Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts

Zachary Baynham-Herd (Corresponding Author), Steve Redpath, Nils Bunnefeld, Aidan Keane

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

There is growing interest in developing effective interventions to manage socially- and environmentally-damaging conservation conflicts. Recent studies have identified a wide variety of different intervention strategies in various contexts but the reasons why one type of intervention is chosen over another remain underexplored. In this international study we surveyed conservation researchers and practitioners (N=427) to explore how the characteristics of conflicts and characteristics of decision-makers influence conflict recommendations. Using a fully-factorial design, we experimentally manipulated three aspects of eight different conflict scenarios – the development status of the country, the conflict framing, and whether wildlife killing was illegal – and recorded whether respondents prioritised one of five intervention types: wildlife impact reduction, awareness, enforcement, economic incentives or stakeholder engagement. 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, fitting multinomial mixed logit models with no missing scenarios (N=411), we find that recommendations are influenced by small changes in the details of conflict, and differ according to respondent characteristics. Enforcement and awareness interventions are prioritised more in conflicts in more highly developed nations and by respondents with more natural-science backgrounds and less experience of conflicts. Contrastingly, economic interventions are prioritised more when wildlife killing is described as illegal. Respondent age, gender and the development status of their home country also predicted some intervention decisions. Further interrogating the influences shaping conservation decision-making will help towards developing evidence-informed interventions.
Original languageEnglish
JournalConservation Biology
Early online date28 Aug 2019
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 28 Aug 2019

Fingerprint

wildlife
stakeholders
economic incentives
logit analysis
developed countries
decision making
demographic statistics
researchers
economics
stakeholder
gender
conflict

Keywords

  • conservation
  • human-wildlife
  • decision-making
  • psychology
  • coexistence
  • management
  • coexistencia
  • gestión
  • comportamiento
  • human-wildlife conflict
  • conflicto humano-vida silvestre
  • conservación
  • psicología
  • decision making
  • toma de decisiones
  • behavior
  • (sic)(sic)(sic)
  • MORAL BASIS
  • CONSERVATION PROFESSIONALS
  • DIVERSE
  • (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)
  • conservacion
  • gestion
  • psicologia
  • (sic)(sic)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation
  • Ecology

Cite this

Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts. / Baynham-Herd, Zachary (Corresponding Author); Redpath, Steve; Bunnefeld, Nils; Keane, Aidan.

In: Conservation Biology, 28.08.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Baynham-Herd, Zachary ; Redpath, Steve ; Bunnefeld, Nils ; Keane, Aidan. / Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts. In: Conservation Biology. 2019.
@article{ea3165d6469f4b679b52a0ba08b81d01,
title = "Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts",
abstract = "There is growing interest in developing effective interventions to manage socially- and environmentally-damaging conservation conflicts. Recent studies have identified a wide variety of different intervention strategies in various contexts but the reasons why one type of intervention is chosen over another remain underexplored. In this international study we surveyed conservation researchers and practitioners (N=427) to explore how the characteristics of conflicts and characteristics of decision-makers influence conflict recommendations. Using a fully-factorial design, we experimentally manipulated three aspects of eight different conflict scenarios – the development status of the country, the conflict framing, and whether wildlife killing was illegal – and recorded whether respondents prioritised one of five intervention types: wildlife impact reduction, awareness, enforcement, economic incentives or stakeholder engagement. 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, fitting multinomial mixed logit models with no missing scenarios (N=411), we find that recommendations are influenced by small changes in the details of conflict, and differ according to respondent characteristics. Enforcement and awareness interventions are prioritised more in conflicts in more highly developed nations and by respondents with more natural-science backgrounds and less experience of conflicts. Contrastingly, economic interventions are prioritised more when wildlife killing is described as illegal. Respondent age, gender and the development status of their home country also predicted some intervention decisions. Further interrogating the influences shaping conservation decision-making will help towards developing evidence-informed interventions.",
keywords = "conservation, human-wildlife, decision-making, psychology, coexistence, management, coexistencia, gesti{\'o}n, comportamiento, human-wildlife conflict, conflicto humano-vida silvestre, conservaci{\'o}n, psicolog{\'i}a, decision making, toma de decisiones, behavior, (sic)(sic)(sic), MORAL BASIS, CONSERVATION PROFESSIONALS, DIVERSE, (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic), conservacion, gestion, psicologia, (sic)(sic)",
author = "Zachary Baynham-Herd and Steve Redpath and Nils Bunnefeld and Aidan Keane",
note = "Funding Information: Natural Environment Research Council. Grant Number: NE/L002558/1",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
day = "28",
doi = "10.1111/cobi.13372",
language = "English",
journal = "Conservation Biology",
issn = "0888-8892",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts

AU - Baynham-Herd, Zachary

AU - Redpath, Steve

AU - Bunnefeld, Nils

AU - Keane, Aidan

N1 - Funding Information: Natural Environment Research Council. Grant Number: NE/L002558/1

PY - 2019/8/28

Y1 - 2019/8/28

N2 - There is growing interest in developing effective interventions to manage socially- and environmentally-damaging conservation conflicts. Recent studies have identified a wide variety of different intervention strategies in various contexts but the reasons why one type of intervention is chosen over another remain underexplored. In this international study we surveyed conservation researchers and practitioners (N=427) to explore how the characteristics of conflicts and characteristics of decision-makers influence conflict recommendations. Using a fully-factorial design, we experimentally manipulated three aspects of eight different conflict scenarios – the development status of the country, the conflict framing, and whether wildlife killing was illegal – and recorded whether respondents prioritised one of five intervention types: wildlife impact reduction, awareness, enforcement, economic incentives or stakeholder engagement. 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, fitting multinomial mixed logit models with no missing scenarios (N=411), we find that recommendations are influenced by small changes in the details of conflict, and differ according to respondent characteristics. Enforcement and awareness interventions are prioritised more in conflicts in more highly developed nations and by respondents with more natural-science backgrounds and less experience of conflicts. Contrastingly, economic interventions are prioritised more when wildlife killing is described as illegal. Respondent age, gender and the development status of their home country also predicted some intervention decisions. Further interrogating the influences shaping conservation decision-making will help towards developing evidence-informed interventions.

AB - There is growing interest in developing effective interventions to manage socially- and environmentally-damaging conservation conflicts. Recent studies have identified a wide variety of different intervention strategies in various contexts but the reasons why one type of intervention is chosen over another remain underexplored. In this international study we surveyed conservation researchers and practitioners (N=427) to explore how the characteristics of conflicts and characteristics of decision-makers influence conflict recommendations. Using a fully-factorial design, we experimentally manipulated three aspects of eight different conflict scenarios – the development status of the country, the conflict framing, and whether wildlife killing was illegal – and recorded whether respondents prioritised one of five intervention types: wildlife impact reduction, awareness, enforcement, economic incentives or stakeholder engagement. 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, fitting multinomial mixed logit models with no missing scenarios (N=411), we find that recommendations are influenced by small changes in the details of conflict, and differ according to respondent characteristics. Enforcement and awareness interventions are prioritised more in conflicts in more highly developed nations and by respondents with more natural-science backgrounds and less experience of conflicts. Contrastingly, economic interventions are prioritised more when wildlife killing is described as illegal. Respondent age, gender and the development status of their home country also predicted some intervention decisions. Further interrogating the influences shaping conservation decision-making will help towards developing evidence-informed interventions.

KW - conservation

KW - human-wildlife

KW - decision-making

KW - psychology

KW - coexistence

KW - management

KW - coexistencia

KW - gestión

KW - comportamiento

KW - human-wildlife conflict

KW - conflicto humano-vida silvestre

KW - conservación

KW - psicología

KW - decision making

KW - toma de decisiones

KW - behavior

KW - (sic)(sic)(sic)

KW - MORAL BASIS

KW - CONSERVATION PROFESSIONALS

KW - DIVERSE

KW - (sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)(sic)

KW - conservacion

KW - gestion

KW - psicologia

KW - (sic)(sic)

UR - http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/cobi.13372

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/predicting-intervention-priorities-wildlife-conflicts

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071309156&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/cobi.13372

DO - 10.1111/cobi.13372

M3 - Article

JO - Conservation Biology

JF - Conservation Biology

SN - 0888-8892

ER -