Human–wildlife conflict (HWC) is a key topic in conservation and agricultural research. Decision makers need evidence‐based information to design sustainable management plans and policy instruments. However, providing objective decision support can be challenging because realities and perceptions of human–wildlife interactions vary widely between and within rural, urban, and peri‐urban areas. Land users who incur costs through wildlife argue that wildlife‐related losses should be compensated and that prevention should be subsidized. Supporters of human–wildlife coexistence policies, such as urban‐dwelling people, may not face threats to their livelihoods from wildlife. Such spatial heterogeneity in the cost and benefits of living with wildlife is germane in most contemporary societies. This Special Section features contributions on wildlife‐induced damages that range from human perspectives (land use, psychology, governance, local attitudes and perceptions, costs and benefits, and HWC and coexistence theory) to ecological perspectives (animal behavior). Building on current literature and articles in this section, we developed a conceptual model to help frame HWC and coexistence dimensions. The framework can be used to determine damage prevention implementation levels and approaches to HWC resolution. Our synthesis revealed that inter‐ and transdisciplinary approaches and multilevel governance approaches can help stakeholders and institutions implement sustainable management strategies that promote human–wildlife coexistence.

Sustainable agricultural development is fundamental to food security and poverty alleviation, notably in developing countries. Many development initiatives focus on the enhancement of smallholder production and productivity because the majority of poor people in developing countries live in rural areas where agriculture is the main source of livelihood. The consequences of these development initiatives need to be assessed before implementation to reduce the risk of possible negative impacts. This can be done by applying ex ante sustainability impact assessment. Here, we compare methods of assessment of sustainability impact for farming interventions. We review methodological approaches and verify whether the requirements of sustainability impact assessment theory are fulfilled. Our major points are the following: (1) main methodological approaches do not fulfill the requirements defined in the theoretical sustainability impact assessment discourse. (2) The active involvement of different stakeholder groups throughout the assessment process and the possibility of learning and exchange are fundamental to sustainability impact assessment. (3) The institutional dimension of sustainability is not yet sufficiently integrated. We therefore suggest institutional criteria and indicators to be also considered in the sustainability impact assessment framework. We argue that sustainability impact assessment, respecting the interactive involvement of all stakeholder groups throughout the whole process, is a compulsory element in project planning for a sustainable agricultural development in developing countries.