Human-wildlife conflict is described as direct interactions between humans and wildlife, with adverse outcomes for one or both parties. This matter includes a large variety of animals and situations. These circumstances often result from the co-occurrence of humans and wildlife in a shared landscape, in search of limited resources₁.

Costs on the local people can include a depredation of livestock or game, raiding of crops, the destruction of food storages, attacks on humans, transmissions of diseases and/or indirect opportunity costs₄. In turn, humans may respond with lethal control to an extent which can cause major wildlife decline and even extinctions₇. Declines in large predators can have further major cascading consequences for other species as well as ecosystem services₁₀.

Human-wildlife conflict can be traced back to our earliest records of history₅, but as resource availability and human and animal behaviour has and continues to change with climate change, this issue is increasing globally₂. Furthermore, climate change also increases resource scarcity and forces people and animals to share increasingly highly populated areas₁.

Finding a balance in protecting endangered species with satisfying the needs of local communities is essential for resolving this conflict. Management strategies include preventing these conflicts through the use of lethal control (e.g. legally sanctioned hunting or selective harvesting)₃₈ and nonlethal measures (such as fencing, livestock corrals and guard animals)₉.

NOTE: Check out an incredible foundation based in SA (where I worked as a volunteer), which addresses this topic: Cheetah Outreach (https://cheetah.co.za/)

Another way is to mitigate the impacts after the conflict occurred. This can be achieved through compensation; a widely used tool in which affected people are reimbursed for lost livestock or crops through monetary or non-monetary (e.g. replacement of animals or food) means₆.