A new op-ed explains how language shapes the way we view wildlife and their conservation, as even subtle word choices can drive perceptions of species or situations.Some terms commonly used to describe peoples’ interactions with wildlife like “human-wildlife conflict,” “crop-raiding” and “pest” are detrimental to the understanding of animals and their conservation.“There’s no denying that there will be situations when human and wildlife interests collide, but we can take a step back, consider the power differential between ourselves and other animals, and take a more sympathetic view of these problems,” the author argues.This article is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the author, not necessarily of Mongabay.
See All Key Ideas
Language shapes the way we view our world. In the field of wildlife conservation, even very subtle word choices drive peoples’ perceptions around individual species or situations. These word choices can be illustrated by the language associated with wildlife value orientations (WVO).
When asked about views toward wildlife, individuals often fall into one of two camps: domination or mutualism. Those with a domination perspective tend to view wildlife as a resource to be controlled and used according to human needs. People with a mutualism ideology see wildlife as an extended part of our community, and therefore deserving of our respect and protection. Words like “management” or “resources” are associated with a domination perspective, while those with a mutualism orientation are more likely to view wildlife in human terms, or focus on animal welfare.
Wildlife value orientations are influenced by many social and economic factors, and they are not static. Attitudes in both the U.S. and the U.K. have moved from domination to more mutualism orientations, and this change is strongest in younger and more educated groups. As attitudes toward wildlife shift over time, the language we use to describe other animals will naturally change. Conservationists can actively encourage shifting perspectives toward more positive interactions with wildlife by choosing their language carefully. Some terms that should be replaced are “human-wildlife conflict,” “crop-raiding” and “pest,” because this language depicts humans and nonhumans as enemies.
A chain-link fence erected to exclude wildlife from crops in Chanachen village, Chhukha district, Bhutan. Image by Norbu Tshering / Gedu Divisional Forest Office.
The IUCN defines human-wildlife conflict as “when animals pose a direct and recurring threat to the livelihood or safety of people.” This could mean competition for resources such as food or space, the economic impact of lost crops or livestock, infectious disease transmission, or close proximity to large and physically dangerous wildlife. These issues have been with us for the history of our species, but as the human population continues to grow and require more land, further restricting wild spaces, these issues are becoming more common and more extreme.
It is easy to understand why people would be concerned with these issues. Animals can pose very real threats to peoples’ health, safety and economic stability. However, many scholars have noted that the language of human-wildlife conflict portrays wildlife as if they are actively, purposefully opposed to human interests. One study reviewed scientific papers using that phrase and found that only one of more than 400 studies actually described a conflict situation, in which both actors demonstrate opposing goals or values. This is because wild animals are unaware of human interests and therefore cannot actively work against them. Essentially, the word “conflict” attributes human motivations to nonhuman beings.
“Human-animal conflict” is just one example of wildlife rhetoric evoking crime, war and xenophobia. “Invasive,” “alien” and “foreign” are used to describe animals found outside their expected range. While “invasive” does have an ecological meaning — referring to a species with rapid spread and a detrimental impact on an ecosystem — this is not automatically a result of a species being introduced to a new environment.
Regardless, the animals have not intentionally chosen to invade foreign territory; they are simply trying to survive in a new landscape. One study on urban coyotes describes the importance of language for human-animal relations, finding that depicting coyotes as “invaders” or “foreign” fostered negative opinions of the animals and increased peoples’ fear for their own (and their pets’) safety, despite the fact that the coyotes were residing within their traditional home range.
One of the most frequent conflict-evoking phrases regarding wildlife is “crop-raiding.” Many species of animals feed from crops — from slugs to elephants — and all farmers deal with the reality that other animals enjoy eating crops, too. While mitigation of crop loss is a priority for human livelihoods, the language of “raiding” exacerbates the problem by framing wildlife as purposeful thieves.
A chimpanzee eats a cacao pod on a plantation in Bossou, Guinea. Image courtesy of Nicola Bryson-Morrison.
From the animals’ perspective, crops provide a bountiful patch of high-calorie, easily digestible food. Animal habitats are rapidly being replaced by agricultural lands, and these farms may even be positioned between isolated habitat fragments, so as animals forage to meet their nutritional needs, they become accidental actors in a conflict situation. Quantifying economic loss due to animal foraging is difficult, but studies show that the conflict is more about how people feel about losing crops to wildlife than about the tangible damage to their farms. In many cases, careful assessment of the situation reveals that the conflict with wildlife can be avoided by mediating power struggles with other humans, such as local government or conservation organizations, that impact how farmers manage their own lands.
Resistance to the phrase “crop-raiding” has been led by primatologists. Primates, along with elephants and wild pigs, are the most common groups of mammals associated with crop damage. Unlike other animals, however, primates have the added challenge of looking and behaving very much like little hairy people, which makes it easier for farmers to attribute human motivations to them.
One study discovered that farmers were less tolerant of monkeys than other wildlife because only the monkeys were “wasteful” when foraging on crops. The farmers were referring to a common feeding behavior in monkeys, where they eat only the best mouthfuls of a fruit and drop the rest to the ground before selecting another piece.
Monkeys are among the most important seed dispersers in the tropics, and behaviors like this spread the seeds of trees and provide nutrients to wildlife living on the forest floor. This natural and species-appropriate behavior, performed by animals with human-like faces and mannerisms, may strike the observer as ungrateful or wasteful.
Crop-foraging animals, along with urban wildlife that feed on the streets or in rubbish bins, are often labeled pests. A pest species is defined as any organism harmful to humans. These are often insects or rodents that could spread disease or damage homes. However, any species that is inconvenient to humans may be regarded as a pest. Red foxes, for example, are treated as pests across Europe, but they are simply a highly adaptable meso-predator that has expanded their niche into human-modified landscapes. Rather than causing a problem for humans, self-regulating red fox populations in reality help humans by keeping rodent populations in check.
Like many bear species, sloth bears are attracted to garbage dumps like this one in southern India, often leading to conflict with people. Image courtesy of Chandrasekar Das/Keystone Foundation.
Animals persecuted as pests may serve as keystone species, performing important ecological functions. Prairie dogs in the U.S. are often considered a pest species due to their tendency to damage gardens and crops and the potential to transmit infectious disease. These animals are also ecosystem engineers that aerate the soil and create burrows used by many other species, and they provide a food source to many rare predatory birds.
The negative language around wildlife points to two key themes. One theme relates back to the WVO model described above. Phrases like “crop-raiding,” “pest” and “invasive” all evoke the need to control or dominate other wildlife, and ensure they conform to human safety and convenience. Studies have shown that we can address real human problems with wildlife while using less volatile language, which gently steers people toward choosing mutually beneficial solutions over harmful ones.
For example, one study found that around a third of encounters labeled “shark attacks” by the media involved no injury to humans at all. Words like “bite,” “encounter” or “sighting” are more appropriate in those cases, and reframe the situation to remind readers that humans are in the wild animals’ territory, rather than the other way around.
Similarly, media that explain problem species’ natural behavior and ecology, such as the “Get Bear Smart” campaign can go a long way toward improving human-wildlife relationships by helping people realize their role in attracting unwanted animal interactions. By resisting the urge to sensationalize animal stories, we will be more likely to understand the various factors causing conflict and come to a satisfactory solution.
The other theme emerging from the language around wildlife is the concept of animal agency. How much choice do they have in situations where human and animal interests collide? We humans have an interesting tendency to either anthropomorphize animals — attributing to them human personalities, motivations and emotions — or to deny the capability of any sort of feelings or choice altogether. The reality is somewhere in between, and unfortunately much less clear than either of these extremes.
A female elephant with her calf on agricultural land in northeastern Bangladesh. Image courtesy of Mohammed Mostafa Feeroz.
Animals do have agency; they are individual beings who make choices every day to ensure their own survival and well-being. But their motivations and understandings and needs all differ from ours. While we’ll never be able to fully understand the mind of another animal, we are lucky enough to be a species capable of asking that question (for a fantastic read on animal awareness, see Ed Yong’s An Immense World). Keeping this perspective can be the key to helping humans cohabitate with other species.
There’s no denying that there will be situations when human and wildlife interests collide, but we can take a step back, consider the power differential between ourselves and other animals, and take a more sympathetic view of these problems. By using less hostile language around animals, we can encourage the next generation to view them as neighbors, who have just as much right to be here as we do.
So, instead of reporting on crop-raiding, we can call it simply “crop-foraging” or “crop-feeding.” We can be more precise about what problem we’re actually having with animals. A pest species, for example, might be better described as “overpopulated,” indicating the need for a holistic ecosystem-level solution, or even “clever,” suggesting we need simple solutions like bear- or fox-proof rubbish bins. Species found outside their original range may be described as “displaced” or “transplanted,” leaving the decision of whether they are invasive or not to ecologists who can evaluate their impact on the wider environment.
And for human-animal conflict, we can try more neutral language such as “human-wildlife interactions,” “contact” or “associations.” We might even find space for more positive framing — like “human-wildlife coexistence.”
Tracie McKinney is a primatologist specializing in human-wildlife interactions, and is a senior lecturer at the University of South Wales, U.K.
Banner image: Kavantissa, a ‘regal tusker’ considered Sri Lanka’s largest elephant, stands more than 3 meters (10 feet) in height. He faces the risk of being killed due to his habit of roaming close to human settlements. Image courtesy of Gimantha.
Related audio from Mongabay’s podcast:
See related commentary and coverage:
Bhutan’s new farm fencing program could be costly for wildlife (commentary)
Learning to live with lions: Interview with Claw Conservancy’s Andrew Stein
Can cattle and wildlife co-exist in the Maasai Mara? A controversial study says yes
As Thailand’s fishing cats face habitat loss & conflict, experts seek resolution
Citations:
Peterson, M. N., Birckhead, J. L., Leong, K., Peterson, M. J., & Peterson, T. R. (2010). Rearticulating the myth of human-wildlife conflict. Conservation Letters, 3(2), 74-82. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263x.2010.00099.x
Draheim, M. M., Crate, S. A., Parsons, E. C., & Rockwood, L. L. (2021). The impact of language in conflicts over urban coyotes. Journal of Urban Ecology, 7(1). doi:10.1093/jue/juab036
Narvaez Rivera, G. M. (2017). The human-alloprimate interface in Gandoca, Costa Rica: An ethnoprimatological approach to assess conflict between residents and three Neotropical primates (Master’s thesis, Iowa State University, U.S.). doi:10.31274/etd-180810-5205
Jiguet, F. (2020). The Fox and the Crow. A need to update pest control strategies. Biological Conservation, 248, 108693. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108693
Pepin-Neff, C. L. (2022). Shark bite reporting and The New York Times. Biology, 11(10), 1438. doi:10.3390/biology11101438
