|Appears in Collections:||Biological and Environmental Sciences Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts|
|Citation:||Baynham-Herd Z, Redpath S, Bunnefeld N & Keane A (2020) Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts. Conservation Biology, 34 (1), pp. 232-243. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13372|
|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.|
|Rights:||This item has been embargoed for a period. During the embargo please use the Request a Copy feature at the foot of the Repository record to request a copy directly from the author. You can only request a copy if you wish to use this work for your own research or private study. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Baynham‐Herd, Z., Redpath, S., Bunnefeld, N. and Keane, A. (2020), Predicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflicts. Conservation Biology, 34: 232-243, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13372. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.|
|Baynham-Herd_et_al-2019-Conservation_Biology.pdf||Fulltext - Accepted Version||1.27 MB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.