The Carrot or the Stick? Evaluation of Education and Enforcement as Management Tools for Human-Wildlife Conflicts

Abstract

Evidence-based decision-making is critical for implementing conservation actions, especially for human-wildlife conflicts, which have been increasing worldwide. Conservation practitioners recognize that long-term solutions should include altering human behaviors, and public education and enforcement of wildlife-related laws are two management actions frequently implemented, but with little empirical evidence evaluating their success. We used a system where human-black bear conflicts were common, to experimentally test the efficacy of education and enforcement in altering human behavior to better secure attractants (garbage) from bears. We conducted 3 experiments in Aspen CO, USA to evaluate: 1) on-site education in communal dwellings and construction sites, 2) Bear Aware educational campaign in residential neighborhoods, and 3) elevated law enforcement at two levels in the core business area of Aspen. We measured human behaviors as the response including: violation of local wildlife ordinances, garbage availability to bears, and change in use of bear-resistance refuse containers. As implemented, we found little support for education, or enforcement in the form of daily patrolling in changing human behavior, but found more support for proactive enforcement, i.e., dispensing warning notices. More broadly we demonstrated the value of gathering evidence before and after implementing conservation actions, and the dangers of measuring responses in the absence of ecological knowledge. We recommend development of more effective educational methods, application of proactive enforcement, and continued evaluation of tools by directly measuring change in human behavior. We provide empirical evidence adding to the conservation managers' toolbox, informing policy makers, and promoting solutions to human-wildlife conflicts.

Effects of Message Framing and Past Experience on Intentions to Prevent Human–Coyote Conflicts

“…Although previous research has shown that simply giving people more information is sometimes not enough for behavioral change (e.g., Baruch-Mordo, Breck, Wilson, & Broderick, 2011;Gore, Knuth, Scherer, & Curtis, 2008), we addressed a recognized need for better design of wildlife-related risk communication campaigns (Gore & Knuth, 2009) by investigating the role of message framing strategies, personal experience, and emotional responses in influencing intentions to adopt human-coyote conflict prevention behaviors. Our study provides insights to communication scholars and wildlife professionals alike in terms of the relative persuasiveness of different messages, as well as the different message strategies to use when communicating with targeted audiences.…”

A conceptual framework to evaluate human-wildlife interactions within coupled human and natural systems

“…Both the human reaction to an event (positive versus negative) and the resulting behavior from an impact affect wildlife, e.g., decisions about pest control (Morzillo and Mertig 2011 a, b), and are influenced by complex interactions among human characteristics (Fig. 1c), such as environmental values and value orientations (e.g., Fulton et al 1996, Riley et al 2002, Zinn and Pierce 2002, Kaltenborn et al 2012, attitudes toward wildlife (e.g., Morzillo et al 2007, Krester et al 2009a, McDonald et al 2012, Urbanek et al 2013, interest in seeing wildlife (e.g., Morzillo et al 2007), attitudes toward particular species (e.g., Daniels and Kirkpatrick 2011), risk perception (Gore et al 2007), and other cognitive and motivational variables (Fulton et al 1996, Whittaker et al 2001, Baruch-Mordo et al 2011, Luther 2013. Collectively, these constructs influence and interact with each other, i.e., feedbacks, to form the basis for human cognitive and motivational perceptions and dynamics of human-wildlife relationships, i.e., "impact-based feedbacks" (e.g., Manfredo et al 2009, Decker et al 2012, and drivers of wildlife management as part of environmental policy ( Fig.…”

“…For example, humans may make landscape changes in attempt to repel wildlife, e.g., deer, from vegetation and other features (e.g., Barras and Seamans 2002, Gilsdorf et al 2002, Rondeau and Conrad 2003, Krester et al 2009b). Other methods include guidance, enforcement, and monitoring as mechanisms to change human behavior and minimize human-wildlife conflict, which may or may not be successful over time (Baruch-Mordo et al 2011). Regardless, as perceived by wildlife, those human-induced landscape changes will determine the return of an animal to the location of the event (Fig.…”

Land Manager Perspectives on Conflict Mitigation Strategies for Urban Flying-Fox Camps

“…For example, "Some definitely want them outta there and it's all council's fault" (Interview #6). Trust and credibility can also diminish, and community frustration increase, if the managing agency is seen to be spending substantial resources on ineffective conflict mitigation measures [45,46]. On the other hand, the implementation of a management action can be evidence that residents' concerns have been heard, and that the land managers were prepared to try and assist them.…”