Next Article in Journal
Science Walden: Exploring the Convergence of Environmental Technologies with Design and Art
Next Article in Special Issue
Indirect Consequences of Recreational Fishing in Freshwater Ecosystems: An Exploration from an Australian Perspective
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring Socio-Technical Features of Green Interior Design of Residential Buildings: Indicators, Interdependence and Embeddedness
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessing the Habitat Suitability of Dam Reservoirs: A Quantitative Model and Case Study of the Hantan River Dam, South Korea
Open AccessReview

A Meta-Analysis of Human–Wildlife Conflict: South African and Global Perspectives

Department of Nature Conservation, Tshwane University of Technology, Private Bag X680, Pretoria West 0001, South Africa
School of Animal, Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, Wits 2050, South Africa
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Shelley Burgin
Sustainability 2017, 9(1), 34;
Received: 4 October 2016 / Revised: 19 December 2016 / Accepted: 23 December 2016 / Published: 28 December 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Wildlife Management)
Human–wildlife conflict (HWC), due to competition for shared natural resources between people and wildlife, influences food security of people and the well-being of people and animals. HWC is a major concern in developing countries, affecting people of different socio-economic classes. We conducted a meta-analysis of the occurrence of published scientific reports on HWC globally and South Africa particularly, to identify vulnerable human communities and their farming practices in developing and developed countries, and vulnerable wildlife guilds. We accessed Institute for Scientific Information publications from 1994 to 2015. Local communities (people living contiguous with protected natural areas) and commercial farmers jointly experienced the highest HWC incidences compared to subsistence farmers, possibly due to reporting bias for commercial farmers. Rural people in Africa and Asia experienced conflict with a diversity of mammals, confirming our expectation that developing countries could potentially experience regular encounters with wildlife. South Africa had more HWC cases than developed countries (e.g., in Australia and North America), yet the dichotomy between first world and third world economies in South Africa provides a regional exemplar of global patterns in HWC. Globally, HWC involved mainly mammals and birds, with carnivores and primates as the most high-scale conflict species and thus were a severely persecuted group. Our foundational research provides the first global assessment of HWC and showed that people in developing countries are vulnerable to HWC, perhaps related to reduced protection of livestock and crops against a larger guild of problem mammals. We suggest that a wider range of literature, including governmental and non-governmental publications, be surveyed to contribute to further research in this area of study. View Full-Text
Keywords: carnivores; high-scale conflict species; local communities; primates; subsistence farmers carnivores; high-scale conflict species; local communities; primates; subsistence farmers
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Seoraj-Pillai, N.; Pillay, N. A Meta-Analysis of Human–Wildlife Conflict: South African and Global Perspectives. Sustainability 2017, 9, 34.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Search more from Scilit
Back to TopTop