vocabulary for cases requiring balance between resource demands of humans and wildlife. This phrase is problematic because, given traditional definitions of conflict, it positions wildlife as conscious human antagonists. We used content analysis of wildlife conservation publications and professional meeting presentations to explore the use of the phrase, human–wildlife conflict, and compared competing models explaining its usage. Of the 422 publications and presentations using human–wildlife conflict, only 1 reflected a traditional definition of conflict, >95% referred to reports of animal damage to entities human care about, and <4% referred to human–human conflict. Usage of human–wildlife conflict was related to species type (herbivores with human food, carnivores with human safety, meso‐mammals with property), development level of the nation where the study occurred (less developed nations with human food and more developed nations with human safety and property damage), and whether the study occurred on private lands or protected areas (protected areas with human–human conflict and other areas with property damage). We argue that the phrase, human–wildlife conflict, is detrimental to coexistence between humans and wildlife, and suggest comic reframing to facilitate a more productive interpretation of human–wildlife relationships.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
(1998) · Sage eBooks · Cited by 38,631
Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology.
Shelley, M., & Krippendorff, K. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288384 · Cited by 24,312
Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.): Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008) · SAGE · doi:10.4135/9781452230153 · Cited by 12,136
Mattley, C., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1999) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2655359 · Cited by 2,408
Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method
Burke, K. (1966) · University of California Press eBooks · doi:10.1525/9780520340664 · Cited by 2,022
Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement
Lebow, R. N., Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1987) · Political Psychology · doi:10.2307/3790931 · Cited by 1,740
Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement
Pruitt, Dean, G., Рубин, Jeffrey, Z., Kim, & Kim, S. H. (1986) · Cited by 1,197
Grounded Theory in Practice: A Discussion of Cases in Information Systems Research
Martins, J. T., Nunes, M. B., Alajamy, M., & Zhou, L. (2013) · Information Systems Research and Exploring Social Artifacts · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2491-7.ch008 · Cited by 1,178
Economic Associations among Causes of Species Endangerment in the United States
CZECH, B., KRAUSMAN, P. R., & DEVERS, P. K. (2000) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0593:eaacos]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 727
Cited by
Understanding and managing conservation conflicts
Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., Amar, A., Lambert, R. A., Linnell, J. D. C., Watt, A., et al. (2013) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021 · Cited by 1,361
Human–wildlife interactions in urban areas: a review of conflicts, benefits and opportunities
Soulsbury, C. D., & White, P. C. L. (2016) · Wildlife Research · doi:10.1071/wr14229 · Cited by 565
Human-Elephant Conflict: A Review of Current Management Strategies and Future Directions
Shaffer, L. J., Khadka, K. K., Van Den Hoek, J., & Naithani, K. J. (2019) · Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.3389/fevo.2018.00235 · Cited by 367
An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations
Pooley, S., Barua, M., Beinart, W., Dickman, A., Holmes, G., Lorimer, J., Loveridge, A. J., Macdonald, D. W., Marvin, G., Redpath, S., et al. (2017) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.12859 · Cited by 277
Human–Wildlife Conflicts and the Need to Include Tolerance and Coexistence: An Introductory Comment
Frank, B. (2016) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920.2015.1103388 · Cited by 223
Metadata
- Authors
- Peterson, M. N., Birckhead, J. L., Leong, K., Peterson, M. J., & Peterson, T. R.
- Venue
- Conservation Letters
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-04
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 74-82
- ISSN
- 1755-263X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2033546119
- Cited by
- 526
- References
- 45
- FWCI
- 7.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlife conflict. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1755-263x.2010.00099.x
- The paper
- Peterson, M. N., Birckhead, J. L., Leong, K., Peterson, M. J., & Peterson, T. R. (2010). Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlife conflict. Conservation Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263x.2010.00099.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
