When material benefits are present, territorial behaviour is accepted across the animal kingdom as an effective strategy for survival and reproduction. But why, then, do we see so many occurrences of territorial aggression when there is little or no intrinsic value to the land being fought over? 

Professor Monica Toft has been investigating territorial behaviour in an effort to understand how human conflicts arise and when they might be averted by innovative policy solutions.  

Toft discovered that when viewed from an evolutionary perspective, territorial aggression doesn't appear to be quite as puzzling as one might expect. She recently summarised the key insights from her research in a Blavatnik School of Government Policy Memo, co-authored with Prof Dominic Johnson at Oxford's Department of Politics and International Relations:

"Evolutionary logic suggests that territorial aggression can be an effective long-term strategy, even when it incurs short-term costs," they explain, "but only if the level of aggression is correctly calibrated to the prevailing environment. The problem with evolved traits (as with food preferences or addictive behaviours) is that they tend to be calibrated to cost-benefit ratios that prevailed in humans’ evolutionary past, not those of the present. Beneficial traits can therefore become detrimental in the modern environment."

The research brings new insights for conflict resolution. One of their key discoveries is that perceptions can directly influence the instances and outcomes of territorial aggression. That discovery gives grounds for hope, the authors argue. Perceptions (or misperceptions) have a huge influence on the way people initiate or respond to territorial aggression, and so "changing perceptions - as well as or instead of the facts on the ground - offers a genuine route to conflict resolution."

See the links on the right for further information.