Why Scientists Can't Solve Conservation Conflicts: The Rashomon Effect Explained

We examined why stakeholders fight over natural resources, finding that conflicts often stem from differences in how they perceive the system rather than competing values alone. But what if people looking at the same facts simply see different realities? Researchers led by Phillip Levin, working with Steven Gray, Christian Möllmann, and Adrian Stier, explored this phenomenon and named it after Akira Kurosawa's legendary 1950 film Rashomon.

In the film, four witnesses give contradictory accounts of a crime in a forest. Each account is internally coherent and plausible, yet they cannot all be true. We argue that conservation conflicts often follow the same pattern. Different stakeholders observe the same ecosystem, have access to the same data, yet arrive at fundamentally different conclusions about what is happening and what should be done.

The paper identifies three conditions that create a conservation Rashomon effect: differences in perspective based on social and cultural background, multiple plausible interpretations of the available evidence, and insufficient data to definitively elevate one interpretation above others. When all three conditions are present, conflict becomes almost inevitable.

Policymakers often turn to scientists as neutral honest brokers who can cut through disagreements by providing objective facts. But We challenge this assumption. Scientists themselves bring perspectives shaped by their training, institutional incentives, and personal experiences. Two equally qualified scientists studying the same system can reach different conclusions, both supported by legitimate evidence.

Rather than seeking an impossible objectivity, We suggest embracing epistemic pluralism, acknowledging that multiple valid ways of knowing exist. Effective resource management may require not finding the one right answer, but creating inclusive processes that acknowledge uncertainty and incorporate diverse perspectives.

This framework has practical implications for anyone involved in environmental disputes. Instead of assuming opponents are ignorant or acting in bad faith, we might recognize that they genuinely perceive the situation differently. Building understanding across these perceptual divides may be more productive than endless battles over whose facts are correct.

Citation

Levin, Phillip S; Gray, Steven A; Möllmann, Christian; Stier, Adrian C (2021). Perception and Conflict in Conservation: The Rashomon Effect. BioScience.

Read the full paper