Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts

Abstract

There is growing interest in developing effective interventions to manage socially and environmentally damaging conservation conflicts. There are a variety of intervention strategies that can be applied in various contexts, but the reasons one type of intervention is chosen over another remain underexplored. We surveyed conservation researchers and practitioners (n = 427) to explore how characteristics of conflicts and characteristics of decision makers influence recommendations to alleviate conservation conflict. Using a full-factorial design, we experimentally manipulated 3 aspects of the descriptions of 8 different wildlife-conflict scenarios (development status of the conflict country, conflict framing, and legality of killing wild animals) and recorded which of 5 intervention types (wildlife impact reduction, awareness, enforcement, economic incentives, or stakeholder engagement) respondents prioritized. We also recorded information on respondents' demographic and disciplinary backgrounds. Stakeholder-based interventions were recommended most often in the survey and in written feedback. However, when we fitted multinomial mixed logit models with fully completed scenario responses (n = 411), recommendations were influenced by small changes in the details of conflict and differed according to respondent characteristics. Enforcement and awareness interventions were prioritized relatively more for conflicts in more highly developed nations and by respondents with more natural science backgrounds and relatively less experience with conflict. Contrastingly, economic interventions were prioritized more when wildlife killing was described as illegal. Age, gender, and development status of the respondent's home country also predicted some intervention decisions. Further, interrogating the influences shaping conservation decision making will further helps in the development of evidence-informed interventions.

A multispecies assessment of wildlife impacts on local community livelihoods

“…2016; Baynham‐Herd et al. 2019). Moreover, implementing mitigation strategies for only 1 species is unlikely to reduce potential negative attitudes toward wildlife in general if other species are also perceived to be a problem in the same area (Lescureux & Linnell 2010; Suryawanshi et al.…”

“…Yet, such multispecies, spatiotemporal assessments are absent from the literature, which has instead tended to focus on single species (e.g., Wilson et al 2015). This oversimplification of HWI situations risks hindering the development of cost-effective management strategies aimed at decreasing costs associated with living with wildlife (Kansky et al 2016;Baynham-Herd et al 2019). Moreover, implementing mitigation strategies for only 1 species is unlikely to reduce potential negative attitudes toward wildlife in general if other species are also perceived to be a problem in the same area (Lescureux & Linnell 2010;Suryawanshi et al 2013;Redpath et al 2015).…”

Paying for the Past: The Importance of Fulfilling Promises as a Key Component to Resolving Human–Wildlife Conflict

“…However, there are other calls for its continuation to support conservation efforts in specific contexts that preclude other options, and where program delivery is coherent, well administered, validated, and sustainable [5,8,[61][62][63]. Understanding and teasing out the factors that lead to success (or failure) of conservation interventions such as compensation schemes demands adequate monitoring and evaluation programs that capture both local perspectives of the target beneficiaries, and the full range of parameters influenced by the scheme, be they ecological, social or economic [36,64].…”

Human adaptation strategies are key to cobenefits in human–wildlife systems

“…Human psychology, broader social norms, or policies in the community or region can all influence adaptation options, the ease of implementation, and likelihood of adoption (Bennett et al, 2017;van Eeden et al, 2018a,b). For example, it was found that conservation professionals favored enforcement and awareness adaptations when conflict was occurring in more highly developed countries (Baynham-Herd, Redpath, Bunnefeld, & Keane, 2019). Thus, lessons learned from sustainability science and transdisciplinary research are well suited to support human-wildlife coexistence research, practice, and policy.…”