Abstract Human–wildlife conflict (HWC) around protected areas endangers lives and damages livelihoods. It also erodes support for conservation. Yet most mitigation efforts fail to gain the sustained community support needed for long‐term success. We drew on 758 one‐to‐one semi‐structured interviews, supplemented by focus groups, practitioner interviews and discussions across six Ugandan protected areas. We examined patterns of success and failure through the perspectives of people directly affected by HWC. Our analysis was guided by collective action theory, social capital and institutional frameworks. Interventions often failed due to several linked problems. These included inadequate consultation and limited local ownership. Deep historical grievances played a role. Trust in authorities had eroded. Links to legitimate local institutions were weak. Technical shortcomings further damaged credibility. Together these factors often led to antagonism. Measures that required intensive collective action proved especially challenging. Examples include physical barriers and communal guarding. They broke down where social cohesion was low. Absentee landowners often left gaps. Projects felt externally imposed to many people. Even technically sound designs failed without genuine participation, transparency and respect for local norms and burdens. Active resistance occurred frequently. This included deliberate damage to interventions. Such actions often expressed protest against perceived unfairness, broken promises or illegitimate authority. They showed how distrust and grievances intensify challenges. Effective, lasting HWC mitigation requires patient, trust‐based collaboration. It must fairly recognise the substantial burdens communities bear for conservation. We propose eight evidence‐based recommendations: assess community readiness upfront, embed interventions in trusted local institutions, secure informed and transparent co‐design, support traditional practices where appropriate, establish legitimate dispute resolution mechanisms, enable ongoing local oversight, maintain transparency, and plan explicitly for long‐term sustainability. These steps can bridge the theory–practice gap, avoid repeated shortcomings thereby promoting more durable human–wildlife coexistence. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
Sheil et al. (Thu,) studied this question.