As the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and other conservation and management actions facilitate the successful recovery of many threatened and endangered marine species (Valdivia et al., 2019), and human populations expand in urbanizing coastal areas, people are increasingly likely to interact with protected marine wildlife. While these interactions can bring excitement, wonder, and economic benefit to coastal communities (Loomis, 2006; Cisneros-Montemayor et al., 2013), they can also result in conflict, particularly over shared spaces or shared resources (Draheim et al., 2015; Guerra, 2019). In some cases, these types of conflicts have resulted in prolonged legal battles between advocates for marine species and those who want to maintain access to marine and coastal resources (Carswell et al., 2015; Konrad and Levine, 2021). In other cases, conflict has resulted in the death of threatened marine species, such as the recent intentional killings of endangered monk seals in Hawai‘i (Harting et al., 2021; Carretta et al., 2022) and the shooting of pinnipeds and sea otters in central California (Baxter, 2015; Barcenas-De la Cruz et al., 2018). While elements of each of these conflicts are species and place specific, they have many common drivers and are often due to differences in values and worldviews between parties in conflict.

To prevent or mitigate conflict related to recovering wildlife populations, including marine species, it is important to understand the underlying factors that drive conflict (Manfredo and Dayer, 2004; Marshall et al., 2007). Human values are critical in shaping how people perceive wildlife (Messmer, 2000; Riley et al., 2002; Dickman, 2010; Madden and McQuinn, 2014; Bennett et al., 2017; Muhar et al., 2018). People from divergent backgrounds and value systems may perceive the impacts of wildlife differently, which may lead to conflicting beliefs about the species and objectives for managing interactions with them (Riley et al., 2002; Jackman et al., 2023). In some cases, the material impacts of wildlife may be less important in shaping people’s attitudes than the degree to which people agree with how wildlife is governed and the actions of governing institutions (Merz et al., 2023). Unfortunately, values and perceptions toward wildlife have received less attention in research relating to wildlife conflict when compared with ecological and biophysical factors (Manfredo and Dayer, 2004), though attention to these questions has expanded in recent years (König et al., 2020). The emotional and cultural dimensions of human-wildlife interactions are critical to coexistence (Pooley et al., 2021), and greater attention to how social contexts and material impacts of human-wildlife interactions interplay with approaches to managing conflict are important in designing effective conservation and conflict management programs (Redpath et al., 2013).

The endangered Hawaiian monk seal (Neomonachus schauinslandi) is a classic example of a recovering species whose presence evokes predictably diverse responses. In this paper, we explore the underlying drivers of conflict as interactions between people and Hawaiian monk seal populations increase in Hawai‘i. This analysis will both (1) inform better management of conflicts about Hawaiian monk seals and, (2) provide insights to help others embarking on marine mammal recovery to proactively anticipate the potential for increased interactions and conflict that paradoxically may be an inevitable outcome of successful recovery.

Human-wildlife conflicts are now recognized as largely social conflicts between people about wildlife and how wildlife should be managed (IUCN, 2023). These conflicts may stem from groups of people experiencing different types of interactions with wildlife, for example visitors viewing wildlife in a park for the first time vs. residents near a park interacting regularly with the species in their backyards, as well as different perceptions of the same interactions when the animal is viewed as a pest or pet (Herda-Rapp and Goedeke, 2005; Jerolmack, 2008; Leong, 2009). When animals have become rare enough to be protected under the ESA, interactions with them are also infrequent. As populations rebound towards recovery and interactions become more frequent, people will increasingly need to make sense of these novel types of encounters. The encounters themselves are not inherently good or bad; they are weighted through human values that determine their importance and whether the impacts from those interactions are valued on the whole as positive or negative (Riley et al., 2002). A large body of research has demonstrated that many of the conflicts associated with wildlife conservation stem from divergent value systems, worldviews, and histories of the parties in conflict, especially as people learn to make sense of increasing interactions with wildlife that have become intolerable for some (for example, see Hill et al., 2017; Frank et al., 2019; IUCN, 2023). Understanding the specific drivers of these conflicts is necessary for successful recovery and coexistence.

Some core concepts related to drivers of conflict include: social construction of wildlife, levels of conflict, and risk communication. Social construction refers to the process by which people attach meaning to the physical world; the way we understand animals and our interactions with them is based on physical considerations, but they are filtered through the social and cultural symbols and norms that determine how we think about them (Herda-Rapp and Goedeke, 2005; Leong, 2009). Different groups of people may apply different societal norms, leading to conflict. For example, anglers have viewed recovering river otters (Lutra canadensis) as “hungry little devils,” while protection activists viewed them as “playful, ecological angels” (Goedeke, 2005). This process has also been shown for common species becoming overabundant, where white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were alternately viewed as pests or pets (Leong, 2009), and for increasing populations of feral domestic species, e.g. outdoor cats (Felis catus) seen as invasive species or homeless pets (Leong et al., 2020).

When differing constructions of wildlife are based on identities, conflict becomes even more difficult to manage. The levels of conflict framework illustrates how resolving a surface level dispute can appear to be relatively straightforward, but conflicts with a long history or that impact the sense of identity or values of the parties involved can become intractable (Madden and McQuinn, 2014; Zimmermann et al., 2020). In these instances people may only voice surface level concerns, when they actually care more about threats to their identity or values. The nature of the conflict thus informs the type of resolution needed, where deep-value identity conflicts require reconciliation techniques that transform dialogue from a focus on the visible disputes about how to manage physical interactions with wildlife to addressing the harms to identity or values that may stem from the way management priorities or methods are applied and perceived.

Approaches to communication also may drive conflict when they are not targeted to the appropriate level of conflict. While education and outreach may be helpful in addressing surface-level disputes, these approaches are not well-suited to addressing the deeper level drivers. For example, it is well known that experts and the public perceive risk differently, with experts more focused on probability of harm (hazard) and the public focused on characteristics of the risk (outrage), such as whether it is a known or new risk, natural or man-made, chronic or catastrophic, and whether it approaches everyone equally or if some people are more affected than others (Slovic et al., 1979; Morgan et al., 2002; Sandman, 2021). For each of those dimensions, the former is perceived as less risky than the latter, regardless of probability of harm. Perceptions of risks and benefits also may differ between managers and publics, further driving conflicts (Bruskotter and Wilson, 2014). In addition, public risk perceptions are formed within a social context, where entities such as news media, cultural groups, or interpersonal networks can amplify or attenuate perceptions of risk and may not be aligned with expert perspectives (Kasperson et al., 2022).

The majority of research to date on human-wildlife conflict has focused on terrestrial species where wildlife encroaches on what are viewed as human spaces. More recently, scholars have begun exploring human wildlife-conflict in coastal and ocean systems (Denkinger et al., 2014; Draheim et al., 2015; Guerra, 2019; Konrad and Levine, 2021). Notably, Sprague and Draheim (2015) apply the Conflict Conservation Transformation framework (Madden and McQuinn, 2014) to better understand how levels of conflict influence the emerging conflict over monk seals in Hawai‘i. Using a largely theoretical approach, they describe how issues of government mistrust, perceptions of monk seal origin, disputes over resources and regulation, and underlying conflict relating to Hawaiian history have sparked debate over monk seals and their management. Our research uses primary data to expand on their theoretical work to improve our understanding of factors influencing the continuing conflict over the Hawaiian monk seal.

A mixed methods approach was used to explore the perceptions and values driving conflict over monk seals and their management. To understand historical and contemporary monk seal management, human-monk seal interaction in Hawai‘i, and the potential conflict associated with these, we reviewed literature including peer-reviewed publications, gray literature, and NOAA technical memos, reports, and internal documents related to monk seals and conflict. This included projects that involved both formal and informal interviews with diverse stakeholders, including members of the Native Hawaiian community. We also reviewed media coverage of monk seals to create a timeline of interactions between people and monk seals that resulted in physical harm, as well as to better understand how monk seals are portrayed in popular media.

In addition, we conducted semi-structured interviews between August and November of 2018. NOAA project partners identified initial interviewees and organizations based on their involvement with monk seal recovery in the past. They suggested state resource managers, federal resource managers and researchers, as well as representatives from volunteer organizations including Hawai‘i Marine Animal Response (HMAR) and the Monk Seal Foundation, both of which have been involved in monk seal monitoring and outreach. Representatives from fisherman groups and lifeguards were also interviewed to understand a range of perspectives associated with monk seal conflict in the MHI. Where contact information for individuals was not known, public agency contact information was used, and snowball sampling was used to identify additional interviewees. A total of 20 interviews were completed with state managers (2), federal managers or researchers (9), fishermen (2), lifeguards (2), and monk seal volunteers (5). Interviews ranged from 30–70 minutes in duration. Interview questions focused on the interviewee’s involvement and experiences with monk seals, observed interactions between people and monk seals, perceptions of reasons for conflict over monk seals, as well as their perception of the role monk seals should play in Hawaii and how they are personally affected by monk seals. Interviewees who were managers were also asked additional questions relating specifically to monk seal management. Fifteen of the interviews were recorded (with the subject’s approval), transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo v12.5 software. Detailed notes were taken during interviews when the respondent did not agree to be recorded. Interview responses were analyzed using an inductive approach (Thomas, 2006), where initial themes were generated and then refined through iterative review of the data. Transcripts and notes were reviewed to identify themes relating to values and perceptions relevant to monk seals and their management. The first author conducted all coding for internal consistency using NVivo software. After three iterations of transcription analysis, preliminary codes were refined in consultation with the second author and condensed to reduce redundancy and focus on themes most relevant to the research objectives. Codes were also analyzed using NVivo to identify frequencies.

To gauge the broader public’s perceptions of monk seals and their management, surveys were conducted on beaches where seals were present on the island of O‘ahu, the most populous of the MHI. Beaches where seals were actively hauled out (and thus target sites for surveys) were identified by coordinating with NOAA and HMAR, the local non-profit that currently monitors the monk seal population throughout four sectors in O‘ahu (North, South-East, South-West, and West). HMAR sector managers respond to a sighting hotline that is utilized for the public to report any sightings of monk seals across the island. Once monk seal presence was confirmed at a beach location, HMAR sector managers relayed the location of a hauled-out monk seal via phone call or text message, and an attempt was made to go to that beach and opportunistically survey any individual who was present at a beach while the seal was also present.

People at beaches with a monk seal present were approached and asked to take a paper survey, with the goal of surveying as many people as possible. Surveys were conducted in English, which limited our ability to include some international visitors in the sample. Surveys included Likert-type scale and multiple-choice questions including basic demographics, reasons for beach visitation, reactions to seal’s presence on the beach, and opinions of potential management responses to limit human interaction with monk seals. A total of 132 surveys were completed between July 19th and August 16th, 2018 at ten different beaches with seals present ( Figure 2 ). All survey data were imported and normalized in a database using PSQL and analyzed using Excel and R v2023.03.1 + 466 software. All information collection and informed consent procedures were reviewed by the Institutional Review Board at San Diego State University and deemed exempt under protocol number HS-2018–0097.

As an author group, we also drew on our own expertise as individuals working to support the recovery of endangered marine species and as academics with a long history of studying conflict over wildlife. We have all been directly involved in efforts to understand and reduce conflict over seals and other forms of wildlife for multiple years and have engaged directly with diverse stakeholder groups on different sides of these conflicts as a part of participatory management processes. These experiences informed our analysis of the findings, provided insight into how our findings relate to broader themes in the human-wildlife conflict literature, and guided our discussion of paths toward addressing emerging conflicts.

Here we present findings based on our review of government and media reports, stakeholder interviews, and beach-based surveys to better understand the drivers of conflict relating to the endangered Hawaiian monk seal in the MHI. We organize the results and discussion of this study by thematic areas relevant to conflict that have emerged from this research: emerging signs of conflict, polarized views of seals and what they represent, the role of media and social media platforms, and management intervention to prevent and address conflict. Within each of these thematic areas we discuss how values, environmental beliefs and perceptions, and other factors contribute to existing and future conflict.

Our case study reinforces and extends patterns seen in previous research on Hawaiian monk seal recovery efforts. Although the broader public’s perceptions of monk seals in Hawai‘i are largely positive, the persistence of challenging conflicts with people who view monk seals as something other than an animal in need of protection continues to impede successful recovery and coexistence. Our study illustrates the role of social construction, deep-value identity conflicts, and aspects of risk communication in driving these conflicts. These findings mirror work on invasive species conflicts by Crowley et al. (2017) that suggest that aspects of the social context, approach to management, and communication can affect conflict development. They provide principles, tools, and strategies to anticipate and respond to these drivers of conflict, which apply equally to endangered species recovery:

These approaches are especially important when hazards are low and outrage is high, which is when destructive conflicts were seen in our study, and which in our experience forms the basis of most human-wildlife conflicts driven by deep-value differences. This is often related to conflicting meanings attached to wildlife species that are becoming more common, whether they are endangered species like the Hawaiian monk seal that have become legally protected, common species adapting to urban environments, or domestic animals adapting to live without human support (e.g., feral animals). Endangered species recovery creates this potential for conflict by intentionally seeking to increase the population of rare animals. Thus, paradoxically, success in recovering endangered species means an increased likelihood of conflict over that species, as was observed by Williams et al. (2002) for wolves. Because people’s lifestyles, values, and identities have been developed in a context where the species is rare, these conflicts have a high potential of becoming protracted and deep-rooted as increased human-wildlife interactions and government interventions to protect wildlife change how people live with and think about wildlife, but there is not yet a societally uniform understanding of wildlife in that context (Leong, 2009).

Decker et al. (2011) refer to this phenomenon as subsequent impacts of management which occur because management objectives have been achieved. Redpath et al. (2015) go one step further, arguing that managers and conservationists often act as antagonists by promoting wildlife recovery as a priority, which may conflict with the goals and perspectives of those who view wildlife through a different lens. An understanding of this dynamic that can emerge as a result of endangered species recovery efforts is crucial to navigating out of destructive conflicts to achieve recovery and coexistence. The IUCN (2023) provides useful guidance for managers working to address human-wildlife conflict, and also urges practitioners to reflect on their own role in the conflicts, recognizing that human-wildlife conflicts are almost always underpinned by social conflicts between people. Ultimately, it is important for managers to articulate their own assumptions and values, and to work to understand the assumptions and values of those who may be affected by species recovery, to anticipate potential subsequent impacts and develop proactive mitigating actions (Decker et al., 2011). In recovering endangered species, it is critical to do this before conservation success is achieved, and to draw on existing guidelines to prevent potential conflict when identities are threatened and worldviews may not align.

Our study drew from multiple data sources and perspectives to understand the drivers of conflict over Hawaiian monk seals. We had limited perspectives drawn directly from members of the Native Hawaiian and fishing communities, and future research could engage more deeply with these populations to understand the nuanced perspectives involved, and how these perspectives may contribute to ongoing conflict or conflict mitigation. Our survey aimed to understand perspectives of people on beaches who had the potential to interact with monk seals, but the highly positive skew of perspectives amongst those on beaches with monk seals limited our ability to use the survey to understand differences between those who perceived seals in a negative vs. positive light. For this reason we relied on interviews and other sources to provide insight into the drivers of conflict over monk seals.

We chose to focus this study primarily on conflict over monk seals on the island of O‘ahu, yet there is also evidence of deep-value identity conflicts on other Hawaiian islands such as Moloka‘i and Kaua‘i. Research that collaboratively engages in dialogues about perceptions of monk seals and their recovery will be necessary to address these conflicts, with an explicit goal of helping decision-makers understand how their actions, assumptions, and priorities might contribute to conflicts. In addition, while we observed conflicts linked to perceptions of outrage factors, it is unclear whether these perceptions developed as reactions to other perceptions of harm or vice versa. Is there higher outrage because monk seals were perceived as new or human-caused invaders, or did these ideas develop because of negative emotional reactions to management? Finally, future research may examine our hypothesis that human-wildlife conflicts stem from species becoming more common. For example, how universal is this observation, and which characteristics of species or management context play more prominent roles? Without attention to these additional potential drivers, managers should anticipate future conflicts will accompany recovery of marine mammals and other protected species.

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because interviews are confidential based on IRB protocol. Anonymized survey data may be shared at author’s discretion. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to alevine@sdsu.edu.

The studies involving humans were approved by San Diego State University Institutional Review Board (protocol #HS-2018-0097). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The ethics committee/institutional review board waived the requirement of written informed consent for participation from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin because verbal informed consent was given.

LK: Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization. AL: Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Resources, Supervision. KL: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. FK: Validation, Writing – review & editing.