Interview participant demographic breakdown.

Coexistence has seen an explosive rise within conservation social science scholarship. While this represents an exciting shift in the field, many academics are still skeptical. Some scholars have expressed concerns around the omission of “conflict”, naïveté, and impracticality associated with coexistence literature. In this paper, we aim to demonstrate that critiques of coexistence often stem from reductionism and decontextualization, process inefficiencies and/or inequities, failure to address and prioritize human well-being as a goal, and a lack of tools to foster open, collaborative dialogue. We draw on a case study of human-wolf interactions in the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve Region, British Columbia, Canada, to illustrate how coexistence efforts can, and should, prioritize “conflict”, be attentive to the real challenges of sharing spaces with wildlife, and encourage collaborative, inclusive processes that work toward tangible, actionable outcomes. We conducted 32 semi-structured interviews with residents from diverse backgrounds and levels of experience with wolves in the region. From these interviews, we articulated novel, co-developed, contextual definitions of human-wolf conflict and coexistence in the region. We then developed a collaborative tool for visualizing behavioral and cognitive elements of human-wildlife interactions through open and inclusive dialogue, using real examples from these research interviews. The research findings highlight three main principles: (1) that conflict and coexistence are contextual and should be understood as such, (2) that coexistence requires collaborative processes that pay attention to equity and inclusivity, and (3) that there are frameworks or tools that can help facilitate discussions toward practical outcomes of coexistence projects. We believe that this paper helps to disambiguate coexistence and reinforce that coexistence requires focused attention to the well-being of people as much as wildlife.