Gendered Risk Perceptions Associated with Human-Wildlife Conflict: Implications for Participatory Conservation

Abstract

This research aims to foster discourse about the extent to which gender is important to consider within the context of participatory approaches for biological conservation. Our objectives are to: (1) gender-disaggregate data about stakeholders' risk perceptions associated with human-wildlife conflict (HWC) in a participatory conservation context, and (2) highlight insights from characterizing gendered similarities and differences in the way people think about HWC-related risks. Two communal conservancies in Caprivi, Namibia served as case study sites. We analyzed data from focus groups (n = 2) to create gendered concept maps about risks to wildlife and livelihoods and any associations of those risks with HWC, and semi-structured interviews (n = 76; men = 38, women = 38) to measure explicit risk attitudes associated with HWC. Concept maps indicated some divergent perceptions in how groups characterized risks to wildlife and livelihoods; however, not only were identified risks to wildlife (e.g., pollution, hunting) dissimilar in some instances, descriptions of risks varied as well. Study groups reported similar risk perceptions associated with HWC with the exception of worry associated with HWC effects on local livelihoods. Gendered differences in risk perceptions may signal different priorities or incentives to participate in efforts to resolve HWC-related risks. Thus, although shared goals and interests may seem to be an obvious reason for cooperative wildlife management, it is not always obvious that management goals are shared. Opportunity exists to move beyond thinking about gender as an explanatory variable for understanding how different groups think about participating in conservation activities.

Full text

Gendered Risk Perceptions Associated with Human-
Wildlife Conflict: Implications for Participatory
Conservation
Meredith L. Gore
1
*, Jessica S. Kahler
2
1Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America, 2Department of Fisheries
and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America
Abstract
This research aims to foster discourse about the extent to which gender is important to consider within the context of
participatory approaches for biological conservation. Our objectives are to: (1) gender-disaggregate data about
stakeholders’ risk perceptions associated with human-wildlife conflict (HWC) in a participatory conservation context, and
(2) highlight insights from characterizing gendered similarities and differences in the way people think about HWC-related
risks. Two communal conservancies in Caprivi, Namibia served as case study sites. We analyzed data from focus groups
(n= 2) to create gendered concept maps about risks to wildlife and livelihoods and any associations of those risks with HWC,
and semi-structured interviews (n= 76; men = 38, women = 38) to measure explicit risk attitudes associated with HWC.
Concept maps indicated some divergent perceptions in how groups characterized risks to wildlife and livelihoods; however,
not only were identified risks to wildlife (e.g., pollution, hunting) dissimilar in some instances, descriptions of risks varied as
well. Study groups reported similar risk perceptions associated with HWC with the exception of worry associated with HWC
effects on local livelihoods. Gendered differences in risk perceptions may signal different priorities or incentives to
participate in efforts to resolve HWC-related risks. Thus, although shared goals and interests may seem to be an obvious
reason for cooperative wildlife management, it is not always obvious that management goals are shared. Opportunity exists
to move beyond thinking about gender as an explanatory variable for understanding how different groups think about
participating in conservation activities.
Citation: Gore ML, Kahler JS (2012) Gendered Risk Perceptions Associated with Human-Wildlife Conflict: Implications for Participatory Conservation. PLoS
ONE 7(3): e32901. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032901
Editor: Michael Somers, University of Pretoria, South Africa
Received April 20, 2011; Accepted February 7, 2012; Published March 5, 2012
Copyright: ß2012 Gore, Kahler. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This study was funded by the Department of Fisheries and 468 Wildlife and School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. The funders had no
role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
* E-mail: gorem@msu.edu
Introduction
Not all human-wildlife interactions result in conflict, however
when they do occur, human-wildlife conflicts (HWC) (i.e.,
interactions that result in negative effects for people or wildlife)
can pose risks to wildlife conservation and livelihood preservation
[1]. HWC may range in both magnitude (e.g., death, injury,
property damage, vulnerability, political conflict [2–3]) and
frequency (e.g., stochastic, seasonal, year round incidents [4]).
Around the world HWC can pose severe problems for people such
as decreased food security, increased workload, decreased physical
and psychological well being, economic hardship, and at times an
increase in illegal or dangerous activities such as poaching [5].
Debate among affected parties regarding appropriate manage-
ment responses to HWC can erupt [6] and may generate political
conflict between people and institutions (see Treves et al. [6] for
additional information about types of interventions used to resolve
conflicts) [7]. HWC can be similarly problematic for wildlife,
contributing to population suppression, range collapse, or
extinction [8]. HWC is a highly complex phenomenon that
transcends ecological, economic, management, political, and social
systems [1].
Resolving HWC fundamentally requires managing risk [3,9].
Solutions are often forged on community-based or participatory
approaches [10–11], particularly in regions of the world where
management agency resources are limited or decentralized. Such
efforts ideally incorporate context-specific factors [12–13]. Partic-
ipatory approaches to biodiversity conservation can be viewed
differently by various subgroups of people within a community
[5,14–15]. Who has a voice in community conservation influences
how well a group functions and who gains and loses from or is
affected by interventions [14]. Neglecting stakeholders can lead to
an incorrect assessment of intervention success in terms of
achieved levels of equitable participation and efficiency. This
may result in devastating and irreversible impacts for wildlife and
people [1]. Omitting stakeholders may also obscure the difference
between those who have a stake in [wildlife conservation] and
those who have the ability to act on it [14]. Participatory
approaches often aim to overcome stakeholder neglect by
purposefully including diverse stakeholders in wildlife decision-
making. Ideally the approach leads to more democratic,
executable, and creative management decisions through increased
diversity in issue-related information and perspectives on conser-
vation issues [16–17].
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 1 March 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 3 | e32901

Although we may expect differences among different stakehold-
ers’ perceptions of and preferences for participatory HWC
management [18], differences are not always purposefully
measured or incorporated (e.g., Agrawal [10], Lauber et al. [19],
Anthony et al. [18], Gore et al. [20], Ogra [5]). Whereas
historically wildlife decision-making literature focused primarily on
stakeholder groups who were mostly comprised of men (e.g., see
Anthony et al. [18]), women are now recognized as important
players in contemporary conservation contexts [18]. Given the
potential for gender differences in wildlife-related attitudes,
perceptions, and behaviors, women need to be recognized as a
unique and critical stakeholder group in HWC-related decisions
[18,21]. In some instances, policies are already in place to advance
this objective. For example, Millennium Development Goal Three
(i.e., promote gender equality and empower women) explicitly
focuses on gendered dimensions of education, poverty, politics,
and vulnerability [22]. Ideally, engaging women in decision
making over the use and management of local environmental
resources is central not only to women’s empowerment but also to
greater sustainable development [16,17,23].
Gendered risk perception is currently an understudied dimen-
sion of biodiversity conservation and HWC, but does gender
warrant explicit consideration by HWC scholars and practition-
ers? Is thinking about gendered participation in HWC interven-
tions necessary or sufficient for conservation project success? What
are the gendered costs and benefits of participating in HWC
interventions? Gender scholars (e.g., Ray [23]) have purported
answers to these questions are tentative at best because some
environmental resource sectors, including biodiversity conserva-
tion, are weak in the kinds of data that are needed to arrive at
definite answers. Our goal is to foster discourse about the extent to
which gender is an important dimension to consider within the
context of participatory approaches to biological conservation,
such as resolving HWC-related risks. Even though gender is often
used synonymously with women in environmental contexts,
including biodiversity conservation, we follow Nightingale’s [24]
approach and focus our gendered inquiry on both men and
women.
Gendered perceptions in conservation
Political ecologists often consider gender an explanatory factor
for variance in attitudes about conservation issues such as fishing
policy [25], perceptions of a biosphere reserve [26], participation
in conservation programs [27], and predictors of wildlife value
orientations [28]. Scholars have explored gender differences in
fishing acculturation [29], citizen participation [18], fairness in
wildlife decision- making [19], and considered gender bias in U.S.-
based wildlife survey research [30]. Men are more likely to be
accepting of hunting whereas women are more likely to express
anti-hunting attitudes [31]. Women often perceive greater risk
from contact with wildlife [31–32] and have demonstrated greater
concern for the impacts of wildlife conservation and management
on their local communities [19]. Scholars have also explored
gendered effects on attitudes associated with HWC (e.g., Ogra
[5]).
Considering gender differences in attitudes towards wildlife and
wildlife conservation has given practitioners a richer understand-
ing of the concerns different stakeholders bring to the table [19].
For example, Gilligan [33] discussed how men commonly exhibit
an ethic of justice (e.g., rules about actions being right or wrong)
and women an ethic of care (e.g., actions that preserve and nurture
relationships) when thinking about policy preferences for natural
resource management. Lauber et al. [19] found men and women
used different criteria to evaluate wildlife conservation alternatives.
Gender differences can be detected in wide-ranging topics such as
support for conservation schemes, willingness to participate in
cooperative management solutions, or attribution of responsibility
for resolving HWC [34]. Further, gender differences in the types of
criteria used to evaluate conservation alternatives can also explain
conservation preferences. Women may emphasize some criteria
more than men and have different preference levels for the relative
importance of such criteria [19]. We acknowledge many of these
conclusions are based on research conducted with Western
cultures and there are likely differences between these Western-
based studies and an African context. However, it is reasonable
that similar considerations are important in non-Western cultures
and conservation contexts [34].
Risk perceptions and gender
Risk perception (i.e., intuitive judgments as opposed to technical
assessments about risk [35]) has been applied to gender and HWC
(see Gore et al. [36] for a broad review of risk and wildlife,
including psychological factors influencing wildlife-related risk
perception), although the three concepts are rarely, if ever, applied
together. The risk and decision sciences literature tells us men and
women commonly differ in their perception of risk [37–38].
Variations in risk perceptions seem to reflect not only gender
differences in activities and social roles, but also unequal power
relations and different levels of trust in authorities and institutions
[39].
Psychologists offer insights about perceptual differences between
risks [36]. As with the wildlife-related literature above, many
psychological studies have focused on individuals from Western
cultures and thus reference types of risk relevant to the study
population (e.g., nanotechnology in Europe). Regardless of the risk
topic or society studied, gender differences persist. Thus, we know
men tend to express less concern for many types of risks such as
climate change or sexual assault [38]. Some risk perception studies
reflect predominantly male experiences [40] and present women
as an out-group comparison to the male in-group. One example is
the proposition that women repeatedly prioritize home and family,
mainly perceive risks as threats to their family and other persons
with whom they had close relations, and to their home (e.g., fire)
[38].
The influence of gender on risk perception is dynamic and
complex. Women and men may perceive the same risks
differently, they may perceive different risks, and they may attach
different meanings to what appear to be the same risks [38]. Thus,
it is important not only to describe but to also explain gender
differences in risk perception. We suspected, similar to Ogra [5],
that many important dimensions of HWC, such as risk perception,
go unnoticed in part because they are gendered. To this end, we
set the following objectives, to: (1) gender-disaggregate data about
stakeholders’ risk perceptions about risk to wildlife, livelihoods,
and any associations of those risks with HWC in a participatory
wildlife conservation context, and (2) highlight the important
insights that arise in characterizing gendered similarities and
differences in the way people think about risks associated with
wildlife, livelihoods, and HWC.
Methods
Ethics statement
The methods for this research were approved for the duration of
the project by the MSU Committee on Human Subjects, Protocol
ID #X09-443. A Committee-approved verbal informed consent
procedure was used due to potential participant illiteracy. In
instances where participants approved use of a digital voice
Gender and Human Wildlife Conflict
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 2 March 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 3 | e32901

recorder, consent was documented digitally. In all instances,
participants had to verbally consent to participating in the study
before data collection commenced.
Study area
The Caprivi region of northeastern Namibia is a narrow swath
of land covering approximately 20,000 km
2
and bordering
Angola, Zambia, and Botswana. The region has four major rivers,
the highest rainfall in Namibia [41], and is home to approximately
80,000 people [42]. Local livelihoods in Caprivi are highly
dependent on natural resources [42]. Caprivi has high concentra-
tions of wildlife including one of the largest populations of free-
ranging elephants (Loxodonta africana) in Africa [41] and a diverse
assemblage of predators including lion (Panthera leo), spotted hyena
(Crocuta crocuta), leopard (Panthera pardus), and crocodile (Crocodylus
niloticus). Resolving HWC in Caprivi is a priority because it causes
an estimated annual economic loss of USD $770,000 [42] through
livestock depredation and damage to commercial crops; this
number does not include injury, death or damage to non-
commercial crops, all of which occur. Within Caprivi we selected
communal conservancies (i.e., decentralized, communal commu-
nity-based management units in Namibia) for this research
(Table 1) based on the following criteria: (1) willingness to
participate, (2) documented presence of HWC, and (3) the second
author being granted verbal permission to conduct research by
traditional authorities and conservancy managers.
Data collection
We used focus groups and semi-structured interviews [43] to
achieve objectives. Focus group participants were solicited from
each village zone (i.e., distinct residential area) within two Caprivi
conservancies (i.e., Wuparu, Dzoti). Participants were solicited
using a cluster and convenience sampling technique with
probability proportionate to size [43]. Interview participants were
recruited from the same conservancies. All study participants were
permanent residents of their respective conservancies and 18 years
of age or older. Participation in one research activity did not
exclude participation in the other. However, interview and focus
group participants were independently selected using the above-
described sampling protocols to maximize participation and
minimize burdens on participants (e.g., time away from work).
Six translators, five men and one woman, were trained by the
second author and certified according to MSU Institutional
Review Board requirements. Translators: (1) were fluent in
English, Lozi, and/or Sheyeyi, (2) had completed secondary
school, (3) were not members of the traditional authority, and (4)
agreed to work the duration of research activities. The second
author relayed these job requirements to conservancy staff who
then made recommendations on possible applicants; applicants
were then interviewed, hired, and trained. Data collection
instruments were pretested to increase the validity of instrument
content [45].
The second author and six translators facilitated identical two-
day focus groups in each conservancy (see Kahler [45] for
protocol). Participants were divided into three parallel groups
comprised of: (1) male residents, (2) female residents, and (3) local
environmental decision makers of any gender to promote a
nonthreatening and permissive environment for dialogue [46] and
help diffuse potential power differentials between participants [47].
During the focus group activity participants first individually free-
listed risks associated with two broad risk targets (i.e., wildlife, local
livelihoods) on an index card so as not to constrain responses to
researcher-imposed ideas about HWC-related risks. Within
groups, participants shared and discussed their results and
identified what, if any, risks from the two targets were related to
HWC. The activity was completed independently for the two risk
targets. At the conclusion of each focus group the second author
and translators reviewed index cards. Risks not listed or defined in
English were translated by consensus to maximize the reliability
and validity of translation for future analysis.
Semi-structured interviews commenced concurrently with focus
groups and measured participant demographic characteristics
(e.g., age, education) as well as explicit attitudes about risks to
Table 1. Environmental and socio-demographic characteristics of study site and interview participants (n= 76) in East Caprivi,
Namibia [64].
Environmental characteristics
Adjacent conservation areas Balyerwa Communal Conservancy (west); Mamili National Park (south); Mudumu
National Park (north); Shikakhu Community Forest (east)
Climate Semi-arid (Average annual rainfall #625 mm)
Major wildlife resources
a
Buffalo, Duiker (Cephalophus sp.), Elephant, Impala (Aepyeros melampus), Kudu,
Leopard, Lion, Reedbuck (Redunca arundinum), Roan (Hippotragus equinus), Tsessebe
(Damaliscus lunatus), Warthog (Phacochoerus africanus), Wildebeest (Connochaetes
taurinus)
Size 393 km
2
Terrestrial ecoregion classification Mosaic of Zambezian Baikiaea woodlands and flooded grasslands
Socio-demographic characteristics of interview participants (n = 76)
Approximate population (density); average household size (range) 2,491 (6.34/km
2
); 5.83 (1–15 people)
Ethnic group composition Mayeyi (94%); Totela (4%); Mafwe (1%); Kwanyama (1%)
Educational attainment No school (17%); some primary (16%); completed primary (3%); some secondary
(42%); completed secondary (18%); some college (1%); adult vocational (3%)
Participation in livelihood strategies Agriculture (97%); rural industry (26%); livestock (25%); fishing (16%); business (8%);
commercial farming (3%); NGO (3%); tourism (3%); government (1%); other (3%)
Local languages Sheyeyi (83%); Lozi (13%); Subiya (2%); Totela (2%)
Traditional authorities Chief Mbambo; Chief Sifu
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032901.t001
Gender and Human Wildlife Conflict
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 3 March 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 3 | e32901

wildlife and livelihoods associated with HWC, such as perceptions
of risk to wildlife from HWC, factors influencing risk perceptions
associated with HWC such as dread or worry, compliance with
wildlife rules, and vulnerability associated with HWC (see Kahler
[45] for interview instrument). Questions were queried using four-
point visual Likert-type scales (see Kahler [45] for scales) to lessen
the potential for culturally driven bias towards neutral or extreme
response categories [48–49]. Such scales are also appropriate in
situations of low literacy [50].
Data analysis
An iterative process guided the first phase of our qualitative,
gendered analysis of focus group data [20,51]. We used this type of
analysis because the process does not dilute participant comments
and data is minimally constrained by the researcher [52]. Because
we had two risk targets (i.e., wildlife, local livelihoods), we
conducted separate coding iterations for both. First, we reviewed
all participants’ livelihood risk lists and identified ‘‘overarching risk
themes’’ across all livelihood risks (e.g., lack of access to education).
These themes informed the next phase of analysis, where we
reviewed participants’ ‘‘overarching risk theme’’ lists to identify
‘‘theme attributes’’ (e.g., lack of family planning) and ‘‘descriptions
of the attributes’’ (e.g., increased population). We conducted a
third iteration of coding to recheck our work [44]. After identifying
‘‘overarching risk themes,’’ ‘‘attributes,’’ and ‘‘descriptions’’ for
livelihoods and wildlife across all participants as noted above, we
gender disaggregated the data using LeCompte and Goetz’s [53]
methodology whereby we scanned, ordered, reviewed, and
compared concepts. We used concept mapping, or a visual display
illustrating relationships between and among concepts [52], to
visually delineate gendered perspectives of risks to wildlife and
livelihoods and those risks associated with HWC. Concept
mapping is useful for summarizing the ideas of a group without
losing individuality, trivializing some ideas over others, or losing
detail [44]. We generated six concept maps, three each for
livelihoods and three for wildlife. Each concept map was anchored
upon one of the three dimensions commonly associated with
HWC, ‘‘people,’’ ‘‘wildlife,’’ and ‘‘habitat’’ [54]. Tethered to each
dimension were the ‘‘overarching risk themes,’’ ‘‘theme attributes’’
and ‘‘descriptions’’ participants identified during focus groups.
Finally, we visually compared gendered concept maps to identify
concepts in common to men and women (delineated with bold-
faced type in figures) as well as concepts the participants delineated
as related to HWC (shown in italicized type in figures).
Responses to interview questions were recoded into dichoto-
mous variables for quantitative analysis. Variables were cross-
tabulated to assess the percentage of positive responses among the
sample and chi-square tests for independence were calculated
using PASWStatistics 18.0 [55].
Results
Focus groups
Focus group results illustrate the diversity of risks facing men
and women in the study area. Focus group participants generated
315 risk index cards: thirty-two participants (men = 15, wom-
en = 17) generated 151 index cards for wildlife as the risk target
and 33 participants (men = 16, women = 17) generated 164 index
cards for livelihoods as the risk target. Women generated a list of
81 risks for the wildlife target and 99 risks for the livelihood target.
Men generated a list of 70 risks for the wildlife target and 65 risks
for the livelihood target. Female participants ranged in age from
18 to 63 years old, three were illiterate in either their native
language or languages taught in school (i.e., English, Lozi) and
their formal education background ranged from never having
attended school to post-secondary vocational and technical
training. Male participants ranged in age from 18 to 46 years
old, all were literate in at least their native language and their
formal education background ranged from having completed
some primary school to having completed a college degree.
We explored gendered perceptions about risks to wildlife and
livelihoods and those risks associated with HWC using concept
maps. Concept maps illustrated both similarities and difference in
participant impressions. We discuss these impressions below.
Participants’ livelihood concept maps
Within the ‘‘people’’ dimension, women offered breadth of
detail about ‘‘overarching risk themes’’ and ‘‘theme attributes’’
such as human health effects (e.g., malaria, sexually transmitted
disease, alcohol), polygamy, infrastructure, and poverty. In
contrast, men offered depth of detail when describing ‘‘overarch-
ing risk themes’’ and ‘‘theme attributes’’ within the ‘‘people’’
dimension (e.g., lack of funds for infrastructure, which specifically
included roads, buildings, schools, and clinics) (Fig. 1a). Men
identified a greater number of species in the ‘‘wildlife’’ dimension
[e.g., buffalos (Syncerus caffer), crocodiles, elephants, hippopotamus
(Hippopotamus amphibius), hyenas, lions, porcupines (Hystrix afri-
caeaustralis)] as posing risks to livelihoods than did women [e.g.,
buffalos, elephants, hyenas, lions, porcupines]. Only women
identified wildlife scarcity and disease transmission as ‘‘overarch-
ing risk themes’’ within the ‘‘wildlife’’ dimension. One woman
noted, ‘‘Kudu [Tragelaphus strepsiceros] are becoming few [sic]
(Participant #24).’’ Only men identified competition between
wildlife and livestock (Fig. 1b). One man stated that competition
between livestock and wildlife results because ‘‘livestock use the
same source of resources (e.g., water) [as wildlife][sic](Participant
#42).’’ Men and women similarly identified the ‘‘overarching risk
themes’’ of flooding, deforestation, and agriculture within the
‘‘habitat’’ dimension. However, the ‘‘theme attributes’’ and
‘‘attribute descriptions’’ for these concepts were different. Women
noted the connection between flooding and poverty whereby men
noted the connection between flooding and infrastructure (e.g.,
roads, buildings, villages) agriculture, life and livestock (Fig. 1c).
Participants’ wildlife concept maps
Men and women identified diverse ‘‘overarching risk themes’’ to
wildlife. Only women noted land tenure and only men noted a
lack of work as being ‘‘overarching risk themes’’ to wildlife within
the ‘‘people’’ dimension. ‘‘Theme attributes’’ and ‘‘theme
descriptions’’ varied as well. Although men and women identified
pollution, including noise, as a threat to wildlife, the attribute noise
was described differently. Women defined noise as including
drums, human settlement, and shooting guns whereas men defined
noise as including drums, human settlement, shooting guns,
machines and roads. Only men distinguished the ‘‘theme
attribute’’ of air and water pollution as a threat to wildlife, while
only women described ‘‘smell pollution’’ as consisting of both
humans and chili used for wildlife deterrence. Men and women
identified ‘‘overarching risk themes’’ of human activities such as
hunting; however only men distinguished legal and illegal hunting
and also noted how lack of work and patrols created risks (Fig. 2a).
Both men and women similarly defined predation as an
‘‘overarching risk theme’’ within the ‘‘wildlife’’ dimension. Men
and women similarly conceptualized the ‘‘overarching risk
themes’’ of wildlife mobility and predation (Fig. 2b).
Men and women similarly described many ‘‘overarching risk
themes’’ within the ‘‘habitat’’ dimension, for example agriculture,
deforestation, the human-wildlife interface, and fire (Fig. 2c). One
Gender and Human Wildlife Conflict
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 4 March 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 3 | e32901

man noted, ‘‘…veld [bush] fire destroys the habitats of wildlife and
this activity is mainly caused by human beings [sic] (Participant #
71).’’ Also within this dimension, women identified ‘‘overarching
risk themes’’ related to non-human activities such as drought. For
example, one woman noted, ‘‘This [drought] can make animals
not live near people because of poor living [as] the area will be
without water and grass [sic] (Participant #73).’’
Interviews
Interview results illustrate how study men and women differed
in their perceptions of risk associated with HWC. Seventy-six
individuals participated in interviews (men = 38; women = 38).
Participants ranged in formal educational attainment from no
school to college educated, age (18–88 years), and all participated
in some form of subsistence based activity or rural industry. Study
men and women reported similar risk perceptions associated with
HWC with the exception of ‘worry’ associated with HWC effects
on local livelihoods. Women (92.1%, n= 35) were more likely than
men (65.8%, n= 25) to be highly worried (x
2
= 7.92, df =1,n= 75,
P,0.05; Table 2). There was little difference in the proportion of
men and women who rated various categories of HWC-related
risks to livelihoods as being highly dreadful (Fig. 3a). There was
less agreement among groups regarding categories of HWC-
related risks to wildlife as being highly dreadful (Fig. 3b).
Discussion
Results indicate that opportunities exist to move beyond
thinking about gender as an explanatory variable for understand-
ing how different groups think about conservation issues such as
managing risks associated with HWC. Knowledge about gender
can be leveraged to explicitly craft and assess interventions that
more purposefully respond to the needs and perceptions of
different groups. Divergent risk perceptions affirm that risks need
not always be experienced or considered in a uniform manner by
men and women. Feminist political ecologists (e.g., Rocheleau
[56]) have suggested that gender is an important variable in
shaping interactions between people and their environment.
Environmental knowledge is gendered and impacts, among other
things, individuals’ willingness to participate in environmental
interventions. Thus, gendered differences in risk perceptions
associated with HWC are essential to identify as part of an
intervention because gender will influence willingness to partici-
pate. Fortunately, the literature provides us with compelling
information about ways to engage and respond to differences in
Figure 1. Concept maps illustrating participants’ perceptions
of risk to livelihoods. Focus group participants (n = 33; men = 16;
women = 17) generated a list of risks to their livelihoods and described
them. Responses are displayed in a gender-segregated concept map
presenting the ‘‘overarching risk themes,’’ ‘‘theme attributes,’’ and
‘‘attribute descriptions.’’ Fig. 1A displays responses anchored in the
‘‘people dimension,’’ Fig. 1B displays responses anchored in the
‘‘wildlife dimension,’’ and Fig. 1C displays responses anchored in the
‘‘habitat dimension.’’ Boldfaced type illustrates concepts common
across men and women. Italicized type illustrates concepts participants
related to human-wildlife conflict (HWC). Men and women viewed some
risks to local livelihoods differently. For example, within the ‘‘people’’
dimension, women offered breadth of detail about ‘‘overarching risk
themes’’ and ‘‘theme attributes’’ and men offered depth of detail when
describing ‘‘overarching risk themes’’ and ‘‘theme attributes.’’ Even
when men and women similarly identified the ‘‘overarching risk
themes’’ of flooding, deforestation, and agriculture within the ‘‘habitat’’
dimension, the ‘‘theme attributes’’ and ‘‘attribute descriptions’’ were
different.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032901.g001
Gender and Human Wildlife Conflict
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 5 March 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 3 | e32901

Gender and Human Wildlife Conflict
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 6 March 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 3 | e32901

how men and women think about conservation issues. Knowing
your audience is essential to effective conservation communication
planning, implementation, and evaluation [57]. For example,
considering gendered differences in stakeholders’ interest in
wildlife can be important to designing messages and delivery
strategies, especially when information is presented about the
nature of problems, impacts of management techniques, or
reasons why certain alternatives were chosen in lieu of others
[19]. Project aims are often articulated and yet mean different
things to different people involved in the policy process [58].
Depending on communication goals (e.g., wildlife-focused risks or
livelihood-focused risks), messages may or may not have to be
formatted, delivered, and assessed differently for men and women.
Measuring gendered risk perceptions (and changes over time) can
reduce uncertainty for decision makers tasked with such
communication or intervention activities. Decision makers can
attend to differences when communicating to residents about
HWC and be aware that different message content would not
wholly be salient to both men and women. Such differences can
also be used as criteria for accurately evaluating HWC-related
interventions based on perceptions that matter to men and
women.
Gendered differences in risk perceptions may signal different
priorities and incentives to participate [59] in efforts to resolve
HWC-related risks. A practical implication of this finding is that if
local HWC interventions are framed in terms of male-oriented
perceptions (e.g., lack of work), some women may not engage
because they believe such efforts are irrelevant. This would be
unfortunate as data indicate that HWC was clearly salient to both
men and women. Environmental justice scholars (e.g., Verchick
[39]) argued that failing to engage groups who are affected by and
have the potential to affect environmental risks, such as HWC,
would not only represent a missed opportunity for more effective
risk resolution, but also an abuse of power and degree of
negligence on behalf of decision makers tasked with managing
risks.
Results indicate that among study participants, women’s risk
perceptions associated with HWC cannot be explained in isolation
from men’s risk perceptions. In articulating threats to livelihoods
and wildlife, study participants revealed many shared: (1) goals and
interests (e.g., risks to wildlife held in common such as hunting and
fire); (2) superordinate goals, or objectives above the issue at hand
(e.g., education, lack of food); and (3) perceptions about the
salience of HWC. These similarities challenge gender essentialist
assumptions (i.e., women are closer to nature than men and have
natural sympathies and connections to nature whereas men do
not) made by some conservationists (e.g., Jackson [59]) and may be
leveraged to build common ground around wildlife conservation
policies [60]. The broader implication for conservation from this
finding is that although shared goals and interests may seem to be
an obvious reason for cooperative wildlife management, it is not
always obvious that management goals are shared. Gore et al. [61]
noted the utility of applying knowledge of shared perceptions in
HWC-related risk communication programs to facilitate an open
flow of information, set agendas for interpersonal discussion about
risks, reduce ambiguity between stakeholders, and foster more
effective decision making.
Study men and women conveyed very similar conceptions of
risks within the ‘‘wildlife’’ domain as well as perceptions about
various categories of HWC. These similarities in perceptions,
across groups as well as across threats to wildlife and livelihoods,
may be useful fodder for HWC interventions. For example, both
men and women may agree about the need for effective wildlife
deterrence interventions such as chili ‘‘bombs’’ or ‘‘fences’’ to
surround and protect crops from elephants. However, only women
identified chili ‘‘bombs’’ and ‘‘fences’’ as being a source of risk for
wildlife. The smell of chili (capsaicin) is believed to repel elephants
and thus is promoted in a variety of elephant deterrents such as
bombs, fences, and ropes that create barriers around crop fields
[62]. This finding is important because women in many regions of
the world, including our case study site, are responsible for much
of the agricultural work beyond land clearing and plowing [21]. If
Figure 2. Concept maps illustrating participants’ perceptions of risk to wildlife. Focus group participants (n = 32; men = 15; women = 17)
generated a list of risks to local wildlife and described them. Responses are displayed in a gender-segregated concept map presenting ‘‘overarching
risk themes,’’ ‘‘theme attributes.’’ and ‘‘attribute descriptions.’’ Fig. 2A displays responses anchored in the ‘‘people dimension,’’ Fig. 2B displays
responses anchored in the ‘‘wildlife dimension,’’ and Fig. 2C displays responses anchored in the ‘‘habitat dimension.’’ Boldfaced type illustrates
concepts common across men and women. Italicized type illustrates concepts participants related to human-wildlife conflict (HWC). Men and women
identified diverse ‘‘overarching risk themes,’’ theme attributes’’ and ‘‘theme descriptions.’’ For example, although men and women identified
pollution, including noise, as a threat to wildlife, the attribute noise was ‘‘described’’ differently. Men and women identified ‘‘overarching risk themes’’
of human activities such as hunting; only men distinguished legal from illegal hunting and noted how lack of work created risks.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032901.g002
Table 2. Effect of gender (men = 38; women = 38) on attitudes toward human wildlife conflict related risks in East Caprivi, Namibia.
Male Female x
2
Analysis
% Positive or High Responses Value
df P-value
Risk to people from HWC
a
acceptable 26.3 39.5 1.49 1 0.22
Risk to wildlife from HWC acceptable
a
65.8 55.3 0.88 1 0.35
Frequency of HWC in community
b
76.3 84.2 0.75 1 0.39
Level of control over experiencing HWC
b
47.4 52.6 0.21 1 0.65
Worry about HWC effects on people
b
65.8 92.1 7.92* 1 0.01
Worry about HWC effects on wildlife
b
64.9 57.9 0.38 1 0.54
*Significant at p,0.05.
a
Response options included yes or no.
b
Response options included high or low.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032901.t002
Gender and Human Wildlife Conflict
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 7 March 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 3 | e32901

women perceive risks to wildlife from chili-related interventions to
be high, the implementation of a useful technique may be
compromised unless risk perceptions are directly attended to as
part of the intervention. Specifically, interventions should address
high perceptions of risk.
The multiple congruent risks between men and women detected
in our study, such as pollution, agriculture, fire, wildlife’s lack of
mobility, and crop damage, provoke thought about opportunities
for improved risk management in general and HWC management
in particular. Even though groups may have different goals
regarding HWC management, it is not unreasonable for a single
intervention to concomitantly manage both. For example, women
mentioned disease transmission from wildlife whereas men
identified competition with livestock for habitat as risks to
livelihoods. Interventions or policies that aim to reduce disease
transmission and habitat competition with livestock might include
those that promote fencing or modified animal husbandry
practices. HWC interventions may also incorporate the common
goals held, but different benefits realized, by men and women. For
example, among our study participants, reducing risks to
livelihoods could influence risk perception among women about
disease, livestock health, or poverty. For men, minimizing risks to
livelihoods may influence risk perceptions about hunting and
conflict among farmers. Implementing HWC-related interventions
purposefully designed to target multiple goals and provide multiple
gendered benefits may offer decision makers new opportunities to
increase intervention potency and sustainability through evalua-
tion that directly accounts for indicators of success. Data indicate
stakeholders’ risk perceptions associated with HWC are connected
to and contingent upon a wide range of risks to livelihoods and
Figure 3. Percentage of respondents rating categories of human-wildlife conflict as highly dreadful to livelihoods and wildlife.
Interview respondents (n = 76; men = 38; women = 38) rated various categories of human-wildlife conflict as being a ‘‘no,’’ ‘‘low,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ or ‘‘high’’
level of dreadfulness to them personally. Response categories were recoded into dichotomous responses of ‘‘low’’ and ‘‘high’’ (highly) dreadfulness.
Fig. 3A illustrates responses when the human-wildlife conflict (HWC) risk target (i.e., the recipient of negative consequences of the risk) was local
livelihoods. Fig. 3B illustrates responses when the HWC risk target was local wildlife. There was a high level of agreement among men and women
when the risk target was local livelihoods, with the exception of ‘‘human-human conflict’’ that results from HWC, and less agreement among men and
women when the risk target was local wildlife.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032901.g003
Gender and Human Wildlife Conflict
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 8 March 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 3 | e32901

wildlife. Given the financial and social resources some HWC
interventions require (e.g., compensation schemes that pay
landowners for wildlife-incurred property damage or loss),
evaluating the social viability of interventions [6] before they are
implemented could be invaluable to decision makers with limited
resources. If decision makers are able to more aptly respond to
local stakeholders there is the potential to increase stakeholders’
perceived legitimacy of conservation interventions [63]. For
example, only women identified wildlife deterrence activities such
as chili ‘‘fences’’ as posing risks to wildlife (i.e., women
characterized chili ‘‘fences’’ as being a form of smell pollution).
In this instance, gendered risk perception could influence the social
acceptability of wildlife deterrence measures such as chili ‘‘fences.’’
Treves et al. [6] discussed further the strong relationship between
perceptions and social acceptability of HWC-related interventions.
Because gender has the potential to influence perceptions it is an
important response variable to consider vis a` vis acceptability.
HWCs are likely to continue to pose conservation challenges in
the foreseeable future. Policies, activities, and actions that
effectively reduce risks to human and wildlife health and safety
associated with HWC using participatory methods are currently
and will likely remain in high demand. The complexity of HWC
requires a conservation toolbox that offers breadth and depth of
detail for building capacity to understand human relationships
with wildlife, including those that are gendered. Interventions
focused on human behavior (e.g., communication designed to
reinforce, restrain, or maintain human behaviors) are common
[1]. We know that systematic and interdisciplinary studies that
adapt social science methodologies and consider local risk
perceptions are irreplaceable components of effective HWC
management and mitigation and promote both conservation and
livelihood security [3]. Gendered risk perceptions have yet to be
fully integrated into the context of participatory approaches to
resolving HWC-related risks and are especially salient in
conservation contexts with distinct gender roles related to
interactions with wildlife. This research highlights insights that
conservationists may glean from when considering gendered
perceptions of HWC-related risk.
Acknowledgments
In addition to all study participants, we thank M. Ogra, S. Brechin, B.
Muter, M. Lute, S. Hanisch, S. Riley, and T. Dobson for comments on
earlier drafts of this manuscript; the Integrated Rural Development and
Nature Conservation (IRDNC), Chief Sifu’s Traditional Authority, Dzoti
Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund (WWF)-Namibia and Wuparo
Conservancy for assistance and guidance in-country; and Caprivi research
assistants M. Chris, S. Hasken, N. Lasken, E. Liswaniso, F. Lizumo, R.
Makanyi, C. Mutabani, and O. Tama.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: JSK MLG. Performed the
experiments: JSK. Analyzed the data: JSK MLG. Wrote the paper: MLG
JSK.
References
1. Gore ML, Knuth BA, Scherer CW, Curtis PD (2008) Evaluating a conservation
investment designed to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Conservation Letters 1:
136–145.
2. Gore ML, Knuth BA (2009) Mass media effect on the operating environment of
a wildlife-related risk communication campaign. Journal of Wildlife Manage-
ment 73: 1407–1413.
3. Treves A, Wallace RB, Naughton-Treves L, Morales A (2006) Co-managing
human-wildlife conflicts: a review. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 11: 383–396.
4. Gore ML, Knuth BA, Curtis PD, Shanahan JE (2006) Education programs for
reducing American black bear-human conflict: indicators of success? Ursus 17:
75–80.
5. Ogra MV (2008) Human-wildlife conflict and gender in protected area
borderlands: a case study of costs, perceptions, and vulnerabilities from
Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum 39: 1408–1422.
6. Treves A, Wallace R, White S (2009) Participatory Planning of Interventions to
Mitigate Human-Wildlife Conflicts. Conservation Biology 23: 1577–1587.
7. Hill CM (2004) Farmers’ perspectives of conflict at the wildlife-agriculture
boundary: some lessons learned from African subsistence farmers. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife 9: 279–286.
8. Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A (2005) People and wildlife: conflict or
coexistence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 516 p.
9. Treves A, Karanth KU (2003) Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on
carnivore management worldwide. Conservation Biology 16: 1491–1499.
10. Agrawal B (2001) Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: an
analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development 29:
1623–1648.
11. Raik DB, Lauber TB, Decker DJ, Brown TL (2005) Managing community
controversy in suburban wildlife management: adopting practices that address
value differences. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10: 109–122.
12. Naughton-Treves L (1999) Whose animals? A history of proprietary rights to
wildlife in Toro, western Uganda. Land Degradation and Development 10:
311–328.
13. Wilson RS (2008) Balancing emotion and cognition: a case for decision aiding in
conservation efforts. Conservation Biology 22: 1452–1460.
14. Agrawal B (2000) Conceptualizing environmental collective action: why gender
matters. Cambridge Journal of Economics 24: 283–310.
15. Agrawal A, Gibson C (2001) Communities and the environment: ethnicity,
gender, and the state in community-based conservation. New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press. 224 p.
16. Lauber TB, Knuth BA (2000) Suburban residents criteria for evaluating
contraception and other deer management techniques. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife. pp 1–17.
17. Zanetell BA (2001) Consensus-Based Collaboration in Watershed Management:
Quixotic Notion or the Environmental Pot of Gold? HDRU Publ. 01-3.
Department of Natural Resources, N.Y.S. College of Agriculture and Life
Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
18. Anthony ML, Knuth BA, Lauber TB (2004) Gender and citizen participation in
wildlife management decision-making. Society and Natural Resources 17:
395–411.
19. Lauber TB, Anthony ML, Knuth BA (2001) Gender and ethical judgments
about suburban deer management. Society and Natural Resources 14: 571–583.
20. Gore ML, Knuth BA, Curtis PD, Shanahan JE (2006) Stakeholder perceptions
of risk associated with human-black bear conflicts in New York’s Adirondack
Park campgrounds: Implications for theory and practice. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 34: 36–43.
21. Hunter ML, Hitchcock RK, Wyckoff-Baird B (1990) Women and wildlife in
Southern Africa. Conservation Biology 4: 448–451.
22. United Nations (2010) The Millennium Development Goals Report: United
Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. ISBN: 978-92-1-101218-7.
23. Ray I (2007) Women, water, and development. Annual Review of Environment
and Resources 32: 421–449.
24. Nightingale A (2006) The nature of gender: work, gender, and environment.
Environment and Planning: Society and Space 24: 165–185.
25. Faasen H, Watts S (2007) Local community reaction to the ‘no take’ policy on
fishing in the Tsitsikamma National Park, South Africa. Ecological Economics
64: 36–46.
26. Martin D (2008) Gender and urban perceptions of nature and protected areas in
Ban˜ ados del Este Biosphere Reserve. Environmental Management 41: 654–662.
27. Baral N, Jensen JT (2007) Decentralization and people’s participation in
conservation: a comparative study from the Western Terai landscape of Nepal.
The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 14:
520–531.
28. Loyd KAT, Miller CA (2010) Influence of demographics, experience, and value
orientations on preferences for lethal management of feral cats. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife 15: 262–273.
29. Kuehn DM, Dawson CP, Hoffman R (2006) Exploring fishing socialization
among male and female anglers in New York’s Eastern Lake Ontario area.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife 11: 115–127.
30. Jacobson CA, Brown TL, Decker DJ (2007) Gender-biased data in survey
research regarding wildlife. Society and Natural Resources 20: 373–377.
31. Kellert SR, Berry JK (1987) Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife
as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin 15: 363–371.
32. Zinn H, Pierce C (2002) Values, gender, and concern about potentially
dangerous wildlife. Environment and Behavior 34: 239–256.
33. Gilligan C (1982) In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s
development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 216 p.
34. Ogra MV (2009) Attitudes toward resolution of human-wildlife conflict among
forest-dependent agriculturalists near Rajaji National Park, India. Human
Ecology 37: 161–177.
Gender and Human Wildlife Conflict
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 9 March 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 3 | e32901

35. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236: 80–285.
36. Gore ML, Wilson RS, Siemer WF, Wieczorek Hudenko H, Clarke CE, et al.
(2009) Application of risk concepts to wildlife management: special issue
introduction. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14: 301–313.
37. Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK (199 4) Gender, race, and perception of
environmental health risks. Risk Analysis 14: 1101–1108.
38. Gustafson PE (1998) Gender differences in risk perception: theoretical and
methodological perspectives. Risk Analysis 18: 805–811.
39. Verchick RRM (2004) Feminist theory and environmental justice. In: New
perspectives on environmental justice: gender, sexuality and activism. New
Brunswick Rutgers: University Press. 63 p.
40. Cutter SL, Tiefenbacher JI, Solecki WD (1992) En-gendered fears: femininity
and technical risk perception. Individual Crisis Quarterly 6: 5–22.
41. O’Connell-Rodwell CE, Rodwell T, Rice M, Hart LA (2000) Living with the
modern conservation paradigm: can agricultural communities co-exist with
elephants? A five-year case st udy in East Capr ivi, Namibia. Biological
Conservation 93: 381–391.
42. Jones BTB, Barnes JI (2006) Human wildlife conflict study: Namibian case
study. Independent Environment and Development Consultants: Design and
Development Services, Windhoek, Namibia.
43. Bernar d HR (2006) Research methods in anthropology: qu alitative and
quantitative approaches. Oxford: AltaMira. 824 p.
44. Trochim WMK (2001) The research methods knowledge base. Ithaca: Atomic
Dog Publishing. 361 p.
45. Kahler JS (2010) Local Perceptions of Risk and Vulnerability Associated with
Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Namibian Conservancies. Retrieved from Pro-
Quest Digital Dissertations, (AAT 1483617).
46. Smith K, Barrett CB, Box PW (2000) Participatory risk mapping for targeting
research and assistance: an example from East African pastoralists. World
Development 28: 1945–1959.
47. Morgan DL (1993) Successful focus groups. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
288 p.
48. Reid J (1990) The Dirty Laundry of ESL Survey Research. TESOL Quarterly
24: 323–338.
49. Roster C, Albaum G, Rogers R (2006) Can cross-national/cultural studies
presume etic equivalency in respondent’s use of extreme categories of Likert
rating scales? International Journal of Market Research 48: 741–759.
50. Chachamovich E, Fleck MP, Power M (2009) Literacy affected ability to
adequately discriminate among categories in multipoint Likert Scales. Journal of
Clinical Epidemiology 62: 37–46.
51. Glaser B, Strauss A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory-strategies for
qualitative research. London: Weiderfeld and Nicholson. 271 p.
52. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 352 p.
53. LeCompte MD, Goetz JP (1983) Playing with ideas: analysis of qualitative data.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Canada.
54. Conover M (2002) Resolving human-wildlife conflicts. Boca Raton: Lewis
Publishers. 440 p.
55. SPSS Inc (2010) PASW Statistics 18.0. Chicago, Illinois.
56. Rocheleau DE (2008) Political ecology in the key of policy: from chains of
explanation to webs of relation. Geoforum 39: 716–727.
57. Shanahan JE, Gore ML (2012) Communication for human dimensions of
wildlife. In: Human dimensions of wildlife in North America. Johns Hopkins
Press.
58. Harrison E (1997) Fish, feminists, and the FAO: translating ‘gender’ through
different institutions in the development process. In: Getting institutions right for
women in development. New York: Zed Books. 61 p.
59. Jackson C (1993) Doing what comes naturally? Women and environment in
development. World Development 21: 1947–1963.
60. Wondolleck JM, Yaffee YM (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from
innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington DC.
61. Gore ML, Knuth BA, Curtis PD, Shanahan JE (2007) Campground managers
and user perceptions of risk associated with negative human-black bear
interactions. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12: 31–43.
62. Hedges S, Giumaryadi D (2010) Reducing human-elephant conflict: do chilies
help deter elephants from entering crop fields? Oryx 44: 139–146.
63. Kuperan K, Sutinen JG (1998) Blue water crime: deterrence, legitimacy, and
compliance in fisheries. Law & Society Review 32: 309–334.
64. Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organizations (NACSO) (2009)
Namibia’s communal conservancies: a review of progress 2008. Windhoek,
Namibia: NACSO.
Gender and Human Wildlife Conflict
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org 10 March 2012 | Volume 7 | Issue 3 | e32901