Understanding complex drivers of wildlife crime to design effective conservation interventions

Abstract

In conservation understanding the drivers of behavior and developing robust interventions to promote behavioral change is challenging and requires a multifaceted approach. This is particularly true for efforts to address illegal wildlife use, where pervasive—and sometimes simplistic—narratives often obscure complex realities. We used an indirect questioning approach, the unmatched count technique, to investigate the drivers and prevalence of wildlife crime in communities surrounding 2 national parks in Uganda and combined scenario interviews and a choice experiment to predict the performance of potential interventions designed to tackle these crimes. Although poverty is often assumed to be a key driver of wildlife crime, we found that better‐off households and those subject to human–wildlife conflict and those that do not receive any benefits from the parks’ tourism revenue sharing were more likely to be involved in certain types of wildlife crime, especially illegal hunting. The interventions predicted to have the greatest impact on reducing local participation in wildlife crime were those that directly addressed the drivers including, mitigating damage caused by wildlife and generating financial benefits for park‐adjacent households. Our triangulated approach provided insights into complex and hard‐to‐access behaviors and highlighted the importance of going beyond single‐driver narratives.

Ranger perceptions of the role of local communities in providing actionable information on wildlife crime

“…UWA and its partners also provide training and equipment for local community members to volunteer as “wildlife scouts,” who respond to human‐wildlife conflicts. Some of UWA's community programs have been shown to improve park‐community relations (e.g., Sandbrook, Cavanag, & Tumusiime, 2018; Travers et al, 2019). However, efforts to understand the role of local communities in reporting information to support law enforcement in PAs have been limited.…”

Making Messy Data Work for Conservation

“…Examples of triangulation with diverse data sources are rare in purely ecological data, although they are relatively common in the conservation social science literature. 82 Therefore, there could be the potential to use this approach more often in conservation contexts, especially if there is active dialog between groups of stakeholders and researchers. For example, the ''oakmapper'' tool provides a case study of flexibly combining data from public, professional, and regulatory spheres to monitor the spread of a plant pathogen.…”

“Saving lives, protecting livelihoods, and safeguarding nature”: risk-based wildlife trade policy for sustainable development outcomes post-COVID-19

“…Fournier et al 2012, Oyanedel et al, 2020, Bonwitt et al 2018. Social research may help to identify and reduce drivers of non-compliance with wildlife laws or key barriers to behaviour change (Travers et al, 2019).…”