Profiling unauthorized natural resource users for better targeting of conservation interventions

Abstract

Unauthorized use of natural resources is a key threat to many protected areas. Approaches to reducing this threat include law enforcement and integrated conservation and development (ICD) projects, but for such ICDs to be targeted effectively, it is important to understand who is illegally using which natural resources and why. The nature of unauthorized behavior makes it difficult to ascertain this information through direct questioning. Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda, has many ICD projects, including authorizing some local people to use certain nontimber forest resources from the park. However, despite over 25 years of ICD, unauthorized resource use continues. We used household surveys, indirect questioning (unmatched count technique), and focus group discussions to generate profiles of authorized and unauthorized resource users and to explore motivations for unauthorized activity. Overall, unauthorized resource use was most common among people from poor households who lived closest to the park boundary and farthest from roads and trading centers. Other motivations for unauthorized resource use included crop raiding by wild animals, inequity of revenue sharing, and lack of employment, factors that created resentment among the poorest communities. In some communities, benefits obtained from ICD were reported to be the greatest deterrents against unauthorized activity, although law enforcement ranked highest overall. Despite the sensitive nature of exploring unauthorized resource use, management‐relevant insights into the profiles and motivations of unauthorized resource users can be gained from a combination of survey techniques, as adopted here. To reduce unauthorized activity at Bwindi, we suggest ICD benefit the poorest people living in remote areas and near the park boundary by providing affordable alternative sources of forest products and addressing crop raiding. To prevent resentment from driving further unauthorized activity, ICDs should be managed transparently and equitably.

Understanding complex drivers of wildlife crime to design effective conservation interventions

“…If people believe benefits are distributed unfairly, negative behaviors may develop that might otherwise not have been present (Harrison et al. ).…”

The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation

“…In addition, researchers may use focus group discussion to explore a topic, obtain information or narratives for use in the later stages of the research, for example testing narratives (Zander, Stolz, & Hamm, ) and developing questionnaires (Kelboro & Stellmacher, ). Other studies have used focus group discussion to clarify and extend findings, such as motivations for different resource use regimes (Harrison, Baker, Twinamatsiko, & Milner‐Gulland, ; Manwa & Manwa, ), qualify or challenge data collected through other techniques such as ranking results through interviews (Harrison et al., ; Zander et al., ) and to provide feedback to research participants (Morgan et al., ).…”

A new Automated Behavioural Response system to integrate playback experiments into camera trap studies

“…; Harrison et al . ), and cougars in Santa Cruz similarly responded aversively to anthropogenic disturbance (Wilmers et al . ; Smith, Wang & Wilmers ).…”