Why conservation conflict persists: An interdisciplinary approach to understanding leopard-related conflict

Conflict in conservation is arguably one of the most significant threats to species, especially charismatic and potentially harmful ones, such as the leopard (Panthera pardus). Conservation science has mainly distinguished human-wildlife conflict from human-human conflict, ascribing the latter to people's needs, values and social identity, while disagreements about the conservation approach itself are rarely recognised as a root cause of conflict. Yet polarisation between proponents and opponents of South Africa's sustainable-use approach to conservation is rife, creating a stalemate for practitioners, policymakers and other conservation stakeholders, to the detriment of leopards and other charismatic wildlife. This research explores the controversy over sustainable-use conservation and the leopard in South Africa, guided by the question: 'What constitutes wildlife-related social conflict, and how does this relate to human-wildlife and interpersonal conflict?' The study employs a multilevel, mixed-methods design over two stages to address this question. Stage 1 is predicated on 53 semi-structured interviews, developed in conjunction with a novel methodological tool, the 'relationship board'. Grounded theory analysis of the rich exploratory interview data identified conservation worldviews as the structuring variables of the conflict field. Exploratory social network analysis (SNA) of the interview data, in turn, revealed the organising pattern of the leopard-related conflict field and practices of central actors within it. In a second stage, a psychometric instrument, the sustainable-use conservation worldview (SUC-WV) scale is developed and validated through expert reviews, cognitive interviews and two questionnaire surveys. Four distinct conservation worldviews emerged at the core of the conflict: Individual Use, Supervised Use, No Use and Harmless Use. These latent thought patterns about what makes conservation effective and acceptable can be measured by the SUC-WV scale, with each worldview associated with a typical social profile. Conflict arises from genuine misunderstandings and accusations of moral reprehensibility, as people remain trapped within their own cohesive thought patterns. Social profiles associated with these conservation worldviews further explain the exploratory SNA finding that worldview conflict occurs at a societal level, beyond interpersonal stakeholder conflict or human-wildlife conflict cases. The exploratory SNA results further identify worldview conflict as dominant, exacerbating other conflict areas about leopard permits, damage cases, illegal behaviour, cultural differences or scientific contributions. The findings of this research establish conservation worldviews as a constituting cause of human-human conflict alongside values and identity. Furthermore, they point to the need to split human-human conflict into interpersonal stakeholder conflict and social conflict and offer the SUC-WV scale and exploratory SNA as practical instruments for managing complex conflict fields.