Conservation conflicts

behavioural threats, frames, and intervention recommendations

Zachary Baynham-Herd, Stephen Redpath, Nils Bunnefeld, Thomas Molony, Aidan Keane

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Conservation conflicts are widespread and are damaging for biodiversity, livelihoods and human well being. Conflict management often occurs through interventions targeting human behaviour. Conservation interventions are thought to be made more effective if underpinned by evidence and a Theory of Change – a logical argument outlining the steps required to achieve goals. However, for conservation conflicts, the evidence and logic supporting different types of interventions has received little attention. Using conflict-related keywords, we reviewed trends in behavioural intervention recommendations across conflict contexts globally, as published in peer-reviewed literature. We developed typologies for conflict behaviours, intervention recommendations, and conflict frames and identified associations between them and other geographical variables using Pearson’s Chi-squared tests of independence. Analysing 100 recent articles, we found that technical interventions (recommended in 38% of articles) are significantly associated with conflicts involving wildlife control and the human-wildlife conflict frame. Enforcement-based interventions (54% of articles) are significantly associated with conflicts over illegal resource use, while stakeholder-based interventions (37% of articles) are associated with the human-human conflict frame and very highly developed countries. Only 10% of articles offered ‘strong’ evidence from the published scientific literature justifying recommendations, and only 15% outlined Theories of Change. We suggest that intervention recommendations are likely influenced by authors’ perceptions of the social basis of conflicts, and possibly also by disciplinary silos.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)180-188
Number of pages9
JournalBiological Conservation
Volume222
Early online date19 Apr 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2018

Fingerprint

wildlife damage management
human-wildlife relations
conflict management
human behavior
peers
livelihood
developed countries
stakeholders
biodiversity
recommendation
conflict
testing
resource use
typology
targeting
stakeholder
wildlife

Keywords

  • human-wildlife
  • conflict
  • interventions
  • behavioural change
  • evidence

Cite this

Conservation conflicts : behavioural threats, frames, and intervention recommendations. / Baynham-Herd, Zachary; Redpath, Stephen; Bunnefeld, Nils; Molony, Thomas ; Keane, Aidan.

In: Biological Conservation, Vol. 222, 06.2018, p. 180-188.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Baynham-Herd, Zachary ; Redpath, Stephen ; Bunnefeld, Nils ; Molony, Thomas ; Keane, Aidan. / Conservation conflicts : behavioural threats, frames, and intervention recommendations. In: Biological Conservation. 2018 ; Vol. 222. pp. 180-188.
@article{c07d6471868045c398af4be3c30a1428,
title = "Conservation conflicts: behavioural threats, frames, and intervention recommendations",
abstract = "Conservation conflicts are widespread and are damaging for biodiversity, livelihoods and human well being. Conflict management often occurs through interventions targeting human behaviour. Conservation interventions are thought to be made more effective if underpinned by evidence and a Theory of Change – a logical argument outlining the steps required to achieve goals. However, for conservation conflicts, the evidence and logic supporting different types of interventions has received little attention. Using conflict-related keywords, we reviewed trends in behavioural intervention recommendations across conflict contexts globally, as published in peer-reviewed literature. We developed typologies for conflict behaviours, intervention recommendations, and conflict frames and identified associations between them and other geographical variables using Pearson’s Chi-squared tests of independence. Analysing 100 recent articles, we found that technical interventions (recommended in 38{\%} of articles) are significantly associated with conflicts involving wildlife control and the human-wildlife conflict frame. Enforcement-based interventions (54{\%} of articles) are significantly associated with conflicts over illegal resource use, while stakeholder-based interventions (37{\%} of articles) are associated with the human-human conflict frame and very highly developed countries. Only 10{\%} of articles offered ‘strong’ evidence from the published scientific literature justifying recommendations, and only 15{\%} outlined Theories of Change. We suggest that intervention recommendations are likely influenced by authors’ perceptions of the social basis of conflicts, and possibly also by disciplinary silos.",
keywords = "human-wildlife, conflict, interventions, behavioural change, evidence",
author = "Zachary Baynham-Herd and Stephen Redpath and Nils Bunnefeld and Thomas Molony and Aidan Keane",
note = "We would like to thank the Associate Editor, Dr Maas and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback, as well as Dr Matt Bell for his early input into this study.",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1016/j.biocon.2018.04.012",
language = "English",
volume = "222",
pages = "180--188",
journal = "Biological Conservation",
issn = "0006-3207",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Conservation conflicts

T2 - behavioural threats, frames, and intervention recommendations

AU - Baynham-Herd, Zachary

AU - Redpath, Stephen

AU - Bunnefeld, Nils

AU - Molony, Thomas

AU - Keane, Aidan

N1 - We would like to thank the Associate Editor, Dr Maas and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback, as well as Dr Matt Bell for his early input into this study.

PY - 2018/6

Y1 - 2018/6

N2 - Conservation conflicts are widespread and are damaging for biodiversity, livelihoods and human well being. Conflict management often occurs through interventions targeting human behaviour. Conservation interventions are thought to be made more effective if underpinned by evidence and a Theory of Change – a logical argument outlining the steps required to achieve goals. However, for conservation conflicts, the evidence and logic supporting different types of interventions has received little attention. Using conflict-related keywords, we reviewed trends in behavioural intervention recommendations across conflict contexts globally, as published in peer-reviewed literature. We developed typologies for conflict behaviours, intervention recommendations, and conflict frames and identified associations between them and other geographical variables using Pearson’s Chi-squared tests of independence. Analysing 100 recent articles, we found that technical interventions (recommended in 38% of articles) are significantly associated with conflicts involving wildlife control and the human-wildlife conflict frame. Enforcement-based interventions (54% of articles) are significantly associated with conflicts over illegal resource use, while stakeholder-based interventions (37% of articles) are associated with the human-human conflict frame and very highly developed countries. Only 10% of articles offered ‘strong’ evidence from the published scientific literature justifying recommendations, and only 15% outlined Theories of Change. We suggest that intervention recommendations are likely influenced by authors’ perceptions of the social basis of conflicts, and possibly also by disciplinary silos.

AB - Conservation conflicts are widespread and are damaging for biodiversity, livelihoods and human well being. Conflict management often occurs through interventions targeting human behaviour. Conservation interventions are thought to be made more effective if underpinned by evidence and a Theory of Change – a logical argument outlining the steps required to achieve goals. However, for conservation conflicts, the evidence and logic supporting different types of interventions has received little attention. Using conflict-related keywords, we reviewed trends in behavioural intervention recommendations across conflict contexts globally, as published in peer-reviewed literature. We developed typologies for conflict behaviours, intervention recommendations, and conflict frames and identified associations between them and other geographical variables using Pearson’s Chi-squared tests of independence. Analysing 100 recent articles, we found that technical interventions (recommended in 38% of articles) are significantly associated with conflicts involving wildlife control and the human-wildlife conflict frame. Enforcement-based interventions (54% of articles) are significantly associated with conflicts over illegal resource use, while stakeholder-based interventions (37% of articles) are associated with the human-human conflict frame and very highly developed countries. Only 10% of articles offered ‘strong’ evidence from the published scientific literature justifying recommendations, and only 15% outlined Theories of Change. We suggest that intervention recommendations are likely influenced by authors’ perceptions of the social basis of conflicts, and possibly also by disciplinary silos.

KW - human-wildlife

KW - conflict

KW - interventions

KW - behavioural change

KW - evidence

U2 - 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.04.012

DO - 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.04.012

M3 - Article

VL - 222

SP - 180

EP - 188

JO - Biological Conservation

JF - Biological Conservation

SN - 0006-3207

ER -