Anke Fischer

Effect of Local Cultural Context on the Success of Community-Based Conservation Interventions

Conservation interventions require evaluation to understand what factors predict success or failure. To date, there has been little systematic investigation of the effect of social and cultural context on conservation success, although a large body of literature argues it is important. We investigated whether local cultural context, particularly local institutions and the efforts of interventions to engage with this culture significantly influence conservation outcomes. We also tested the effects of community participation, conservation education, benefit provision, and market integration. We systematically reviewed the literature on community-based conservation and identified 68 interventions suitable for inclusion. We used a protocol to extract and code information and evaluated a range of measures of outcome success (attitudinal, behavioral, ecological, and economic). We also examined the association of each predictor with each outcome measure and the structure of predictor covariance. Local institutional context influenced intervention outcomes, and interventions that engaged with local institutions were more likely to succeed. Nevertheless, there was limited support for the role of community participation, conservation education, benefit provision, and market integration on intervention success. We recommend that conservation interventions seek to understand the societies they work with and tailor their activities accordingly. Systematic reviews are a valuable approach for assessing conservation evidence, although sensitive to the continuing lack of high-quality reporting on conservation interventions.

Conflicts between humans over wildlife management: on the diversity of stakeholder attitudes and implications for conflict management

Conflicts involving wildlife are, in essence, often conflicts between human parties with differing wildlife management objectives. However, the study and management of wildlife conflicts often focuses on the ecological context without addressing disagreements between people over these objectives. This research uses quantitative approaches to examine actors’ views on a complex wildlife-related conflict: a raptor of conservation concern that impacts on game-bird management. Four dominant elements of the debate emerged from initial semi-structured interviews: perceptions of conflict related issues; perceptions of each other; perceived barriers to consensus within the debate; and assessment of proposed practical management solutions. A quantitative survey that built on these elements demonstrates the degree to which perceptions differ between groups and how local variation in these elements may be obscured in a regional or national level debate. The findings emphasise the importance of understanding the social issues involved in wildlife related conflicts if management aims are to be agreed and achieved.

Conflicts between Biodiversity Conservation and Human Activities in the Central and Eastern European Countries

Abstract Conflicts between the conservation of biodiversity and other human activities have been and continue to be of increasing concern in the European Union, often having important political, economic, and environmental repercussions. These conflicts have been addressed in the European Union by using a wide array of top down and bottom up tools, with varying degrees of success. A new challenge is now facing Europe with the integration of 10 new countries in the European Union (EU) and an additional range of biodiversity-rich habitats placed under EU legislation. The rich biodiversity of the central and eastern European countries (CEEC) is likely to be threatened by some aspects of the integration process, and conflicts between the conservation of biodiversity and other human activities are expected. In this paper, we review certain existing conflicts between biodiversity conservation and human activities in the CEEC, expected conflicts associated with integration to the EU, particularly in terms of new policy and legislation implementation, and, finally, explore possible conflict management options.

Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps: Understanding public representations of biodiversity

Lack of public support for, and protest against, biodiversity management measures have often been explained by the apparently inadequate knowledge of biodiversity in the general public. In stark contrast to this assumption of public ignorance, our results from focus group discussions in The Netherlands, Germany and Scotland show that members of the general public use very rich and complex social representations of biodiversity to argue for particular approaches to biodiversity management. Within these representations, we identified important components, such as (i) the functions and benefits associated with biodiversity, (ii) attributes and values connected to nature, and (iii) views on the relationships between humans and nature. Notions within these components varied across individuals and groups and were closely linked to their views on biodiversity management in general and specific management measures in particular. This study illustrates how a better understanding of these representations and their links to public attitudes is crucial to ensure effective communication on biodiversity and to improve public support for biodiversity management.

Understanding the cognitive basis for human-wildlife relationships as a key to successful protected-area management

Wildlife is a critical component of protected areas worldwide. It can serve not only as a primary attraction or an enjoyable part of the visitor experience but also as a source of conflict. Managing wildlife in this context requires a broadbased approach that can account for the myriad factors underlying conservation effectiveness, including the nature of peoples relationships with wildlife. These relationships stem from the cognitive foundation that shapes human behavior toward wildlife. Our theory of wildlife value orientations contends that, at an individual level, broad cultural ideals or value orientations form the basis for more specific cognitions that in turn drive individual action. We extend this cognitive hierarchy framework to account for the role of societal forces that give rise to cultural values and their orientations over time. Using empirical data from two cases, we surview this micro-macro approach and explore its implications for protected-area management. First, data from a nineteen-state study conducted in 2004 via mail survey in the United States show how two contrasting orientations—domination and mutualism—produce different attitudes and behaviors toward wildlife. Hierarchical linear modeling of these data supports a societal-level shift from domination to mutualism in response to modernization. Second, a 2007-8 exploratory application of our approach in ten European countries provides further evidence of the role of value orientations in shaping individual response to wildlife issues. Together, these studies highlight the importance of multilevel models for exploring the social aspects of wildlife and protected-area management.

Understanding people's ideas on natural resource management : research on social representations of nature

Ongoing fragmentation between social groups on the appropriate targets and relevant actors for nature conservation signals the need for further advancements in theorizing about the human–nature interaction. Through a focus on the complexity of social thought and confrontations between social groups, the theory of social representations may provide a useful addition to conventional approaches. However, environmental issues have so far not been among the primary topics studied by social representation scholars. This article sets out to fill this gap. After an introduction to the theory, we report on three case studies that illustrate the use of this theory in the context of natural resource management. These studies show how groups negotiate meanings, intentions, and action related to complex issues such as wolf management, invasive species, and conflicts over protected forests, landscapes, and national parks. We discuss strengths and weaknesses of the approach and suggest future challenges and opportunities.

On the multifunctionality of hunting – an institutional analysis of eight cases from Europe and Africa

In many contemporary societies, multiple functions are connected to hunting. Here, we use the concept of multifunctionality to investigate the role of hunting beyond its traditional function of supplying meat. Hunting may contribute, for example, to biodiversity conservation, recreation and the preservation of economies and cultures in rural areas. Our comparative analysis of hunting in eight study sites in Europe and Africa examines the tensions and trade-offs between these ecological, economic and social functions of hunting, and investigates the interplay between the institutions regulating these functions to better understand conflicts over hunting. Based on this analysis, we present institutional arrangements that have developed to address these challenges of multifunctionality, and explore the institutional change brought about by such arrangements. Finally, we discuss the implications of this study for policy and institutional design.

Deconstructing Community for Conservation: Why Simple Assumptions are Not Sufficient.

Many conservation policies advocate engagement with local people, but conservation practice has sometimes been criticised for a simplistic understanding of communities and social context. To counter this, this paper explores social structuring and its influences on conservation-related behaviours at the site of a conservation intervention near Pipar forest, within the Seti Khola valley, Nepal. Qualitative and quantitative data from questionnaires and Rapid Rural Appraisal demonstrate how links between groups directly and indirectly influence behaviours of conservation relevance (including existing and potential resource-use and proconservation activities). For low-status groups the harvesting of resources can be driven by others’ preference for wild foods, whilst perceptions of elite benefit-capture may cause reluctance to engage with future conservation interventions. The findings reiterate the need to avoid relying on simple assumptions about ‘community’ in conservation, and particularly the relevance of understanding relationships between groups, in order to understand natural resource use and implications for conservation.

The Public and Professionals Reason Similarly about the Management of Non-Native Invasive Species: A Quantitative Investigation of the Relationship between Beliefs and Attitudes

Despite continued critique of the idea of clear boundaries between scientific and lay knowledge, the ‘deficit-model’ of public understanding of ecological issues still seems prevalent in discourses of biodiversity management. Prominent invasion biologists, for example, still argue that citizens need to be educated so that they accept scientists’ views on the management of non-native invasive species. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey with members of the public and professionals in invasive species management (n = 732) in Canada and the UK to investigate commonalities and differences in their perceptions of species and, more importantly, how these perceptions were connected to attitudes towards species management. Both native and non-native mammal and tree species were included. Professionals tended to have more extreme views than the public, especially in relation to nativeness and abundance of a species. In both groups, species that were perceived to be more abundant, non-native, unattractive or harmful to nature and the economy were more likely to be regarded as in need of management. While perceptions of species and attitudes towards management thus often differed between public and professionals, these perceptions were linked to attitudes in very similar ways across the two groups. This suggests that ways of reasoning about invasive species employed by professionals and the public might be more compatible with each other than commonly thought. We recommend that managers and local people engage in open discussion about each other’s beliefs and attitudes prior to an invasive species control programme. This could ultimately reduce conflict over invasive species control.

Neither the public nor experts judge species primarily on their origins

In contemporary environmental conservation, species are judged in terms of their origin (‘nativeness’), as well as their behaviour and impacts (‘invasiveness’). In many instances, however, the term ‘non-native’ has been used as a proxy for harmfulness, implying the need for control. Some scientists have attempted to discourage this practice, on the grounds that it is inappropriate and counterproductive to judge species on their origin alone. However, to date, no empirical data exist on the degree to which nativeness in itself (that is, a species’ origin) shapes peoples attitudes towards management interventions in practice. This study addresses this void, demonstrating empirically that both the public and invasive species professionals largely ignore a species’ origin when evaluating the need for conservation action. Through a questionnaire-based survey of the general public and invasive species experts in both Scotland and Canada, the study revealed that perceived abundance and damage to nature and the economy, rather than non-nativeness, informed attitudes towards species management, empirically substantiating the claim that a species’ perceived abundance and impact, and not its origin, is what really matters to most people. Natural resource management should thus focus explicitly on impact-related criteria, rather than on a species’ origin.