Environmental justice gaps in human-wildlife conflict research from a social-ecological systems perspective

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. • Environmental justice is rarely addressed in SES studies on human–wildlife conflict. • Local communities were most affected but had little role in decision-making. • Only two studies explicitly used an environmental justice framework for HWC. • Findings reveal a justice gap between affected and empowered social actors.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Biological Conservation
Published
2025-09-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111515
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Geographies of human-animal interactions
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
33.61
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Environmental justice gaps in human-wildlife conflict research from a social-ecological systems perspective

Antonio Arjona Castro, Berta Martín‐López, Daniela Alba‐Patiño, Miguel Delibes‐Mateos et al.
5 citations
Biological Conservation
Geographies of human-animal interactions
33.61
article

Environmental justice gaps in human-wildlife conflict research from a social-ecological systems perspective

Antonio Arjona Castro, Berta Martín‐López, Daniela Alba‐Patiño, Miguel Delibes‐Mateos, Juan M. Requena‐Mullor
article en
5 citations

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. • Environmental justice is rarely addressed in SES studies on human–wildlife conflict. • Local communities were most affected but had little role in decision-making. • Only two studies explicitly used an environmental justice framework for HWC. • Findings reveal a justice gap between affected and empowered social actors.

Biological ConservationVol. 312
Leuphana University of Lüneburg (DE), Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados (ES), University of Almería (ES)
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Geographies of human-animal interactions
33.61
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.