Introduction
Methodology
Results
Unification of conflict-related terminology
Conflict-related termsa | References in the literature | Proposed or modified definitions of the terms |
---|---|---|
Conflict levels | The term ‘levels’ is used in the literature in different contexts. For instance, CICR (2000) and Madden and McQuinn (2014) apply different levels of conflict to describe the depth of a conflict, whereas Dickman (2010) uses them in relation to the social scale of risk perception (individual vs. community). Putnam and Poole (1987) refer levels to an organisational scale (interpersonal, intergroup and interorganisational conflicts) and Shmueli (2008) to a spatial scale. Other authors, for example, Madden and McQuinn (2014) and Young et al. (2010) use the term less consistently, with the word ‘scales’ tending to convey the same meaning as ‘levels on a spatial scale’. | Following Cash et al. (2006), we clearly distinguish the terms ‘levels’ and ‘scales’. ‘Scales’ are ‘the spatial, temporal, quantitative, or analytical dimensions used to measure and study any phenomenon’ while ‘levels’ are ‘the units of analysis that are located at different positions on a scale’ (Cash et al. 2006, p. 9). Specifically, we refer to four levels of analysis (of an individual frame, sub-local, local, and regional) and to geographical, administrative or social scales. We apply a similar term ‘conflict layers’ with reference to the depth of conflicts. |
Conflict frames | From a cognitive perspective, frames are interpretative lenses through which a conflict is perceived (Shmueli 2008), that are shaped by past experiences, perceptions, and values (Peterson et al. 2010). Frames are also used for communicative purposes (Shmueli 2008) as languages wherein a given interpretation of a conflict is described by certain stakeholders (Baynham-Herd et al. 2018). | |
Conflict images | Products of juxtaposition of compiled empirical data about certain conflicts against analytic frames applied for data collection (Hellström 2001). | ‘The effects of juxtaposition of stakeholders’ conflict frames that can be portrayed at various levels of a geographical scale’. As such, conflict images are always subjective, however they do not apply to the level of analysis of an individual frame. |
Conflict orientations | Fulton et al. (1996) introduced the term ‘orientations’ within conservation conflict studies as ‘wildlife value orientations’ comprising an individual’s core beliefs regarding wildlife (p. 28). White et al. (2009) used the term ‘value orientations’ to describe one of the social factors of conflicts. Shmueli (2008) placed ‘orientation’ within an ‘identity and values frame’ category. Specifically, she distinguished between social/community, economic, ecological/environmental and scientific/technical orientations. | Following Shmueli (2008), orientations are parts of conflict frames that are compatible with the values system, while they also correspond to emotional disposition (Watson and Clark 1984) of a conflict stakeholder. As such, orientations are links between one’s cognitive (socio-cultural group of determinants*) and affective systems (psychological group of determinants*) but additionally they are directed towards substance of some other group of determinants* at the level of a stakeholder’s individual frame. *For illustration of ‘groups of determinants’ we refer to Fig. 1 in the text). |
Conflict factors/(conflict determinants) | Conflict factors are the main components that characterise the conflict and shape its dynamics. They include ecological, economic and social factors (White et al. 2009). This term is similar to Hellström’s (2001) ‘societal aspects of conflicts’. However, whereas the latter construct is clearly distinguished from conflict dimensions, this is not the case for conflict factors as understood by White et al. (2009). | We prefer using the term conflict determinants in Hellström (2001)’s meaning of ‘societal aspects of conflicts’ as the term is more explicit compared with ‘conflict factors’ as defined by White et al. (2009). Specifically, the latter may refer to different conflict dimensions, while in our understanding, ‘conflict dimensions’ and ‘conflict determinants’ are two separate major conflict components. |
Conflict aspects | This is a broad term used by Hellström (2001) to refer to both societal (i.e., social, political, economic and resource-related aspects) and descriptive aspects of conflict (types of conflicts and approaches to conflict management). | Because of the broad coverage of this term and the high potential for lexical imprecision (social vs. societal aspects of conflicts), we do not recommend its use. When addressing ‘societal aspects of conflicts’, we use the term ‘conflict determinants’. |
Conflict values | The term ‘values’ is used ambiguously within conceptually oriented studies on conservation conflicts. Its usage covers the following: (a) a synonym for the ‘social aspects of conflicts’ (Hellström 2001), (b) a subcategory of social factors of conflicts (White et al. 2009), (c) a separate category of conflict frames (Shmueli 2008), (d) an underlying construct for a dispute level in the Levels of Conflict model (CICR 2000; Madden and McQuinn 2014; Patterson et al. 2003; similar in Patterson et al. 2003) and (e) a preceding construct in the ‘values – attitudes – behaviours’ model (Fulton et al. 1996). | We do not follow associating values with social factors of conflicts only. Similarly, we are doubtful with interpreting values as a necessary prerequisite for certain conflict behaviours in a form of a linear model. Instead, following a constructivist/constructionist approach, we understand values as socio-culturally and psychologically driven foundations for stakeholders’ conflict orientations which can concern any other group of conflict determinants (i.e. economic, environmental, or policy ones). |
Conflict dimensions | Lincoln (1986) originally used this term to refer to the main types of conflict interests that must be addressed through conflict management measures, comprising substantive, procedural, and relationship interests. Hellström (2001) reinterpreted it as a second major component (after ‘aspects of conflicts’) of conflict analysis, while Madden and McQuinn (2014) further modified it, replacing the procedural dimension with a processual one. The term ‘dimensions’ stems from original illustration of the concept that was visualised in a form of 3-dimensional ‘satisfaction triangle’ (see Table 2 for further description and Online Appendix 4 for a graphical illustration). Some authors use the word ‘dimension’ to differentiate actual conflicts relating to human–wildlife interactions (i.e., ‘human–human dimension of a conflict’) from ‘human–wildlife’ impacts’ (Redpath et al. 2013). | Our conception is similar to that of Hellström (2001), however we have modified the list of conflict dimensions to match the list proposed by Madden and McQuinn (2014). Thus, conflict dimensions are one of three major conflict components that consist of: conflict substance, processes, and relationships. |
Conflict categories/ (conflict properties) | A popular term referring to a process of data categorisation (e.g. Peterson et al. 2010; Shmueli 2008). Specifically, the categories are the results of a process of categorising qualitative case study descriptions, which are presumed to fit within a matrix of ‘aspects of conflicts’ and ‘conflict dimensions’ (Hellström 2001). White et al. (2009) use the term to differentiate between values and attributions relating to the social factors underlying conflicts, whereas Germain and Floyd (1999) propose four categories along a resource conflict continuum (geocommodity, biocommodity, use amenity and preservation amenity). Young et al. (2010) use the term in place of ‘conflict types’. | Contrary to the framework of Hellström (2001), the most elementary attributes in our model are not formulated in a case-specific manner. Thus, they cannot work as ‘categories’ that are expected to describe a particular conflict. Instead, we refer to conflict properties as results of an interaction of major conflict components that fit within the cube of ‘conflict determinants’, ‘conflict dimensions’ and ‘conflict levels’. Every conflict properties have further instances and already the latter may work as conflict categories, according to Hellström’s (2001) understanding. |
Conflict types | A vague term referring to the descriptive aspects of conflicts. Hellström (2001) further uses it specifically in relation to three dimensions of conflict (substances, procedures, and relationships), which do not, however, result directly from the societal aspects of conflict. For Germain and Floyd (1999) conflict types are described in terms of combinations of contested resources. However, the most prevalent typologies of conservation conflicts (Redpath et al. 2015c; Young et al. 2010) do not associate the conflict types with other structural attributes of the conflicts in a consistent way. | Differing from the cited authors, we perceive conflict types as direct consequences of the composition and interactions of two major components of conflicts: conflict determinants and conflict dimensions. This is expected to result in a certain set of conflict categories for a particular case and, based on such a set, the particular case can be assigned to a particular conflict type. However, some specific examples of conflict types are possible in the case of a conflict involving conflict interests of parties that are not connected with a local-level structure of PA stakeholders. |
Conflict issues | An ambiguous term referring to: (a) a sub-category of a substance frame, defined as ‘perceived bones of contention’ (Shmueli 2008, p. 2051), or (b) ‘substances of disputants’ “talk” (Walker and Daniels 1997, p. 17), which resembles the dispute layer of conflicts identified by CICR (2000) and Madden and McQuinn (2014) (thus, not entailing underlying, or deep-rooted values). | ‘Site-specific manifestations of conflict properties within the substantive dimension.’ Conflict issues are often perceived by conflict stakeholders from the perspective of material impacts and as such they correspond with their conflict interests. |
Conflict interests | This fundamental term in conflict studies entails different meanings and contexts. The first relates to stakeholders’ reasons for taking certain conflict positions (Delli Priscoli 1997) concerning conflict issues (Walker and Daniels 1997), which approximates the notion of goals (Delli Priscoli 1997). The second concerns the consequences of collective groups’ identities and situation assessments that precede conflictual actions (Ide 2016). The third concerns contributions to an ‘aspiration’ sub-frame of a substance, with aspirations defined as ‘general hopes for fulfilment of vital interests’ (Shmueli 2008). White et al. (2009) suggest that as for values or attributions, conflicting interests can be addressed by applying their attitudinal indicators. | A multi-level construct encompassing stakeholder-specific approaches to conflict issues that entails a desired future perspective towards these issues. Additionally, interests may stem directly from more generally framed conflict properties that are hidden and not declared in the form of conflict issues. |
Conflict potential | A non-behavioural condition for conflict emergence that results from an interplay of conflict factors and the level of stakeholders’ agreement on the perceived images of these factors. Conflict potential can be illustrated using attitudinal indicators (White et al. 2009). | As we adhere to a non-behavioural approach to conflict analysis, we understand ‘conflict potential’ simply as a ‘conflict’, when defined according to ‘structural’ definitions (see “Unification of conflict-related terminology” section). As such, conflict potential stems from the divergence of conflict interests and the complexity of conflict properties (which can be portrayed through conflict types). Although ‘potential’, as a dictionary term, refers to possibilities of occurrence and existence, compared to a present or previous state, we follow White et al.’s (2009) approach and interpret conflict potential as a current-state indicator. |
Conflict complexity | A function of the multi-layered character of a conflict (Madden and McQuinn 2014). The term is also used more widely to portray a number of determinants or dimensions that describe a conflict structure (Young et al. 2010). Individual perception of conflict complexity is a sub-category of the ‘identity and values frames’ category (Shmueli 2008). | ‘The number of clashing conflict properties’. |
Conflict stages | Phases in a process of conflict development, reflecting an assumption that any conflict develops gradually, growing in intensity during each successive stage (Keltner 1987). | Despite the ‘behavioural’ connotations of the term, we follow Keltner (1987) definition, as it reflects a dynamic approach to conflict analysis. |
State-of-the-art frameworks for studying conservation conflicts
Framework (thematic context) | Description | Contribution | Limitations |
---|---|---|---|
This framework has undergone a devolution process. Originally it was designed as a model with three dimensions (Delli Priscoli 1997), depicting the proportionate allocations of three (substance, procedural, and psychological) types of interests that must be met to attain enduring conflict settlement (Moore 1986). Following the model’s adaptation by Walker and Daniels (1997) and Madden and McQuinn (2014), the framework was reduced to a single triangle, and the names of its ‘corners’ were slightly altered to substance, process and relationships, indicating three dimensions of conflict | • The concept of conflict dimensions and its linkage to the notion of conflict interests and needs • A dynamic approach (especially the adaptation made by Madden and McQuinn 2014) • Interactions among stakeholders are viewed as a necessary component of conflicts | • Insufficient references to the diversity of conflict determinants • Management-orientation of the framework • General and simple | |
This model comprises a scale of resource categories (geocommodities, biocommodities, use amenities, and preservation amenities) that are all assumed to entail critical zones. Moreover, some are non-renewable and some are renewable, and there are differences in the manner in which they are used or managed. Co-occurrence of resources from different categories in certain areas is assumed to generate conflicts according to the rule: ‘the larger the distance on the scale, the higher the intensity of a potential conflict’ | • Inclusion of geographical aspects (critical zones and spatial co-occurrence of resources) • Use of the notion of resources that highlights the interdependence of environmental and economic conditions • Applicability to quantitative studies • Premised on the diversity of human interests | • Few insights provided on the social or institutional values of resources • Floyd (1993) initial assumption has not been fully supported by empirical research (Germain and Floyd 1999) • No insight provided on two out of three of dimensions of conflict, namely processes and relationships | |
Analytic frame for forestry conflict analysis (Hellström 2001) | This framework describes different conflict cultures using two sets of components: conflict aspects and conflict dimensions. The former entails four societal aspects of conflicts (social, policy, resource-related and economic) and two descriptive aspects of conflicts (the type of conflict and approaches to conflict management). The latter are three dimensions of conflicts as proposed by Walker and Daniels (1997). A few conflict categories, derived from empirical studies, have been proposed to address any aspect or dimension of conflict. This framework provides a basis for further groupings of the case studies, yet all restricted to a forestry setting | • Comprehensiveness (conflict aspects and conflict dimensions are analysed together) • Significant typological potential • Balance achieved among different conflict determinants • Based-science framework: conflict management and conflict behaviours are used only to facilitate the structuring of conflict cultures • An anthropological constructionist approach | • Repetitions in conflict categories resulting from unnecessary distinguishing of the ‘descriptive aspects of conflicts’ and the use of a ‘procedural’ as opposed to a ‘processual’ dimension, as the latter was introduced by Madden and McQuinn (2014) • Too few structural insights into the multi-level and cross-level characteristics of conflict attributes along the spatial scale |
A framework for mapping common ground and differences in the underlying belief systems of residents with disparate value systems towards wildlife (Patterson et al. 2003) | This framework was originally used to compare the belief systems of two stakeholders with clashing fundamental values towards wildlife. The model posits that the bases of individuals’ belief systems and actual models of their coexistence with wildlife mutually shape one another. Accordingly, a set of ‘compromises’ that are acceptable to the concerned individuals can be formulated, which constitute bases for effective wildlife management | • Interdependence of spatial and social determinants of conflict • Typological approach to systemise individual frames towards wildlife • A qualitative, constructivist approach • A dynamic approach that incorporates spatial and social dynamics | • Fails to address cross-scale processes. It does not describe the transition between individual-level and a community-level ‘management’ segments • Context-specific (focusing on human–wildlife ‘coexistence’) • Does not actually address conflicts (a critical stage of integration of different stakeholder-specific frameworks is not included) |
Framing typology in the geographical analysis of environmental conflicts (Shmueli 2008) | The proposal presents a typology of stakeholders’ frames, yet we find one possible to be used as a framework in empirical studies on protected area conflicts. Three main groups of components are distinguished: ‘factors influencing frames and their formations’, the core ‘frame categories’ and ‘effects of frames’. Frame categories include: (1) identity and values frames sub-divided into personal sub-frames (e.g., conflict orientations or power/uncertainty/complexity assessments) and organizational sub-frames, (2) phrasing frames (formulated in a win–lose mode), (3) substance frames (aspirations, issues, and outcomes), (4) process frames (comprising procedural and participant sub-frames) and (5) characterisation frames. ‘Identity and values’, ‘phrasing’, and ‘process’ frames result in subjective perceptions of conflicts, whereas conflict settings are presented as the effects of ‘process’ and ‘characterisation’ frames | • Applicability to geographical contexts • A constructionist/constructivist approach • Comprehensiveness (inclusion of conflict values, orientations, complexity/risk assessments, and dimensions) • Potential for development into a cause–effect (values–interests) model • Psychological factors are well-addressed • A cross-level typology extending along a social scale (including personal and organizational frames) | • It is not presented in a graphical form of a framework • Indeterminacy of cause–effect relationships (e.g. no equivalency between the ‘identity and values’ and ‘substance’ frames) |
A generic framework to understand biodiversity conflicts (White et al. 2009) | This framework applies conflict factors and indicators to describe conflicts. Conflict factors are economic, ecological and social, while ‘values’ and ‘attributions’ are subdivisions of social factors. The factors are examined in relation to the decision-making processes of conflict actors and their agreement on the factors is reflected in attitudinal indicators, which are measures of conflict potential. Next, behavioural indicators, namely actors’ actions and outcome indicators (consequences of these actions) are assessed, both being measures of conflict intensity. These indicators are then fed back into the conflict factors. White et al. (2009) held that economic and ecological factors can be uploaded into the model both in the form of subjective or objectified measures | • Methodological versatility (covering measured and perceived data, qualitative and quantitative studies, and strategic and tactical needs) • Comprehensiveness (conflict determinants and dimensions are addressed, though not always explicitly) • Interdisciplinary (with strong and deep foundations in a social scientific methodology) • Applicable to spatial analyses of factors • Application of a circular approach relating to conflict analysis | White et al. (2009) themselves identified two limitations: • Linkages between behavioural and outcome indicators and conflict factors are too questionable • Institutional factors are not considered as a distinct category Further, when applying the framework, White et al. (2009) do not adequately address the challenge of ensuring consistency of the input data in terms of their spatial levels and resolution. This suggests that the model has some scale-related limitations |
Conceptual framework of selected factors likely to affect the intensity of human–wildlife conflict (Dickman 2010) | This framework is a constructive response to a simple linear model of ‘damages – conflict – responses – conservation consequences’ that fails to incorporate several attitudinal factors (Dickman 2010). In an advanced version, environmental risk factors influence actual costs of conflicts and social risk factors influence perceived costs. These two components influence conflict intensity (labelled in the model as “response”), ultimately having direct and indirect conservation-related consequences on protected species | • A risk-based approach • Inclusion of constructionist aspects (perceived costs) • Critiques a simplified ‘attitudes – behaviour – consequences’ line of reasoning and proposes a more advanced approach • Highlights interconnections within socio-ecological systems • Comprehensiveness (encompasses various groups of determinants relating to both environmental and social risk factors) | • Though the issue of individual and community levels of risk perception is recognized by Dickman (2010), it is not presented within a framework • Its setting is confined to human responses to wildlife behaviour. Therefore, it is not a conservation conflict framework in the full sense • Conflict management orientation with lower potential for conflict types analysis |
A roadmap to guide effective management of conservation conflicts (Redpath et al. 2013) | The model proposes a sequence of actions within processes of ‘mapping’ and ‘managing’ conflicts. The first process, which falls within the scope of this review, includes: stakeholder analysis; mapping stakeholders’ values, attitudes, goals and positions; identifying gaps and uncertainties based on scientific inquiry; identifying economic, ecological and social impacts; and understanding the wider socio-political context. The model offers clear indications of inputs from ecological sciences, social sciences, and stakeholder processes. These ‘mapping conflict’ processes can advance to a ‘managing conflicts’ stage, but can also end in specific outcomes (framed in a ‘win–lose’ manner), or feed back into the conflict | • Comprehensiveness (includes a variety of conflict attributes) • Applies a circular approach to conflict analysis • Promotes an interdisciplinary approach to conflict analysis • Connects conflict values with stakeholders’ goals and positions | • Applies a management-oriented approach associated with the following issues: – Limited potential of this model to serve as the framework for a conflict typology – The proposed inductive approach to conflict analysis (with identification of the broader context as the last stage in conflict mapping) is not aligned with the more general approach of other structural inquiries |
Conflict depth is revealed through the model’s differentiation of three levels: disputes, underlying conflicts, and identity-based conflicts. The first level encompasses conflict images at a declarative level and concerns direct, material impacts for the stakeholders. At the second level, conflicts are associated with older (historical) but not forgotten disputes of particular actors that continue to influence current ones. Identity-based conflicts at the third level are similar to the above, but stereotypes and negative attitudes encompass the entire social group, even though members of the opposed groups did not interact directly | • The concept of conflict depth • Constructivist/constructionist approach • Connections are drawn between underlying values and conflict issues • All of the conflict dimensions are addressed | • Because of its general nature, the model has limited potential to facilitate the development of a conflict typology • Non-social values entailed in the conflict receive little attention | |
A theoretical framework for a constructivist understanding of socio-environmental conflicts (Ide 2016) | This model posits that certain groups shape their discourses about reality based on its material quality. The discourses structure group identities and situation assessments, which both further structure their interests and actions. Clashes in the actions of at least two groups constitute conflicts. Further, the actions reproduce the groups’ underlying discourses | • Highly constructivist approach • Reveals relationships among social identities, situation assessments, and interests • All of the conflict dimensions are addressed | • Offers a behavioural interpretation of conflicts • Limited potential for developing conflict typologies • Non-social conflict determinants are considered only as components of the ‘material quality of the world’ (framed as external to the inter-group process) • Questionable linkages drawn between interests and actions |