Culture and attitudes: building bridges to mitigate human-wildlife conflict

Cultural and attitudinal change is required to foster human-wildlife conflict (HWC) resolution. Cultural intermediaries are involved in knowledge and truth, have an interrelationship with power, legitimise certain cultures and create social and cultural change. They control both publicly and privately funded cultural activities yet their role as gatekeepers and tastemakers, within culture maybe fundamental in our understanding of the natural world. Cultural intermediaries play a significant role in knowledge transfer, and therefore maybe key in attitudinal change in HWC. Attitudes exert a directive influence upon an individual’s behaviour and have three interrelated components – cognitive, affective and psychomotor. An affect in one component does affect the other and by activating one, attitudinal change may be possible.

Many of the attitudes that individuals (and communities) hold however are as a result of social learning and are formed without direct contact or knowledge of the behaviour in question. It is as this point that cultural intermediaries are influential and may play a significant role in preventing and reducing HWC. To achieve behavioural change, dissonance should be aimed for by challenging existing knowledge and attitudes, here cultural intermediaries become paramount. The dissonance should be at moderate levels to avoid either denial, alternative information or behavioural searching. Monitoring is important as it allows proactive changes towards HWC to take place during the intervention.

Culture should be considered when seeking resolutions to HWC, since if cultural dimensions are ignored, mitigation responses to HWC will fail to be effective. Given the significant role intermediaries have within culture and their ability to change attitudes it is imperative that how they articulate culture and mobilise individuals to a greener more sustainable future be considered.