Content uploaded by Adrian Treves
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Adrian Treves on Nov 24, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contributed Paper
Participatory Planning of Interventions to Mitigate
Human–Wildlife Conflicts
ADRIAN TREVES,∗R. B. WALLACE,† AND S. WHITE‡
∗Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, 30A Science Hall, 550 North Park Street, Madison, WI 53706–1491, U.S.A., email
atreves@wisc.edu
†Wildlife Conservation Society, Greater Madidi-Tambopata Landscape Conservation Program, No. 133, Calle 11, Obrajes, La Paz,
Bolivia
‡Fundaci´
on Cordillera Tropical, Apartado 01-01-1986, Cuenca, Ecuador
Abstract: Conservation of wildlife is especially challenging when the targeted species damage crops or
livestock, attack humans, or take fish or game. Affected communities may retaliate and destroy wildlife
or their habitats. We summarize recommendations from the literature for 13 distinct types of interventions to
mitigate these human–wildlife conflicts. We classified eight types as direct (reducing the severity or frequency
of encounters with wildlife) and five as indirect (raising human tolerance for encounters with wildlife)
interventions. We analyzed general cause-and-effect relationships underlying human–wildlife conflicts to
clarify the focal point of intervention for each type. To organize the recommendations on interventions
we used three standard criteria for feasibility: cost-effective design, wildlife specificity and selectivity, and
sociopolitical acceptability. The literature review and the feasibility criteria were integrated as decision support
tools in three multistakeholder workshops. The workshops validated and refined our criteria and helped
the participants select interventions. Our approach to planning interventions is systematic, uses standard
criteria, and optimizes the participation of experts, policy makers, and affected communities. We argue that
conservation action generally will be more effective if the relative merits of alternative interventions are
evaluated in an explicit, systematic, and participatory manner.
Keywords: animal damage, co-management, conservation actions, decision support, depredation, feasibility
criteria, problematic animals, tolerance
Planificaci´
on Participativa de Intervenciones para Mitigar Conflictos entre Humanos y Vida Silvestre
Resumen: La conservaci´
on de la vida silvestre es especialmente desafiante cuando las especies enfocadas
da˜
nan cultivos, atacan a humanos o afectan la caza y pesca. Las comunidades afectadas pueden tomar
represalias y destruir a la vida silvestre o sus h´
abitats. Resumimos las recomendaciones de la literatura para
13 diferentes tipos de intervenciones para mitigar esos conflictos entre humanos y vida silvestre. Clasificamos
ocho tipos como directos (reducen la severidad o frecuencia de encuentros con vida silvestre) y cinco como in-
directos (incrementan la tolerancia a encuentros con vida silvestre). Analizamos las relaciones causa – efecto
subyacentes en los conflictos para clarificar el punto focal de intervenci´
on para cada tipo. Para organizar las
recomendaciones sobre intervenciones, utilizamos tres criterios est´
andar para la factibilidad: dise˜
no costo-
beneficio, especificidad y selectividad de vida silvestre y aceptabilidad sociopol´
ıtica. La revisi´
on de literatura y
los criterios de factibilidad fueron integrados como herramientas para el soporte de decisiones en tres talleres
con m´
ultiples actores. Los talleres validaron y refinaron nuestros criterios y ayudaron a que los participantes
seleccionaran intervenciones. Nuestro m´
etodo de planificaci´
on de intervenciones es sistem´
atico, utiliza cri-
terios est´
andar y optimiza la participaci´
on de expertos, pol´
ıticos y comunidades afectadas. Argumentamos
que la acci´
on de conservaci´
on generalmente ser´
am
´
as efectiva si los m´
eritos relativos de las intervenciones
alternativas son evaluados de manera expl´
ıcita, sistem´
atica y participativa.
Palabras Clave: acciones de conservaci´
on, animales problema, criterios de factibilidad, da˜
no por animales,
depredaci´
on, manejo colaborativo, soporte de decisiones, tolerancia
Paper submitted September 3, 2008; revised manuscript accepted February 5, 2009.
1
Conservation Biology, Volume **, No. *, ***–***
C
2009 Society for Conservation Biology
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01242.x
2Participatory Intervention Planning
Introduction
Conserving wildlife that damage crops or livestock, attack
humans, or take fish or game poses a special challenge
for policy makers and managers (Thirgood et al. 2000;
Karanth & Madhusudan 2002; Sillero-Zubiri et al. 2007).
The traditional human response is to clear wildlife habi-
tat or retaliate against wild animals for real or perceived
threats (Marker et al. 2003; Treves & Naughton-Treves
2005; Woodroffe & Frank 2005). Such responses under-
mine broad conservation goals. For example, the removal
of large-bodied predators has cascading effects on the
populations of their prey and smaller predators (Estes et
al. 1998; Terborgh et al. 2002; Ripple & Beschta 2004).
Similarly the removal of elephants significantly alters veg-
etation cover and diversity (Wing & Buss 1970; Chap-
man et al. 1992; Kahumbu 2002). Yet efforts to protect
problematic wildlife have turned affected communities
against wildlife or against conservation efforts (reviewed
in Treves 2009). Indeed many human societies attach
strong positive and negative symbolism to large animals
(Knight 2000, 2003; Nie 2002; Treves 2008). Thus policy
and management of large animals are contentious topics.
Worldwide efforts to balance human needs with those
of wildlife have fueled interest in the alternatives to retal-
iation. Among these are nonlethal management and ways
to raise human tolerance for wildlife. Attention has also
focused on the participation of affected households in
planning responses to conflicts with wildlife and inclu-
sion of a range of interest groups and values (Hill 2004;
Raik et al. 2005; Treves et al. 2006). Striking an optimal
balance requires solutions that are scientifically sound
and politically acceptable.
We reviewed the literature and considered our ex-
periences of working with affected communities to list
and describe distinct types of methods used to mitigate
human–wildlife conflicts (interventions). Then we clas-
sified these methods as direct interventions that aim to
reduce the severity or frequency of encounters between
wildlife and property or people or indirect interventions
that aim to raise people’s tolerances for such encoun-
ters. We summarized the recommendations about the
interventions with three complementary criteria: cost-
effective design, selectivity and specificity for the prob-
lematic wildlife, and sociopolitical acceptability. These
three criteria are not prescriptions. Rather they capture
experiences of strengths and weaknesses of each method
under different conditions, so users can assess whether
the interventions are feasible (i.e., “possible and prac-
tical to achieve easily or conveniently” [http://www.
askoxford.com/concise_oed/feasible?view=uk]) in their
particular sociopolitical and biophysical situations. Fi-
nally our framework dovetails with recent standards for
conservation planning (Salafsky & Margoluis 1999; Salaf-
sky et al. 2002; Groves 2003).
Methods
Literature Review
Since 2001 A.T. has compiled information on inter-
ventions intended to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts
worldwide. These include peoples’ preventive and reac-
tive responses to wildlife damage as well as factors that
exacerbate or lessen wildlife threats or people’s percep-
tions of them. This literature search focused on terrestrial
vertebrates >2 kg of body mass and on carnivores in par-
ticular. From >800 sources we cite 37 peer-reviewed
articles that synthesized recommendations for numerous
methods or provided detailed recommendations for a par-
ticular method.
Participatory intervention planning (PIP)
We held three workshops in which participants used
a simple method for PIP to assess alternative types of
interventions based on participants’ evaluations of fea-
sibility. The goals of our PIP workshops were to help
participants consider all possible types of interventions
and weigh the relative merits of the alternatives with stan-
dard criteria. Although it may appear as though we simply
brainstormed various methods and the participants then
made educated guesses about the relative feasibility, this
brainstorming was structured and preceded by a critical
first step that defined the cause-and-effect relationships
underlying a given human–wildlife conflict (Fig. 1). This
step exposed multiple possible focal points of interven-
tion. The causal chains are analogous to those advocated
for conservation planning (Salafsky et al. 2008).
After brainstorming the participants used three
criteria—cost-effective design, wildlife specificity and
selectivity, and sociopolitical acceptability—to evaluate
candidate interventions. A cost-effective design, under-
stood broadly, considers the resources, time, and exper-
tise needed to install and maintain the intervention in
its most effective form. Effectiveness must be evaluated
against the goal, which is either to reduce the frequency
or severity of encounters between wildlife and people
or raise tolerance among people for wildlife encounters
(Fig. 1). Wildlife specificity and selectivity are the ef-
fects of the intervention on targeted problematic wildlife
and unintended targets. Sociopolitical acceptability is the
tolerance for the installation, maintenance, and conse-
quences of the intervention among affected individuals
and households, more remote interest groups, and the
broader populace.
We used the PIP method in three multistakeholder
planning workshops to improve and refine our defini-
tions, criteria, and procedures for eliciting stakeholder
deliberations. Participatory intervention planning was
first used by A.T. and R.W. as part of the Wildlife Con-
servation Society’s program in La Paz, Bolivia, and A.T.
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. *, 2009
Treves et al. 3
Human-wildlife conflicts
Wildlife may damage
property* or threaten people.
People may resist
conservation.
Humans may retaliate against
wildlife or clear wild habitat.
Indirect interventions raise
human tolerance for wildlife.
Direct interventions reduce the severity or
frequency of encounters between wildlife
and people or their property* (includes
protection for wildlife and habitats).
Figure 1. Cause-and-effect
relationships underlying
human–wildlife conflicts and
their associated interventions.
An asterisk indicates inclusion of
claims to fish, game, and other
natural resources.
and S.W. subsequently refined it for Fundaci´
on Cordillera
Tropical, Cuenca, Ecuador. The workshops involved an
array of stakeholders. The first pair of the 2-day work-
shops (January 2005 and May 2006) convened 40 Boli-
vian policy makers, managers, and wildlife researchers
to guide nationwide policy recommendations. The third
workshop (August 2007) in the village of Zhoray con-
vened 57 Ecuadorian landowners to build consensus on
coexistence with wildlife in and around Sangay National
Park.
In each workshop the facilitators (the authors plus two
to four staff assistants) listed all methods for intervention
derived from the literature and asked the participants
to identify additional methods—which added three to
our list (see Results). We were wary of prejudicing later
decision making and evaluation by providing definitive
judgments on the effectiveness of any one method. In-
stead we briefly summarized the research on conditions
under which each type or method of intervention was
more or less effective. A thorough knowledge of inter-
vention types and methods was a valuable prerequisite
for effective PIP.
Participants working in groups or in plenary were
asked to discuss the entire range of interventions and
consider the cause-and-effect relationships underlying
human–wildlife conflicts and their associated interven-
tions (Fig. 1). As a first cut the participants discarded
interventions that were unanimously seen as impossible.
For example, S.W. ruled out lethal interventions against
Andean bears (Tremarctos ornatus) because it is a legally
protected species in Ecuador and is on the International
Union for Conservation of Nature Red List (2008). Chang-
ing national laws and overcoming international pressure
for the sake of a regional wildlife management plan would
have been impossible. Thereafter the participants were
asked to consider the feasibility criteria. Assessments of
the criteria reflected the participants’ knowledge of ap-
plicable law, national or local sociocultural norms, eco-
nomic and material constraints, and biophysical condi-
tions; hence, the assessments were subjective. Neverthe-
less, by designating subgroups randomly (Ecuador) or by
species expertise (Bolivia), we anticipated complemen-
tarity within subgroups relating to formal and informal
knowledge and experience. Such complementarity was
expected to promote a more thorough and objective as-
sessment.
Once the list of feasible interventions was compiled the
participants were asked to consider the potential compat-
ibility of combined interventions. The interventions were
considered functionally incompatible if the same individ-
uals, time, materials, or funds would be needed for both
interventions but could not be divided adequately be-
tween the two. The interventions were considered log-
ically incompatible if one proposed intervention would
produce a change that excluded the other (e.g., hunting
wildlife is often incompatible with wildlife viewing at the
same or nearby sites). The participants could have been
asked to rank or rate the alternatives, but we did not take
this step because the Bolivian workshops were aimed at
national policy rather than at a specified site and many
of the Ecuadorians made independent land management
decisions.
Results
We identified eight distinct types of direct interventions
to reduce the severity or frequency of encounters be-
tween wildlife and people or their property and five dis-
tinct types of indirect interventions intended to raise peo-
ple’s tolerance for wildlife encounters (Table 1). Within
each type there were one to seven methods (i.e., sub-
types). Four methods were a combination of the di-
rect and indirect interventions: hunting of problematic
wildlife may reduce property damage and raise tolerance
for wildlife among hunters and affected communities;
wildlife laws or policies that give affected communities
ownership or authority of wildlife may raise tolerance and
prevent retaliation against the wildlife seen as “property”;
incentive schemes that combine payments for surviving
wildlife with changes in husbandry or management of
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. *, 2009
4Participatory Intervention Planning
Table 1. Direct and indirect interventions for mitigating human–wildlife conflicts characterized by three criteria for feasibility.
Design criterion
Intervention type Examples of methods cost-effective design wildlife selectivity/specificity sociopolitical acceptability Source∗
Direct interventions reduce severity or frequency of encounters between wildlife and property/people.
Barriers buffer zones, fences,
moats, nets, trenches,
and walls
consider placement, size, permeability,
and materials/labor/maintenance
costs; can include escape paths,
alarms, and deterrents (e.g., electric,
thorns and nonpalatable crops)
with time intelligent,
motivated animals may
penetrate; consider impact
on migration/dispersal
movements
generally familiar and popular among
those who feel threatened; consider
impact on local people’s access to
resources; metal fence wires have
been used as snares; livestock may
injure themselves on barriers;
3 wide barriers (e.g., buffers) must
be profitable if land is scarce
1–5
Guards supervision by dogs,
humans, or other
animals
consider timing relative to wildlife
activities; guards may be exposed to
disease, attack, or weather; consider
behavior of guards: feeding, health,
ranging, social system, vigilance, and
vocal
consider risk of disease
transmission between guard
and wildlife; consider
whether guard competes
with or preys on wildlife;
human guards may fail to
deter habituated wildlife;
hence, more effective in
areas with hunting
generally familiar but time required
may limit acceptance; risk to guards
and indirect costs (stay home from
school) or unintended effects
(barking dogs or wandering dogs)
may reduce acceptance; consider
opportunity costs carefully
4–7
Repellents acoustic: sirens,
explosions, and
predator sounds;
chemical: odor/taste
repellents and
conditioned taste
aversion (CTA); visual:
colors, lights, and
predator mimicry
from most to least effective:
behavior-contingent,
motion-activated, unpredictably
mobile, or stationary; chemical,
consider persistence in various
climates; CTA, determine whether
predatory response is inhibited or
simply feeding
consider chemical toxicity;
consider circadian behavior,
intelligence, and the visual
and acoustic acuity of target,
non-target wildlife, people,
and domestic animals
generally familiar, but acceptance of
loud sounds, lights at night, noxious
odors, toxic chemicals, and
attraction of predators vary
2, 4,
8–10
Manipulate
problematic
animals (lethal/
permanent)
culling, eradication,
hunting, relocate to
captivity, selective
removal, or
sterilization
selective removal of culprits difficult;
goals of hunters (e.g., food and sport)
may not match those of complainants
(e.g., safety and income) or managers
(e.g., conservation and revenue);
complex methods of capture and
animal handling demand professional
supervision and are costly; public
collaboration (e.g., hunting) demands
professional communications,
monitoring, and enforcement
risky for endangered species;
generally possible to target
problematic species, but
varies by method (shooting
vs. traps, explosives, or
poison); selection of
individual culprits is
difficult; if released, consider
disease transmission and
capture-related injury
generally familiar, but certain methods
(e.g., poison and traps), certain sites
(private lands and densely settled
areas), and certain targets (social,
intelligent, and charismatic species)
provoke opposition by common
interest groups
2, 3,
11–16
continued
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. *, 2009
Treves et al. 5
Table 1. (continued)
Design criterion
Intervention type Examples of methods cost-effective design wildlife selectivity/specificity sociopolitical acceptability Source∗
Manipulate
problematic
animals
(nonlethal/
temporary)
capture followed by
deterrence (e.g.,
punish or affix electric
shock collar), release,
or relocate
selective removal of culprits difficult;
released animals often return or cause
problems at new site; complex
methods of capture and animal
handling demand professional
supervision and are costly
risky for endangered species.
Generally possible to target
problematic species, but
varies by method; selection
of individual culprits is
difficult; if released, consider
disease transmission and
capture-related injury
capture of problematic animals
familiar, but subsequent handling
may not be; generally more
acceptable to urban, wealthy
populations; affected communities
may distrust release
9, 17,
18, 19
Manipulate
habitat or other
wildlife
alter resources required
by problematic
wildlife (food, shelter,
breeding sites, etc.) to
discourage use of
human areas
demands information on behavioral
ecology of problematic wildlife or
comparisons of affected and
unaffected properties/people;
improvement of habitat through
remediation and restoration activities
may discourage wildlife damage to
property or degradation of habitat
may diminish wildlife abundance
suitable for endangered
wildlife if habitat is
improved (e.g., restoring
wild prey); unpredictable
consequences for wider
ecosystem
improvement may be unfamiliar;
degradation of habitat is generally
familiar; little data on acceptability;
biodiversity interests may oppose
degradation
20–22
Protect wildlife
or habitats
prevent retaliation
against wildlife or
habitat destruction via
law enforcement,
interdiction, or
physical barriers to
access
depends on frequent and sensitive
monitoring or surveillance at local
scales; clear rules that govern access
and the use of natural resources;
physical barriers and obvious
delimiters; trained staff to
communicate, enforce, and prosecute
far-ranging animals that cross
jurisdictions elude
protection; if retaliation and
habitat destruction are
inconspicuous activities,
interdiction and
enforcement will be difficult
generally familiar but opposed when
traditions or broader policies allow
access to and the use of natural
resources; enforcement may
generate political clashes and local
ill will
3, 11,
21, 23
Reduce
attractiveness
of property/
people
remove attractants (e.g.,
food and garbage),
relocate property or
activities, or switch
contested resource to
less desirable varieties
reduce attractiveness of
property/people; demands
information on behavioral ecology of
problematic wildlife and comparisons
of affected and unaffected
properties/people; change in
locations, timing, or attributes or
vulnerable property/people
suitable for endangered
wildlife if the habitat is
improved (e.g., removing
human influences); difficult
for damage patterns that are
uniform, extremely variable
in space or time, or difficult
to ascribe to target wildlife
few people like to change their
livelihood practices or living
conditions; cost–benefit analyses
and opportunity costs are key; high
potential risk for vulnerable people
2, 4,
19, 20,
23, 24
Indirect interventions raise tolerance for wildlife encounters.
Co-management
(collaboration
in planning,
intervention, or
monitoring)
involve interest groups
or stakeholders in
planning,
implementation, or
monitoring
should include affected households,
consensus, social learning, long-term
investment in relationships, fair
representation of affected households,
technical experts, and legal “owners”
of wildlife
most effective for wildlife with
value (material or
nonmaterial); less effective
for inconspicuous wildlife or
those with little value to any
interest group
generally familiar, but acceptance
depends on whether participants
and processes are seen as legitimate,
representative, and fair; majority
views may dominate and mislead
planners
4, 11,
21, 22,
25–30
continued
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. *, 2009
6Participatory Intervention Planning
Table 1. (continued)
Design criterion
Intervention type Examples of methods cost-effective design wildlife selectivity/specificity sociopolitical acceptability Source∗
Compensation/
insurance reim-
bursements
payments for damaged
property or injury to
people (cash or
equivalent)
vulnerable to fraud, corruption,
inefficiencies, and moral hazards;
difficult to phase out; administration
may demand training
most effective for rare wildlife
or small populations or costs
rise; demands generous
donor base so most effective
for charismatic wildlife
generally familiar, but acceptance
varies with political clashes between
donors, payers, and recipients;
acceptance may decline as costs
rise; payments do not turn recipients
into prowildlife advocates; some
recipients may reject payments in
favor of wildlife control
31–33
Incentives/
performance
payments
add value to live wildlife
as a commodity or
through direct
payments for live
wildlife
see recommendations for
compensation/reimbursements; link
to wildlife survival is key; tourism can
have negative impacts on wildlife if
not designed with the behavioral
ecology of wildlife in mind
demands a market or donors,
so most effective for valued
wildlife
unfamiliar to most except for tourism
revenue sharing; some recipients
may reject payments in favor of
wildlife control; markets volatile and
complex
4, 21,
34
Information
sharing
communication of
information generated
by research via
environmental
education, consulting,
media, training, and
writings
salience to target audience, clarity,
novelty, and communication medium
are the key; broadcast may reach
many but persuade few; interpersonal
communication may reach few but
persuade effectively; goal is often to
change behavior among receivers
works for any wildlife, but
dissemination/persuasion for
noncharismatic species
difficult
generally familiar, but acceptance
improves with trusted messengers;
unfamiliar advocates may engender
skepticism; deeply held values and
beliefs change slowly
35, 36
Policy/legal
reform or
devolution of
authority
changing legal
relationships to
wildlife or habitats
(tenure and rights of
property, use, access,
etc.)
ownership may enhance perceived
control over wildlife and their
damages; use rights may enhance the
perceived value of wildlife and
habitats; policy and legal reforms
must be communicated to
stakeholders effectively and clearly;
misincentives for overharvesting or
misuse common; regulation of
use/access may still be needed;
vulnerable to fraud, corruption,
inefficiencies, and moral hazards
most effective for wildlife with
value (material or
nonmaterial); less effective
for inconspicuous wildlife or
those with no traditional
value to affected households
generally familiar, but acceptance
varies with the rules of use and
ownership; political clashes
between past and current owners
likely
22,
28–30
∗Sources: 1, Angst 2001; 2, Hoare 2001; 3, Karanth & Madhusudan 2002; 4, Osborn & Parker 2003; 5. Ogada et al. 2003; 6, Smith et al. 2000a; 7, Andelt 2001; 8, Smith et al. 2000b; 9, Shivik
2006; 10, Mason et al. 2001; 11, Noss & Cuellar 2001; 12, Burns et al. 1991; 13, Ratnaswamy et al. 1997; 14, Treves & Naughton-Treves 2005; 15, A.T. unpublished; 16, Woodroffe & Frank
2005; 17, Linnell et al. 1997; 18, Schultz et al. 2005; 19, Wydeven et al. 2004; 20, Meriggi & Lovari 1996; 21, Mishra et al. 2003; 22, Naughton-Treves & Treves 2005; 23, Mech et al. 2000; 24,
Shaw et al. 1988; 25, Carr & Halvorsen 2001; 26, Treves et al. 2006; 27, Raik et al. 2005; 28, Murombedzi 1992; 29, Du Toit 2002; 30, Virtainen 2003; 31, Montag 2003; 32, Bulte & Rondeau
2005; 33, A.T. unpublished; 34, Zabel & Holm-Muller 2008; 35, Dunwoody 2007; 36, Jacobson & McDuff 2009.
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. *, 2009
Treves et al. 7
wild habitat may combine direct and indirect interven-
tion steps; and voluntary, negotiated household reloca-
tion or resettlement projects may reduce threats from
wildlife. If outcomes include improved human safety
or livelihoods, one may also see higher tolerance for
wildlife. Several methods of mitigating human–wildlife
conflicts were unknown to the authors before the PIP
workshops. The participants in Bolivia introduced us to
chaku (wildlife drives) (Table 1)—a multimodal repellent
procedure in which large numbers of community mem-
bers move through grazing areas making noise, holding
lit firecrackers, and generally clearing the way of preda-
tors and grazing competitors. The same participants in-
troduced us to captura y castigo, wherein a problematic
wild animal is live trapped, punished in a cage, and then
released in hopes that it will not dare to approach hu-
mans or their property again. Ecuadorian participants in-
troduced us to planting tree or brush cover near poultry
coops so that poultry can find safety from aerial attack in
its dense branches or hop and climb onto low branches
to avoid some ground predators.
The participants readily narrowed the 13 types of in-
terventions to four to six that seemed possible. This win-
nowing was rapid: approximately 2 h in the Ecuador
workshop and 4–8 h in the two Bolivia workshops,
longer in the latter probably because of larger area of
land and greater number of wildlife species considered.
The participants reported no problems in conceptual-
izing the feasibility criteria. Nonetheless, cost-effective
design seemed to require the most time and produced
the greatest uncertainty. The participants were unani-
mous that sociopolitical acceptance had to be considered
carefully. We included a fourth criterion—monitoring de-
mands or constraints—but we found no evidence that the
participants thought it was important (A.T., personal ob-
servation).
Although direct interventions at first glance may seem
the most straightforward and effective way to prevent
wildlife damage or avert retaliation, in practice, the partic-
ipants commonly cited three reasons to prefer indirect in-
terventions. Illicit killing of wildlife and private landown-
ers’ conversion of wild habitat were often deemed im-
possible to prohibit or enforce, so methods to change
motivations underlying these behaviors were sought in-
stead. Direct interventions often require the legal author-
ity to interdict, relocate, or confiscate, which few partic-
ipants imagined themselves holding. Many participants
understood that retaliation or opposition to conservation
stemmed from common, contributing factors or indirect
threats (e.g., lack of education, poverty, unwise legisla-
tion, or lack of management capacity). Therefore, the
direct threats or proximate contributing factors might
respond efficiently to a cascade of “upstream” changes
triggered by one indirect intervention (e.g., education,
policy reform, or training). For example, training farmers
to detect and deter transgressing wildlife seemed more ef-
ficient than inviting central authorities or an outside team
to do so. Likewise changing policy sometimes seemed
more feasible than trying to stop every infringement of
existing rules.
Discussion
Our literature review and PIP workshops revealed 13
types of interventions and several dozen subtypes in-
tended to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts in one sit-
uation or another (Table 1). Although we believe that
our types are exhaustive, we also expect that addi-
tional methods will be added as researchers and prac-
titioners around the world report on their observa-
tions and experiments. Several types (“reduce attrac-
tiveness of property/people...” and “policy/legal re-
form/devolution”) will likely benefit from greater res-
olution and further analysis. For example, the former
could encompass changes as diverse as livestock owners
switching breeds, vaccinating herds, removing carcasses,
and improving pastures and farmers switching crops, ro-
tating fields, and clearing brush (Mech et al. 2000; Osborn
2002; Wydeven et al. 2004). Addition of other methods
to this catch-all category might materially change our rec-
ommendations.
Although our classification of the interventions into
direct and indirect types is a useful heuristic device
and helps clarify the cause and effect, it fails to cap-
ture the manifold actions of at least four complex in-
terventions. (1) Hunting problematic wildlife may re-
duce property damage and raise tolerance for wildlife
among hunters and affected communities (Linnell et al.
2001; Mincher 2002). Its effectiveness at both these goals
needs systematic study. (2) Similarly wildlife laws or poli-
cies that give affected communities ownership of or au-
thority over wildlife may raise tolerance and prevent
retaliation against wildlife because they are valued as
“property” (Du Toit 2002; Virtanen 2003). (3) Incentive
schemes that combine payments for surviving wildlife
with changes in husbandry or management of land en-
gage both direct and indirect interventions (Mishra et al.
2003). This too needs study to formulate general rec-
ommendations (Zabel & Holm-Muller 2008). (4) Simi-
larly interventions involving voluntary, negotiated prop-
erty relocation or resettlement may reduce threats from
wildlife. If human safety and livelihoods improve as well,
this intervention may also raise tolerance for wildlife.
The feasibility and effectiveness of such schemes still
need to be verified independently and generalized to
other settings (Karanth & Madhusudan 2002; Karanth
2005).
These dual-purpose interventions represent complex,
manifold collaborations between users, managers, and
policy makers. This underscores the importance of
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. *, 2009
8Participatory Intervention Planning
integrating social science with ecological science to un-
derstand human–wildlife conflicts and the importance
of conducting research to test hypothesized cause-and-
effect relationships between threats and interventions.
Conservation Planning
Standard definitions and practices of conservation are
gaining wide acceptance. Salafsky et al. (2008) call for sys-
tematic classifications of conservation actions to permit
comparison across projects and better information shar-
ing. Although we prefer the term intervention as more
explicit and more generally understandable than conser-
vation action, we offer just such a detailed classification
scheme as it pertains to human–wildlife conflicts.
Another goal of our paper was to address three com-
mon problems in planning interventions. The first is the
assumption that only one or a few solutions exist for a
given threat. Our results challenge this assumption. First
we showed that several paths to intervention exist if one
explicitly identifies the causal chains underlying a conser-
vation problem (Fig. 1). Second, our thorough review of
the literature demonstrated how many alternative meth-
ods exist for the same general set of threats (Table 1).
Admittedly human–wildlife conflicts have been studied
for decades and solutions attempted for millennia (Smith
et al. 2000a, 2000b), but we maintain that finding sev-
eral alternative interventions (direct and indirect) is not
unique to our topic. Acknowledging multiple paths to
intervention and listing alternative methods for interven-
tion spurred our participants to suggest varied solutions.
Furthermore our PIP method separated the identification
of solutions from the assessments of relative feasibility
among the alternatives—a step toward more explicit, sys-
tematic planning.
The second, related problem is the selection of the first
solution that comes to mind to the exclusion of others.
For example, ecotourism is often proposed as a way to
make conservation pay for itself, and other forms of in-
centives (e.g., conservation performance payments and
sustainable use) are not explored fully. Any proposed in-
tervention should be weighed against alternatives with
explicit criteria, lest conservation be more art than sci-
ence.
We do not propose that threats can be equally well
abated by multiple, alternative interventions. Instead two
or more candidates always exist because direct and in-
direct pathways to intervention are universal—and the
pathways and methods should be weighed explicitly by
their relative merits. Nor do we argue that the instincts
and experiences of experts are a poor guide to planning
because experts will be needed to evaluate alternatives,
in addition to other key roles. Rather we believe that a sys-
tematic, explicit examination of alternative interventions
for a given threat will improve the design and success
of interventions. Such deliberation and discussion likely
will stimulate creative thinking that can result in new
solutions or catalyze the integration of different ideas.
Furthermore we believe that conservation expertise is
not the sole province of formally trained scientists or
field-tested conservation practitioners, but it should also
engage civilians, policy makers, and other organizations
(Treves et al. 2006; Danielsen et al. 2007). This is partic-
ularly true when planners strive to balance human and
biodiversity needs so that the eventual intervention (or
lack of action) reflects sociopolitical acceptance.
Third we argue that the selection of interventions in
any field should be based on feasibility, not just effec-
tiveness, which includes cost-effective design, wildlife
specificity and selectivity, and sociopolitical acceptabil-
ity. Our participants supported this idea to the extent
that they estimated feasibility from pragmatic estimates
of constraints on resources and effort, effectiveness, tar-
get wildlife, and sociopolitical acceptability. To wit af-
fected households may reject the intervention that pre-
vents wildlife damages if it fails their evaluations of local
practicality or impinges on the other realms of life. For
example, Indian communities undermined effective bar-
riers to wildlife because they sought resources on the
other side (Karanth & Madhusudan 2002; Gubbi 2007).
Likewise the most popular intervention may not be cost-
effective. For example, many surveys show public prefer-
ence for capture and relocation of problematic carnivores
(Manfredo et al. 1998; Naughton-Treves et al. 2003), yet
wildlife authorities balk at the costs of such interventions
and research shows that they rarely reduce damages in
the long run (Linnell et al. 1997). Similarly the effects
of interventions on target wildlife and unintended con-
sequences for non-target wildlife may lower the relative
feasibility of any given intervention, especially when man-
aging valued or protected species (e.g., Burns et al. 1991).
Our PIP workshop participants grasped these ideas read-
ily. They did not embrace a fourth criterion that we tried
to introduce: monitoring demands. This supports one ex-
pert’s assertion that “...you want to pick the best strategy
for the job and then figure out how to monitor it as best
you can” (N. Salafsky, personal communication). Weigh-
ing one criterion over another is likely to be a subjective
decision and one well suited to participation and consen-
sus building through debate and discussion.
Optimal Participation
Participation in conservation planning should be opti-
mized. Participation has costs and benefits that are well
known from democratic theory and natural resource
participation theory (Gillingham 2001; Halvorsen 2003;
Raik et al. 2005). For PIP methods potential costs of
participation include the transaction costs of meeting,
communicating, and building a shared vision; the risk that
opponents consolidate to disrupt planning or implemen-
tation; and the risk that participants are unrepresentative
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. *, 2009
Treves et al. 9
of interest groups that then undermine their decisions.
Potential benefits include the generation of diverse ideas:
participation in decision making may raise tolerance for
wildlife or management even in the absence of measur-
able reductions in threats; participants may offer help
to implement or monitor interventions; and participants
may gain skills in negotiation, democracy, and coalition
building. Ideally planners will consider optimal partici-
pation. For example, our method for strategic choice of
interventions based on feasibility requires local knowl-
edge, scientific judgments, and broader sociopolitical ex-
periences. Thus we caution against centralized, rigid,
technocratic scoring systems that replace intuition and
informal knowledge.
Planners may not be so free, however, because some
threats or interventions engender strong emotions or eco-
nomic self-interest. Hence individuals and organizations
may demand to be involved in planning interventions,
regardless of their capacity to contribute. Excluding in-
fluential or interested stakeholders from planning can
itself trigger opposition, regardless of any good inten-
tions. Indeed some interventions become saddled with
broader sociopolitical issues that interest many stake-
holder groups. For example, wolf reintroduction in the
United States was slowed by long-standing debates about
public use of federal lands for grazing and mining (Bangs
et al. 1998; Nie 2002).
Disagreements and intractable conflicts of interest can
bog down participatory processes. For example, Raik
et al. (2005) described PIP-like procedures to resolve
human–deer (Odocoileus virginianus) conflicts in sub-
urban and rural U.S. communities. Some of the dozen
communities considered in the study took years to decide
on interventions, most often because the participants dis-
agreed about killing deer. We believe that deadlocked
meetings can be avoided if facilitators articulate goals
clearly (top down) or build a shared vision among partic-
ipants (bottom up) at the outset. For example, the goal
of balancing deer needs and human needs will generate
different sets of interventions than the goal of reducing
deer damage to property. The latter would more likely
promote lethal control. The appropriate choice of top-
down or bottom-up planning of interventions depends
in part on whether participants are formulating policy
recommendations (cf. our Bolivian workshops) or im-
plementing interventions. Then implementers who act
independently may opt for different goal statements than
would communal implementers. In the former case the
goal statement may be general because each participant
takes away her or his preferred method (cf. our Ecuado-
rian workshop), whereas in the latter case, facilitators
should relinquish control and allow consensus goals to
surface.
We expect intervention planning will stand on a firmer
footing when the choice of conservation interventions is
systematized and made explicit. One step in that direc-
tion is to be clear about cause and effect of direct and
indirect interventions. We also advocate the use and re-
finement of the criteria for evaluating alternative inter-
ventions, while optimizing the level of participation in
planning.
Acknowledgments
We thank the many participants in the workshops, in-
cluding J. Zapata, R. Nallar, M. Augusta Ar´
evalo, S.
Criollo, L. Lojano, and K. Chamorro, and other staff mem-
bers of the Wildlife Conservation Society and Fundaci´
on
Cordillera Tropical for assistance in conducting the work-
shops. We also thank L. Naughton for help in preparing
this manuscript. The authors were supported by grants
from the International Bear Association, Pittsburgh Zoo
Conservation Fund, and COEX: Sharing the Land with
Wildlife.
Literature Cited
Andelt, W. F. 2001. Effectiveness of livestock guarding animals for re-
ducing predation on livestock. Endangered Species Update 18:182–
185.
Angst, C. 2001. Procedure to selectively remove stock-raiding lynx in
Switzerland. Carnivore Damage Prevention News 4:8.
Bangs, E. E., S. H. Fritts, J. A. Fontaine, D. W. Smith, K. M. Murphy, C.
M. Mack, and C. C. Niemeyer. 1998. Status of gray wolf restoration
in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:785–
793.
Bulte, E. H., and D. Rondeau. 2005. Why compensating wildlife damages
may be bad for conservation. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:14–
19.
Burns, R. J., H. J. Tietjen, and G. E. Connolly. 1991. Secondary hazard of
livestock protection collars to skunks and eagles. Journal of Wildlife
Management 55:701–704.
Chapman, L. J., C. A. Chapman, and R. W. Wrangham. 1992. Balan-
ites wilsoniana: elephant dependent dispersal. Journal of Tropical
Ecology 8:275–283.
Danielsen, F., M. M. Mendoza, A. Tagtag, P. A. Alviola, D. S. Balete,
A. E. Jensen, M. Enghoff, and M. K. Poulsen. 2007. Increasing con-
servation management action by involving local people in natural
resource monitoring. Ambio 36:566–570.
Du Toit, J. T. 2002. Wildlife harvesting guidelines for community-based
wildlife management: a southern African perspective. Biodiversity
and Conservation 11:1403–1416.
Dunwoody, S. 2007. The challenge of trying to make a difference us-
ing media messages. Pages 89–104 in S. C. Moser, and L. Dilling,
editors. Creating a climate for change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Estes, J. A., M. T. Tinker, T. M. Williams, and D. F. Doak. 1998. Killer
whale predation on sea otters linking oceanic and nearshore ecosys-
tems. Science 282:473–476.
Gillingham, S. 2001. Social organization and participatory resource man-
agement in Brazilian ribeirinho communities: a case study of the
Mamiraua Sustainable Development Reserve, Amazonas. Society and
Natural Resources 14:803–814.
Groves, C. 2003. Drafting a blueprint for conservation. Island Press,
New York.
Gubbi, S. 2007. Tiger habitats and integrated conservation and devel-
opment projects: a case study from Periyar Tiger Reserve, India.
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. *, 2009
10 Participatory Intervention Planning
Durrell Institute for Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent,
Canterbury, United Kingdom.
Halvorsen, K. E. 2003. Assessing the effects of public participation.
Public Administration Review 63:535–543.
Hill, C. M. 2004. Farmers’ perspectives of conflict at the wildlife–
agriculture boundary: some lessons learned from African subsis-
tence farmers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9:279–286.
Hoare, R. 2001. A decision support system for managing human-
elephant conflict situations in Africa. IUCN/SSCA African Elephant
Specialist Group, Nairobi, Kenya.
Jacobson, S. K., and M. D. McDuff. 2009. Communication as an effective
management strategy in a diverse World. Pages 301–314 in D. J.
Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, P. Brown, D. J. Decker, and E. A. Duke, editors.
Wildlife and society: the science of human dimensions. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Kahumbu, P. 2002. Forest elephant ecology at Shimba Hills. Depart-
ment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University,
Princeton, New Jersey.
Karanth, K. K. 2005. Addressing relocation and livelihood concerns:
Bhadra Wildlife Sanctuary. Economic and Political Weekly 40:4809–
4811.
Karanth, K. U., and M. D. Madhusudan. 2002. Mitigating human-wildlife
conflicts in southern Asia. Pages 250–264 in J. Terborgh, C. P. Van
Schaik, M. Rao, and L. C. Davenport, editors. Making parks work:
identifying key factors to implementing parks in the tropics. Island
Press, Covelo, California.
Knight, J., editor. 2000. Natural enemies: people-wildlife conflicts in
anthropological perspective. Routledge, London.
Knight, J. 2003. Waiting for wolves in Japan. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, United Kingdom.
Linnell,J.D.C.,R.Aanes,J.E.Swenson,J.Odden,andM.E.Smith.
1997. Translocation of carnivores as a method for managing problem
animals: a review. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:1245–1257.
Linnell, J. D. C., J. E. Swenson, and R. Andersen. 2001. Predators and
people: conservation of large carnivores is possible at high human
densities if management policy is favorable. Animal Conservation
4:345–349.
Manfredo, M. J., H. C. Zinn, L. Sikorowski, and J. Jones. 1998. Public
acceptance of mountain lion management: a case study of Den-
ver, Colorado, and nearby foothill areas. Wildlife Society Bulletin
26:964–970.
Marker, L. L., A. J. Dickman, M. G. L. Mills, and D. W. Macdonald.
2003. Aspects of the management of cheetahs, Acinonyx jubatus
jubatus, trapped on Namibian farmlands. Biological Conservation
114:401–412.
Mason, J. R., J. A. Shivik, and M. W. Fall. 2001. Chemical repellents
and other aversive strategies in predation management. Endangered
Species Update 18:175–181.
Mech, L. D., E. K. Harper, T. J. Meier, and W. J. Paul. 2000. Assessing
factors that may predispose Minnesota farms to wolf depredations
on cattle. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:623–629.
Meriggi, A., and S. Lovari. 1996. A review of wolf predation in southern
Europe: does the wolf prefer wild prey to livestock? Journal of
Applied Ecology 33:1561–1571.
Mincher, B. J. 2002. Harvest as a component of Greater Yellow-
stone Ecosystem grizzly bear management. Wildlife Society Bulletin
30:1287–1292.
Mishra, C., P. Allen, T. McCarthy, M. D. Madhusudan, A. Bayarjargal, and
H. H. T. Prins. 2003. The role of incentive schemes in conserving the
snow leopard, Uncia uncia. Conservation Biology 17:1512–1520.
Montag, J. 2003. Compensation and predator conservation: limitations
of compensation. Carnivore Damage Prevention News 6:2–6.
Naughton-Treves, L., and A. Treves. 2005. Socioecological factors
shaping local support for wildlife in Africa. Pages 253–277 in R.
Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, editors. People and
wildlife, conflict or coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, United Kingdom.
Naughton-Treves, L., R. Grossberg, and A. Treves. 2003. Paying for
tolerance: the impact of livestock depredation and compensation
payments on rural citizens’ attitudes toward wolves. Conservation
Biology 17:1500–1511.
Nie, M. A. 2002. Wolf recovery and management as value-based political
conflict. Ethics, Place and Environment 5:65–71.
Noss, A. J., and R. L. Cu´
ellar. 2001. Community attitudes towards
wildlife management in the Bolivian chaco. Oryx 35:292–300.
Osborn, F. V. 2002. Capsicum oleoresin as an elephant repellent: field
trials in the communal lands of Zimbabwe. Journal of Wildlife Man-
agement 66:674–677.
Osborn, F. V., and G. E. Parker. 2003. Towards an integrated approach
for reducing the conflict between elephants and people: a review
of current research. Oryx 37:80–84.
Raik, D. B., T. B. Lauber, D. J. Decker, and T. L. Brown. 2005. Managing
community controversy in suburban wildlife management: adopt-
ing practices that address value differences. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 10:109–122.
Ratnaswamy, M. J., R. J. Warren, M. T. Kramer, and M. D. Adam. 1997.
Comparisons of lethal and nonlethal techniques to reduce raccoon
depredation of sea turtle nests. Journal of Wildlife Management
61:368–376.
Ripple, W. J., and R. L. Beschta. 2004. Wolves and the ecology of fear:
can predation risk structure ecosystems? BioScience 54:755–766.
Salafsky, N., and R. Margoluis. 1999. Threat reduction assessment: a
practical and cost-effective approach to evaluating conservation and
development projects. Conservation Biology 13:830–841.
Salafsky, N., R. Margoluis, K. Redford, and J. G. Robinson. 2002. Im-
proving the practice of conservation: a conceptual framework and
research agenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology
16:1469–1479.
Salafsky, N., et al. 2008. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conser-
vation: unified classifications of threats and actions. Conservation
Biology 22:897–911.
Schultz, R. N., K. W. Jonas, L. H. Skuldt, and A. P. Wydeven. 2005.
Experimental use of dog-training shock collars to deter depredation
by gray wolves. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:142–148.
Shaw, H. G., N. G. Woolsey, J. R. Wegge, and R. L. J. Day. 1988. Factors
affecting mountain lion densities and cattle depredation in Arizona.
Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona.
Shivik, J. A. 2006. Tools for the edge: what’s new for conserving carni-
vores. BioScience 56:253–259.
Sillero-Zubiri, C., R. Sukumar, and A. Treves. 2007. Living with wildlife:
the roots of conflict and the solutions. Pages 266–272 in D. Mac-
Donald, and K. Service, editors. Key topics in conservation biology.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Smith, M. E., J. D. C. Linnell, J. Odden, and J. E. Swenson. 2000a.
Review of methods to reduce livestock depredation: I. Guardian
animals. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A Animal Science
50:279–290.
Smith, M. E., J. D. C. Linnell, J. Odden, and J. E. Swenson. 2000b.Re-
view of methods to reduce livestock depredation II. Aversive condi-
tioning, deterrents and repellents. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica,
Section A Animal Science 50:304–315.
Terborgh, J., et al. 2002. Ecological meltdown in predator-free forest
fragments. Science 294:1923.
Thirgood, S., S. Redpath, I. Newton, and P. Hudson. 2000. Raptors
and red grouse: conservation conflicts and management solutions.
Conservation Biology 14:95–104.
Treves, A. 2008. Beyond recovery: Wisconsin’s wolf policy 1980–2008.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife 13:329–338.
Treves, A. 2009. The human dimensions of conflicts with wildlife
around protected areas. Pages 214–228 in M. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske,
P. Brown, D. J. Decker, and E. A. Duke, editors. Wildlife and society:
the science of human dimensions. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Treves, A., and L. Naughton-Treves. 2005. Evaluating lethal control
in the management of human-wildlife conflict. Pages 86–106 in
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. *, 2009
Treves et al. 11
R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, editors. People and
wildlife, conflict or coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, United Kingdom.
Treves, A., R. B. Wallace, L. Naughton-Treves, and A. Morales. 2006. Co-
managing human-wildlife conflicts: a review. Human Dimensions of
Wildlife 11:1–14.
Virtanen, P. 2003. Local management of global values: community-based
wildlife management in Zimbabwe and Zambia. Society and Natural
Resources 16:179–190.
Wing, L. D., and I. O. Buss. 1970. Elephants and forests. Wildlife Mono-
graphs 19:1–92.
Woodroffe, R., and L. G. Frank. 2005. Lethal control of African lions
(Panthera leo): local and regional population impacts. Animal Con-
servation 8:91–98.
Wydeven, A. P., A. Treves, B. Brost, and J. E. Wiedenhoeft. 2004. Charac-
teristics of wolf packs in Wisconsin: identification of traits influenc-
ing depredation. Pages 28–50 in N. Fascione, A. Delach, and M. E.
Smith, editors. People and predators: from conflict to coexistence.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Zabel, A., and K. Holm-Muller. 2008. Conservation performance pay-
ments for carnivore conservation in Sweden. Conservation Biology
22:247–251.
Conservation Biology
Volume **, No. *, 2009
