In celebration of the shortlisted papers for the Rachel Carson Prize 2024 for Early Career Researchers, we’re delighted to introduce you to some of our shortlisted individuals and papers.
Beyond Polarization: Transforming Conflict for Human–Wildlife Coexistence.
By Dr. Mireille Gonzalez (she/her)
Read Mireille’s shortlisted paper: ‘Characterizing social conflict over wolf reintroduction in Colorado: A theoretical model of intergroup conflict‘.
Photo Credit: Kaitie Schneider
About the paper:
What is your shortlisted paper about, and what are you seeking to answer with your research?
As wildlife populations decline and human activities expand, achieving coexistence—where both can thrive on shared landscapes—has never been more critical. Traditional conservation focuses on managing wildlife to reduce direct conflict, yet negative impacts persist. This is because, at its root, human-wildlife conflict is fueled by social debates including over values, where wildlife should persist, and broader disputes around equity and decision-making.
Our paper explored social division over a notorious species—wolves. In the U.S. 2020 election, voters in the state of Colorado approved a public-led ballot initiative to reintroduce wolves, which narrowly passed (~50.9%) underscoring the state-wide polarization. My PhD advisor, Dr. Niemiec, Director of the Animal-Human Policy Center, and I sought to understand the psychological drivers of this conflict to support on-the-ground reconciliation efforts.
We took a qualitative deep dive, interviewing stakeholders and government and Tribal representatives, to dissect the conflict narratives surrounding this issue. We found that this conflict is shaped by how people perceive the relationship between conflicting groups, their own and each other’s role in the conflict, as well as the nature of the conflict itself. Those strongly in support and opposition described each other negatively, viewing each other’s goals and actions as unjust and misinformed, whiling viewing themselves and their own group positively, as being victims of each other and as having the moral high ground. Understanding these conflict narratives supports my Center’s (the Center for Human-Carnivore Coexistence) continued efforts to repair damaged relationships and find a positive way forward for people and wolves in the state.
Were you surprised by anything when working on it? Did you have any challenges to overcome?
I was surprised that half of our participants represented a ‘middle-ground’ role in the conflict, rather than aligning with extreme sides. This contrasts sharply with media portrayals of the issue as deeply polarized, with two angry, opposing camps. These individuals, regardless of their stakeholder group and opinions on wolves, expressed empathy and a desire to “reach across the aisle” for shared solutions. Notably, ‘middle-ground’ participants engaged in high levels of perspective-taking—a key strategy for de-escalating tensions. I hope future work can identify and support these bridge-builders, who can model empathy and perspective-taking within their own social groups.
What is the next step in this field going to be?
The next step is to move from researching conservation conflicts to transforming them. We can evaluate what makes participatory conservation processes successful, implement and test reconciliation interventions, and protect wildlife through conservation approaches that center human connection, shared values, and mutual respect. We must counter the dominant media narratives that highlight conflict and reinforce the perception that people are more divided than united, using strategic messaging to promote common-ground.
What are the broader impacts or implications of your research?
It is time for a new paradigm—shifting from reactive wildlife management to proactive conflict resolution. The future of conservation lies in diplomacy, mediation, and collaboration; building bridges between opposing sides to find shared goals that benefit both people and wildlife. Our research advances this shift through our development of the Theoretical Model of Intergroup Conservation Conflicts—a novel framework we adapted from existing conflict and peacebuilding theories. This model can help researchers and practitioners analyze conflict narratives to uncover the psychosocial drivers fueling discord. We hope it becomes a valuable tool for transforming conservation conflicts globally.
About the author:
How did you get involved in ecology?
My academic path has always bridged people and wildlife—I earned my undergraduate degree in Anthropology from UC Berkeley, focusing on Primatology, and a Master’s in Primate Behavior and Ecology from Central Washington University. Between degrees, I cared for injured carnivores at a wildlife rescue center while also working on a Scottish Highland cattle ranch—experiencing human–carnivore conflict from both sides. These experiences, paired with my research in Madagascar on the impact of ecotourism on lemur behavior, made me realize something profound: lasting conservation impact requires shifting human perceptions and behaviors. Thus, I earned a PhD in social psychology to identify how we can coexist with nature and wildlife.
What is your current position?
I now work as a Co-Director and Research Scientist for the Center for Human-Carnivore Coexistence. The Center focuses on advancing transdisciplinary, science-based, and collaborative solutions to human–wildlife conflict globally. I am also an affiliate faculty in Human Dimensions of Natural Resources at Colorado State University. As a “pracademic”, I additionally offer research-based facilitation, strategic planning, conservation diplomacy, and conflict resolution services to agencies, NGOs, and academic partners. My work bridges research and practice, helping others achieve conservation goals through applied social science and meaningful community engagement—work I’m passionate about growing through our Center and beyond.
Have you continued the research your paper is about?
Yes, in several exciting ways! Dr. Niemiec and I collaborated with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, the agency tasked with restoring wolves, to evaluate the design and outcomes of their 18-month stakeholder and public involvement process for developing the Wolf Restoration and Management Plan, including outcomes of reduced social conflict, enhanced trust, and acceptance of the plan. Two publications are In Press—stay tuned! We’re also studying perspectives of public-led wildlife initiatives, including Colorado’s recently defeated public ballot to ban wild cat trophy hunting. Globally, I’m collaborating with Brazilian ecologists to co-develop a Coexistence Action Plan with local communities in conflict with jaguar, puma, maned wolves, and hoary foxes.
What one piece of advice would you give to someone in your field?
In an increasingly polarized world, we must ensure that our shared need for and connection to nature becomes a bridge, not a battleground. To protect wildlife and ecosystems, ecologists should partner with social scientists, as conservation is as much about people as it is about the environment. Scientific knowledge alone won’t resolve tensions—lasting impact comes from listening, building trust, empowering communities, and fostering collaboration. To truly mitigate climate change impacts and stem biodiversity loss, we must invest equally in social change, shared decision-making, and the relationships that make coexistence possible.
Relational Thinking 