Mapping social conflicts to enhance the integrated management of white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)

Abstract

Abstract Understanding the social feasibility of wildlife conservation approaches is essential to reducing social conflicts over wildlife and public backlash toward wildlife agencies and organizations. The Potential for Conflict Index2 (PCI2) and geospatial analyses of conflict can help wildlife practitioners strategically engage their publics, but these two tools have yet to be combined. Using data from a 2021 survey about white‐tailed deer in Indiana (n = 1806), we analyzed conflict levels among stakeholder self‐identities and political ideologies regarding the acceptability of six possible management methods, three lethal and three nonlethal. We then conducted a hotspot analysis of gridded PCI2 values to map areas of high and low social conflicts across the state. Conflict potentials showed more consistent covariation with political ideologies than with stakeholder self‐identities, aligning with urban–rural divides in wildlife experiences. Data on political leanings and residency may thus be more reliable than stakeholder categories to predict social conflicts over wildlife management. Hotspots of conflict over lethal methods clustered around urban areas, indicating that agencies should focus on engaging urban residents about deer management. Our conflict hotspots can be combined with other spatial data to create social units of analysis, which can help practitioners develop targeted and socially accepted strategies for wildlife conservation and management.

Keywords

• acceptability
• conservation social science
• GIS
• human dimensions
• mapping
• social conflicts