Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/29844
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBaynham-Herd, Zacharyen_UK
dc.contributor.authorRedpath, Steveen_UK
dc.contributor.authorBunnefeld, Nilsen_UK
dc.contributor.authorKeane, Aidanen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-06T00:08:14Z-
dc.date.available2019-07-06T00:08:14Z-
dc.date.issued2020-02en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/29844-
dc.description.abstractThere 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.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherWileyen_UK
dc.relationBaynham-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.13372en_UK
dc.rightsThis 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.en_UK
dc.subjectconservationen_UK
dc.subjecthuman‐wildlifeen_UK
dc.subjectbehaviouren_UK
dc.subjectpsychologyen_UK
dc.subjectdecision‐makingen_UK
dc.subjectmanagementen_UK
dc.subjectcoexistenceen_UK
dc.titlePredicting intervention priorities for wildlife conflictsen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.rights.embargodate2020-06-25en_UK
dc.rights.embargoreason[Baynham-Herd_et_al-2019-Conservation_Biology.pdf] Publisher requires embargo of 12 months after formal publication.en_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/cobi.13372en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid31237026en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleConservation Biologyen_UK
dc.citation.issn1523-1739en_UK
dc.citation.issn0888-8892en_UK
dc.citation.volume34en_UK
dc.citation.issue1en_UK
dc.citation.spage232en_UK
dc.citation.epage243en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusAM - Accepted Manuscripten_UK
dc.contributor.funderNatural Environment Research Councilen_UK
dc.author.emailnils.bunnefeld@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.citation.date24/06/2019en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Edinburghen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Aberdeenen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBiological and Environmental Sciencesen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Edinburghen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000483961000001en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-85071309156en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid1406813en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-1349-4463en_UK
dc.date.accepted2019-06-14en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2019-07-05en_UK
Appears in Collections:Biological and Environmental Sciences Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Baynham-Herd_et_al-2019-Conservation_Biology.pdfFulltext - Accepted Version1.27 MBAdobe PDFView/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 library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.