Contributed Paper

Participatory Planning of Interventions to MitigateHuman–Wildlife ConflictsADRIAN 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., emailatreves@wisc.edu†Wildlife Conservation Society, Greater Madidi-Tambopata Landscape Conservation Program, No. 133, Calle 11, Obrajes, La Paz,Bolivia‡Fundacion 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, feasibilitycriteria, problematic animals, tolerance

Planificacion Participativa de Intervenciones para Mitigar Conflictos entre Humanos y Vida Silvestre

Resumen: La conservacion de la vida silvestre es especialmente desafiante cuando las especies enfocadas

danan cultivos, atacan a humanos o afectan la caza y pesca. Las comunidades afectadas pueden tomar

represalias y destruir a la vida silvestre o sus habitats. 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 intervencion para cada tipo. Para organizar las

recomendaciones sobre intervenciones, utilizamos tres criterios estandar para la factibilidad: diseno costo-

beneficio, especificidad y selectividad de vida silvestre y aceptabilidad sociopolıtica. La revision de literatura y

los criterios de factibilidad fueron integrados como herramientas para el soporte de decisiones en tres talleres

con multiples actores. Los talleres validaron y refinaron nuestros criterios y ayudaron a que los participantes

seleccionaran intervenciones. Nuestro metodo de planificacion de intervenciones es sistematico, utiliza cri-

terios estandar y optimiza la participacion de expertos, polıticos y comunidades afectadas. Argumentamos

que la accion de conservacion generalmente sera mas efectiva si los meritos relativos de las intervenciones

alternativas son evaluados de manera explıcita, sistematica y participativa.

Palabras Clave: acciones de conservacion, animales problema, criterios de factibilidad, dano por animales,depredacion, manejo colaborativo, soporte de decisiones, tolerancia

Paper submitted September 3, 2008; revised manuscript accepted February 5, 2009.

1577Conservation Biology, Volume 23, No. 6, 1577–1587C©2009 Society for Conservation BiologyDOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01242.x

1578 Participatory Intervention Planning

Introduction

Conserving wildlife that damage crops or livestock, attackhumans, or take fish or game poses a special challengefor 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 perceivedthreats (Marker et al. 2003; Treves & Naughton-Treves2005; Woodroffe & Frank 2005). Such responses under-mine broad conservation goals. For example, the removalof large-bodied predators has cascading effects on thepopulations of their prey and smaller predators (Estes etal. 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 protectproblematic wildlife have turned affected communitiesagainst wildlife or against conservation efforts (reviewedin Treves 2009). Indeed many human societies attachstrong positive and negative symbolism to large animals(Knight 2000, 2003; Nie 2002; Treves 2008). Thus policyand management of large animals are contentious topics.

Worldwide efforts to balance human needs with thoseof wildlife have fueled interest in the alternatives to retal-iation. Among these are nonlethal management and waysto raise human tolerance for wildlife. Attention has alsofocused on the participation of affected households inplanning 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 optimalbalance requires solutions that are scientifically soundand politically acceptable.

We reviewed the literature and considered our ex-periences of working with affected communities to listand describe distinct types of methods used to mitigatehuman–wildlife conflicts (interventions). Then we clas-sified these methods as direct interventions that aim toreduce the severity or frequency of encounters betweenwildlife and property or people or indirect interventions

that aim to raise people’s tolerances for such encoun-ters. We summarized the recommendations about theinterventions with three complementary criteria: cost-effective design, selectivity and specificity for the prob-lematic wildlife, and sociopolitical acceptability. Thesethree criteria are not prescriptions. Rather they captureexperiences of strengths and weaknesses of each methodunder different conditions, so users can assess whetherthe interventions are feasible (i.e., “possible and prac-tical to achieve easily or conveniently” [http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/feasible?view=uk]) in theirparticular sociopolitical and biophysical situations. Fi-nally our framework dovetails with recent standards forconservation 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 conflictsworldwide. These include peoples’ preventive and reac-tive responses to wildlife damage as well as factors thatexacerbate or lessen wildlife threats or people’s percep-tions of them. This literature search focused on terrestrialvertebrates >2 kg of body mass and on carnivores in par-ticular. From >800 sources we cite 37 peer-reviewedarticles that synthesized recommendations for numerousmethods or provided detailed recommendations for a par-ticular method.

Participatory intervention planning (PIP)

We held three workshops in which participants useda simple method for PIP to assess alternative types ofinterventions based on participants’ evaluations of fea-sibility. The goals of our PIP workshops were to helpparticipants consider all possible types of interventionsand weigh the relative merits of the alternatives with stan-dard criteria. Although it may appear as though we simplybrainstormed various methods and the participants thenmade educated guesses about the relative feasibility, thisbrainstorming was structured and preceded by a criticalfirst step that defined the cause-and-effect relationshipsunderlying a given human–wildlife conflict (Fig. 1). Thisstep exposed multiple possible focal points of interven-tion. The causal chains are analogous to those advocatedfor conservation planning (Salafsky et al. 2008).

After brainstorming the participants used threecriteria—cost-effective design, wildlife specificity andselectivity, and sociopolitical acceptability—to evaluatecandidate interventions. A cost-effective design, under-stood broadly, considers the resources, time, and exper-tise needed to install and maintain the intervention inits most effective form. Effectiveness must be evaluatedagainst the goal, which is either to reduce the frequencyor severity of encounters between wildlife and peopleor raise tolerance among people for wildlife encounters(Fig. 1). Wildlife specificity and selectivity are the ef-fects of the intervention on targeted problematic wildlifeand unintended targets. Sociopolitical acceptability is thetolerance for the installation, maintenance, and conse-quences of the intervention among affected individualsand households, more remote interest groups, and thebroader populace.

We used the PIP method in three multistakeholderplanning workshops to improve and refine our defini-tions, criteria, and procedures for eliciting stakeholderdeliberations. Participatory intervention planning wasfirst 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 23, No. 6, 2009

Treves et al. 1579

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 Fundacion CordilleraTropical, Cuenca, Ecuador. The workshops involved anarray 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 researchersto guide nationwide policy recommendations. The thirdworkshop (August 2007) in the village of Zhoray con-vened 57 Ecuadorian landowners to build consensus oncoexistence with wildlife in and around Sangay NationalPark.

In each workshop the facilitators (the authors plus twoto four staff assistants) listed all methods for interventionderived from the literature and asked the participantsto identify additional methods—which added three toour list (see Results). We were wary of prejudicing laterdecision making and evaluation by providing definitivejudgments on the effectiveness of any one method. In-stead we briefly summarized the research on conditionsunder which each type or method of intervention wasmore or less effective. A thorough knowledge of inter-vention types and methods was a valuable prerequisitefor effective PIP.

Participants working in groups or in plenary wereasked to discuss the entire range of interventions andconsider the cause-and-effect relationships underlyinghuman–wildlife conflicts and their associated interven-tions (Fig. 1). As a first cut the participants discardedinterventions that were unanimously seen as impossible.For example, S.W. ruled out lethal interventions againstAndean bears (Tremarctos ornatus) because it is a legallyprotected species in Ecuador and is on the InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature Red List (2008). Chang-ing national laws and overcoming international pressurefor the sake of a regional wildlife management plan wouldhave been impossible. Thereafter the participants wereasked to consider the feasibility criteria. Assessments ofthe 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 informalknowledge and experience. Such complementarity wasexpected to promote a more thorough and objective as-sessment.

Once the list of feasible interventions was compiled theparticipants were asked to consider the potential compat-ibility of combined interventions. The interventions wereconsidered functionally incompatible if the same individ-uals, time, materials, or funds would be needed for bothinterventions but could not be divided adequately be-tween the two. The interventions were considered log-ically incompatible if one proposed intervention wouldproduce a change that excluded the other (e.g., huntingwildlife is often incompatible with wildlife viewing at thesame or nearby sites). The participants could have beenasked to rank or rate the alternatives, but we did not takethis step because the Bolivian workshops were aimed atnational policy rather than at a specified site and manyof the Ecuadorians made independent land managementdecisions.

Results

We identified eight distinct types of direct interventionsto 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). Withineach 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 problematicwildlife may reduce property damage and raise tolerancefor wildlife among hunters and affected communities;wildlife laws or policies that give affected communitiesownership or authority of wildlife may raise tolerance andprevent retaliation against the wildlife seen as “property”;incentive schemes that combine payments for survivingwildlife with changes in husbandry or management of

Conservation Biology

Volume 23, No. 6, 2009

1580 Participatory Intervention Planning

Tabl

e1.

Dir

ecta

ndin

dire

ctin

terv

entio

nsfo

rm

itiga

ting

hum

an–w

ildlif

eco

nflic

tsch

arac

teri

zed

byth

ree

crite

ria

for

feas

ibili

ty.

Desi

gn

crit

eri

on

Inte

rven

tion

type

Exa

mple

sof

meth

ods

cost

-eff

ect

ive

desi

gn

wil

dli

fese

lect

ivit

y/s

peci

fici

tyso

ciopoli

tica

la

ccepta

bil

ity

Sou

rce

∗

Dir

ect

inte

rven

tio

ns

red

uce

seve

rity

or

freq

uen

cyo

fen

cou

nte

rsb

etw

een

wild

life

and

pro

per

ty/p

eop

le.

Bar

rier

sb

uff

erzo

nes

,fen

ces,

mo

ats,

net

s,tr

ench

es,

and

wal

ls

con

sid

erp

lace

men

t,si

ze,p

erm

eab

ility

,an

dm

ater

ials

/lab

or/

mai

nte

nan

ceco

sts;

can

incl

ud

ees

cap

ep

ath

s,al

arm

s,an

dd

eter

ren

ts(e

.g.,

elec

tric

,th

orn

san

dn

on

pal

atab

lecr

op

s)

wit

hti

me

inte

llige

nt,

mo

tiva

ted

anim

als

may

pen

etra

te;c

on

sid

erim

pac

to

nm

igra

tio

n/d

isp

ersa

lm

ove

men

ts

gen

eral

lyfa

mili

aran

dp

op

ula

ram

on

gth

ose

wh

ofe

elth

reat

ened

;co

nsi

der

imp

act

on

loca

lpeo

ple

’sac

cess

tore

sou

rces

;met

alfe

nce

wir

esh

ave

bee

nu

sed

assn

ares

;liv

esto

ckm

ayin

jure

them

selv

eso

nb

arri

ers;

3w

ide

bar

rier

s(e

.g.,

bu

ffer

s)m

ust

be

pro

fita

ble

ifla

nd

issc

arce

1–5

Gu

ard

ssu

per

visi

on

by

do

gs,

hu

man

s,o

ro

ther

anim

als

con

sid

erti

min

gre

lati

veto

wild

life

acti

viti

es;g

uar

ds

may

be

exp

ose

dto

dis

ease

,att

ack,

or

wea

ther

;co

nsi

der

beh

avio

ro

fgu

ard

s:fe

edin

g,h

ealt

h,

ran

gin

g,so

cial

syst

em,v

igila

nce

,an

dvo

cal

con

sid

erri

sko

fd

isea

setr

ansm

issi

on

bet

wee

ngu

ard

and

wild

life;

con

sid

erw

het

her

guar

dco

mp

etes

wit

ho

rp

reys

on

wild

life;

hu

man

guar

ds

may

fail

tod

eter

hab

itu

ated

wild

life;

hen

ce,m

ore

effe

ctiv

ein

area

sw

ith

hu

nti

ng

gen

eral

lyfa

mili

arb

ut

tim

ere

qu

ired

may

limit

acce

pta

nce

;ris

kto

guar

ds

and

ind

irec

tco

sts

(sta

yh

om

efr

om

sch

oo

l)o

ru

nin

ten

ded

effe

cts

(bar

kin

gd

ogs

or

wan

der

ing

do

gs)

may

red

uce

acce

pta

nce

;co

nsi

der

op

po

rtu

nit

yco

sts

care

fully

4–7

Rep

elle

nts

aco

ust

ic:s

iren

s,ex

plo

sio

ns,

and

pre

dat

or

sou

nd

s;ch

emic

al:o

do

r/ta

ste

rep

elle

nts

and

con

dit

ion

edta

ste

aver

sio

n(C

TA

);vi

sual

:co

lors

,lig

hts

,an

dp

red

ato

rm

imic

ry

fro

mm

ost

tole

ast

effe

ctiv

e:b

ehav

ior-

con

tin

gen

t,m

oti

on

-act

ivat

ed,u

np

red

icta

bly

mo

bile

,or

stat

ion

ary;

chem

ical

,co

nsi

der

per

sist

ence

inva

rio

us

clim

ates

;CT

A,d

eter

min

ew

het

her

pre

dat

ory

resp

on

seis

inh

ibit

edo

rsi

mp

lyfe

edin

g

con

sid

erch

emic

alto

xic

ity;

con

sid

erci

rcad

ian

beh

avio

r,in

telli

gen

ce,a

nd

the

visu

alan

dac

ou

stic

acu

ity

of

targ

et,

no

n-t

arge

tw

ildlif

e,p

eop

le,

and

do

mes

tic

anim

als

gen

eral

lyfa

mili

ar,b

ut

acce

pta

nce

of

lou

dso

un

ds,

ligh

tsat

nig

ht,

no

xio

us

od

ors

,to

xic

chem

ical

s,an

dat

trac

tio

no

fp

red

ato

rsva

ry

2,4,

8–10

Man

ipu

late

pro

ble

mat

ican

imal

s(l

eth

al/

per

man

ent)

culli

ng,

erad

icat

ion

,h

un

tin

g,re

loca

teto

cap

tivi

ty,s

elec

tive

rem

ova

l,o

rst

erili

zati

on

sele

ctiv

ere

mo

valo

fcu

lpri

tsd

iffi

cult

;go

als

of

hu

nte

rs(e

.g.,

foo

dan

dsp

ort

)m

ayn

ot

mat

chth

ose

of

com

pla

inan

ts(e

.g.,

safe

tyan

din

com

e)o

rm

anag

ers

(e.g

.,co

nse

rvat

ion

and

reve

nu

e);

com

ple

xm

eth

od

so

fca

ptu

rean

dan

imal

han

dlin

gd

eman

dp

rofe

ssio

nal

sup

ervi

sio

nan

dar

eco

stly

;pu

blic

colla

bo

rati

on

(e.g

.,h

un

tin

g)d

eman

ds

pro

fess

ion

alco

mm

un

icat

ion

s,m

on

ito

rin

g,an

den

forc

emen

t

risk

yfo

ren

dan

gere

dsp

ecie

s;ge

ner

ally

po

ssib

leto

targ

etp

rob

lem

atic

spec

ies,

bu

tva

ries

by

met

ho

d(s

ho

oti

ng

vs.t

rap

s,ex

plo

sive

s,o

rp

ois

on

);se

lect

ion

of

ind

ivid

ual

culp

rits

isd

iffi

cult

;if

rele

ased

,co

nsi

der

dis

ease

tran

smis

sio

nan

dca

ptu

re-r

elat

edin

jury

gen

eral

lyfa

mili

ar,b

ut

cert

ain

met

ho

ds

(e.g

.,p

ois

on

and

trap

s),c

erta

insi

tes

(pri

vate

lan

ds

and

den

sely

sett

led

area

s),a

nd

cert

ain

targ

ets

(so

cial

,in

telli

gen

t,an

dch

aris

mat

icsp

ecie

s)p

rovo

keo

pp

osi

tio

nb

yco

mm

on

inte

rest

gro

up

s

2,3,

11–1

6

con

tin

ued

Conservation Biology

Volume 23, No. 6, 2009

Treves et al. 1581

Tabl

e1.

(con

tinue

d)

Desi

gn

crit

eri

on

Inte

rven

tion

type

Exa

mple

sof

meth

ods

cost

-eff

ect

ive

desi

gn

wil

dli

fese

lect

ivit

y/s

peci

fici

tyso

ciopoli

tica

la

ccepta

bil

ity

Sou

rce

∗

Man

ipu

late

pro

ble

mat

ican

imal

s(n

on

leth

al/

tem

po

rary

)

cap

ture

follo

wed

by

det

erre

nce

(e.g

.,p

un

ish

or

affi

xel

ectr

icsh

ock

colla

r),r

elea

se,

or

relo

cate

sele

ctiv

ere

mo

valo

fcu

lpri

tsd

iffi

cult

;re

leas

edan

imal

so

ften

retu

rno

rca

use

pro

ble

ms

atn

ewsi

te;c

om

ple

xm

eth

od

so

fca

ptu

rean

dan

imal

han

dlin

gd

eman

dp

rofe

ssio

nal

sup

ervi

sio

nan

dar

eco

stly

risk

yfo

ren

dan

gere

dsp

ecie

s.G

ener

ally

po

ssib

leto

targ

etp

rob

lem

atic

spec

ies,

bu

tva

ries

by

met

ho

d;s

elec

tio

no

fin

div

idu

alcu

lpri

tsis

dif

ficu

lt;i

fre

leas

ed,c

on

sid

erd

isea

setr

ansm

issi

on

and

cap

ture

-rel

ated

inju

ry

cap

ture

of

pro

ble

mat

ican

imal

sfa

mili

ar,b

ut

sub

seq

uen

th

and

ling

may

no

tb

e;ge

ner

ally

mo

reac

cep

tab

leto

urb

an,w

ealt

hy

po

pu

lati

on

s;af

fect

edco

mm

un

itie

sm

ayd

istr

ust

rele

ase

9,17

,18

,19

Man

ipu

late

hab

itat

or

oth

erw

ildlif

e

alte

rre

sou

rces

req

uir

edb

yp

rob

lem

atic

wild

life

(fo

od

,sh

elte

r,b

reed

ing

site

s,et

c.)

tod

isco

ura

geu

seo

fh

um

anar

eas

dem

and

sin

form

atio

no

nb

ehav

iora

lec

olo

gyo

fp

rob

lem

atic

wild

life

or

com

par

iso

ns

of

affe

cted

and

un

affe

cted

pro

per

ties

/peo

ple

;im

pro

vem

ent

of

hab

itat

thro

ugh

rem

edia

tio

nan

dre

sto

rati

on

acti

viti

esm

ayd

isco

ura

gew

ildlif

ed

amag

eto

pro

per

tyo

rd

egra

dat

ion

of

hab

itat

may

dim

inis

hw

ildlif

eab

un

dan

ce

suit

able

for

end

ange

red

wild

life

ifh

abit

atis

imp

rove

d(e

.g.,

rest

ori

ng

wild

pre

y);u

np

red

icta

ble

con

seq

uen

ces

for

wid

erec

osy

stem

imp

rove

men

tm

ayb

eu

nfa

mili

ar;

deg

rad

atio

no

fh

abit

atis

gen

eral

lyfa

mili

ar;l

ittl

ed

ata

on

acce

pta

bili

ty;

bio

div

ersi

tyin

tere

sts

may

op

po

sed

egra

dat

ion

20–2

2

Pro

tect

wild

life

or

hab

itat

sp

reve

nt

reta

liati

on

agai

nst

wild

life

or

hab

itat

des

tru

ctio

nvi

ala

wen

forc

emen

t,in

terd

icti

on

,or

ph

ysic

alb

arri

ers

toac

cess

dep

end

so

nfr

equ

ent

and

sen

siti

vem

on

ito

rin

go

rsu

rvei

llan

ceat

loca

lsc

ales

;cle

arru

les

that

gove

rnac

cess

and

the

use

of

nat

ura

lres

ou

rces

;p

hys

ical

bar

rier

san

do

bvi

ou

sd

elim

iter

s;tr

ain

edst

aff

toco

mm

un

icat

e,en

forc

e,an

dp

rose

cute

far-

ran

gin

gan

imal

sth

atcr

oss

juri

sdic

tio

ns

elu

de

pro

tect

ion

;if

reta

liati

on

and

hab

itat

des

tru

ctio

nar

ein

con

spic

uo

us

acti

viti

es,

inte

rdic

tio

nan

den

forc

emen

tw

illb

ed

iffi

cult

gen

eral

lyfa

mili

arb

ut

op

po

sed

wh

entr

adit

ion

so

rb

road

erp

olic

ies

allo

wac

cess

toan

dth

eu

seo

fn

atu

ral

reso

urc

es;e

nfo

rcem

ent

may

gen

erat

ep

olit

ical

clas

hes

and

loca

lill

will

3,11

,21

,23

Red

uce

attr

acti

ven

ess

of

pro

per

ty/

peo

ple

rem

ove

attr

acta

nts

(e.g

.,fo

od

and

garb

age)

,re

loca

tep

rop

erty

or

acti

viti

es,o

rsw

itch

con

test

edre

sou

rce

tole

ssd

esir

able

vari

etie

s

red

uce

attr

acti

ven

ess

of

pro

per

ty/p

eop

le;d

eman

ds

info

rmat

ion

on

beh

avio

rale

colo

gyo

fp

rob

lem

atic

wild

life

and

com

par

iso

ns

of

affe

cted

and

un

affe

cted

pro

per

ties

/peo

ple

;ch

ange

inlo

cati

on

s,ti

min

g,o

rat

trib

ute

so

rvu

lner

able

pro

per

ty/p

eop

le

suit

able

for

end

ange

red

wild

life

ifth

eh

abit

atis

imp

rove

d(e

.g.,

rem

ovi

ng

hu

man

infl

uen

ces)

;dif

ficu

ltfo

rd

amag

ep

atte

rns

that

are

un

ifo

rm,e

xtr

emel

yva

riab

lein

spac

eo

rti

me,

or

dif

ficu

ltto

ascr

ibe

tota

rget

wild

life

few

peo

ple

like

toch

ange

thei

rliv

elih

oo

dp

ract

ices

or

livin

gco

nd

itio

ns;

cost

–ben

efit

anal

yses

and

op

po

rtu

nit

yco

sts

are

key;

hig

hp

ote

nti

alri

skfo

rvu

lner

able

peo

ple

2,4,

19,2

0,23

,24

Ind

irec

tin

terv

enti

on

sra

ise

tole

ran

cefo

rw

ildlif

een

cou

nte

rs.

Co

-man

agem

ent

(co

llab

ora

tio

nin

pla

nn

ing,

inte

rven

tio

n,o

rm

on

ito

rin

g)

invo

lve

inte

rest

gro

up

so

rst

akeh

old

ers

inp

lan

nin

g,im

ple

men

tati

on

,or

mo

nit

ori

ng

sho

uld

incl

ud

eaf

fect

edh

ou

seh

old

s,co

nse

nsu

s,so

cial

lear

nin

g,lo

ng-

term

inve

stm

ent

inre

lati

on

ship

s,fa

irre

pre

sen

tati

on

of

affe

cted

ho

use

ho

lds,

tech

nic

alex

per

ts,a

nd

lega

l“o

wn

ers”

of

wild

life

mo

stef

fect

ive

for

wild

life

wit

hva

lue

(mat

eria

lor

no

nm

ater

ial)

;les

sef

fect

ive

for

inco

nsp

icu

ou

sw

ildlif

eo

rth

ose

wit

hlit

tle

valu

eto

any

inte

rest

gro

up

gen

eral

lyfa

mili

ar,b

ut

acce

pta

nce

dep

end

so

nw

het

her

par

tici

pan

tsan

dp

roce

sses

are

seen

asle

giti

mat

e,re

pre

sen

tati

ve,a

nd

fair

;maj

ori

tyvi

ews

may

do

min

ate

and

mis

lead

pla

nn

ers

4,11

,21

,22,

25–3

0

con

tin

ued

Conservation Biology

Volume 23, No. 6, 2009

1582 Participatory Intervention Planning

Tabl

e1.

(con

tinue

d)

Desi

gn

crit

eri

on

Inte

rven

tion

type

Exa

mple

sof

meth

ods

cost

-eff

ect

ive

desi

gn

wil

dli

fese

lect

ivit

y/s

peci

fici

tyso

ciopoli

tica

la

ccepta

bil

ity

Sou

rce

∗

Co

mp

ensa

tio

n/

insu

ran

cere

im-

bu

rsem

ents

pay

men

tsfo

rd

amag

edp

rop

erty

or

inju

ryto

peo

ple

(cas

ho

req

uiv

alen

t)

vuln

erab

leto

frau

d,c

orr

up

tio

n,

inef

fici

enci

es,a

nd

mo

ralh

azar

ds;

dif

ficu

ltto

ph

ase

ou

t;ad

min

istr

atio

nm

ayd

eman

dtr

ain

ing

mo

stef

fect

ive

for

rare

wild

life

or

smal

lpo

pu

lati

on

so

rco

sts

rise

;dem

and

sge

ner

ou

sd

on

or

bas

eso

mo

stef

fect

ive

for

char

ism

atic

wild

life

gen

eral

lyfa

mili

ar,b

ut

acce

pta

nce

vari

esw

ith

po

litic

alcl

ash

esb

etw

een

do

no

rs,p

ayer

s,an

dre

cip

ien

ts;

acce

pta

nce

may

dec

line

asco

sts

rise

;pay

men

tsd

on

ot

turn

reci

pie

nts

into

pro

wild

life

advo

cate

s;so

me

reci

pie

nts

may

reje

ctp

aym

ents

infa

vor

of

wild

life

con

tro

l

31–3

3

Ince

nti

ves/

per

form

ance

pay

men

ts

add

valu

eto

live

wild

life

asa

com

mo

dit

yo

rth

rou

ghd

irec

tp

aym

ents

for

live

wild

life

see

reco

mm

end

atio

ns

for

com

pen

sati

on

/rei

mb

urs

emen

ts;l

ink

tow

ildlif

esu

rviv

alis

key;

tou

rism

can

hav

en

egat

ive

imp

acts

on

wild

life

ifn

ot

des

ign

edw

ith

the

beh

avio

ral

eco

logy

of

wild

life

inm

ind

dem

and

sa

mar

ket

or

do

no

rs,

som

ost

effe

ctiv

efo

rva

lued

wild

life

un

fam

iliar

tom

ost

exce

pt

for

tou

rism

reve

nu

esh

arin

g;so

me

reci

pie

nts

may

reje

ctp

aym

ents

infa

vor

of

wild

life

con

tro

l;m

arke

tsvo

lati

lean

dco

mp

lex

4,21

,34

Info

rmat

ion

shar

ing

com

mu

nic

atio

no

fin

form

atio

nge

ner

ated

by

rese

arch

via

envi

ron

men

tal

edu

cati

on

,co

nsu

ltin

g,m

edia

,tra

inin

g,an

dw

riti

ngs

salie

nce

tota

rget

aud

ien

ce,c

lari

ty,

no

velt

y,an

dco

mm

un

icat

ion

med

ium

are

the

key;

bro

adca

stm

ayre

ach

man

yb

ut

per

suad

efe

w;i

nte

rper

son

alco

mm

un

icat

ion

may

reac

hfe

wb

ut

per

suad

eef

fect

ivel

y;go

alis

oft

ento

chan

geb

ehav

ior

amo

ng

rece

iver

s

wo

rks

for

any

wild

life,

bu

td

isse

min

atio

n/p

ersu

asio

nfo

rn

on

char

ism

atic

spec

ies

dif

ficu

lt

gen

eral

lyfa

mili

ar,b

ut

acce

pta

nce

imp

rove

sw

ith

tru

sted

mes

sen

gers

;u

nfa

mili

arad

voca

tes

may

enge

nd

ersk

epti

cism

;dee

ply

hel

dva

lues

and

bel

iefs

chan

gesl

ow

ly

35,3

6

Po

licy/

lega

lre

form

or

dev

olu

tio

no

fau

tho

rity

chan

gin

gle

gal

rela

tio

nsh

ips

tow

ildlif

eo

rh

abit

ats

(ten

ure

and

righ

tso

fp

rop

erty

,use

,acc

ess,

etc.

)

ow

ner

ship

may

enh

ance

per

ceiv

edco

ntr

olo

ver

wild

life

and

thei

rd

amag

es;u

seri

ghts

may

enh

ance

the

per

ceiv

edva

lue

of

wild

life

and

hab

itat

s;p

olic

yan

dle

galr

efo

rms

mu

stb

eco

mm

un

icat

edto

stak

eho

lder

sef

fect

ivel

yan

dcl

earl

y;m

isin

cen

tive

sfo

ro

verh

arve

stin

go

rm

isu

seco

mm

on

;reg

ula

tio

no

fu

se/a

cces

sm

ayst

illb

en

eed

ed;

vuln

erab

leto

frau

d,c

orr

up

tio

n,

inef

fici

enci

es,a

nd

mo

ralh

azar

ds

mo

stef

fect

ive

for

wild

life

wit

hva

lue

(mat

eria

lor

no

nm

ater

ial)

;les

sef

fect

ive

for

inco

nsp

icu

ou

sw

ildlif

eo

rth

ose

wit

hn

otr

adit

ion

alva

lue

toaf

fect

edh

ou

seh

old

s

gen

eral

lyfa

mili

ar,b

ut

acce

pta

nce

vari

esw

ith

the

rule

so

fu

sean

do

wn

ersh

ip;p

olit

ical

clas

hes

bet

wee

np

ast

and

curr

ent

ow

ner

slik

ely

22,

28–3

0

∗ Sou

rces:

1,A

ngst

20

01

;2

,H

oa

re2

00

1;3

,K

ara

nth

&M

adh

usu

da

n2

00

2;4

,O

sborn

&P

ark

er

20

03

;5

.O

ga

da

et

al.

20

03

;6

,Sm

ith

et

al.

20

00

a;7

,A

ndelt

20

01

;8

,Sm

ith

et

al.

20

00

b;9

,Sh

ivik

20

06

;1

0,M

aso

net

al.

20

01

;1

1,N

oss

&C

uella

r2

00

1;1

2,B

urn

set

al.

19

91

;1

3,R

atn

asw

am

yet

al.

19

97

;1

4,Tre

ves

&N

au

gh

ton

-Tre

ves

20

05

;1

5,A

.T.u

npu

bli

shed;1

6,W

oodro

ffe

&Fra

nk

20

05

;1

7,Lin

nell

et

al.

19

97

;1

8,Sch

ult

zet

al.

20

05

;1

9,W

ydeven

et

al.

20

04

;2

0,M

eri

ggi

&Lova

ri1

99

6;2

1,M

ish

raet

al.

20

03

;2

2,N

au

gh

ton

-Tre

ves

&Tre

ves

20

05

;2

3,M

ech

et

al.

20

00

;2

4,

Sh

aw

et

al.

19

88

;2

5,C

arr

&H

alv

ors

en

20

01

;2

6,Tre

ves

et

al.

20

06

;2

7,R

aik

et

al.

20

05

;2

8,M

uro

mbedzi

19

92

;2

9,D

uToit

20

02

;3

0,V

irta

inen

20

03

;3

1,M

on

tag

20

03

;3

2,B

ult

e&

Ron

dea

u

20

05

;3

3,A

.T.u

npu

bli

shed;3

4,Z

abel&

Holm

-Mu

ller

20

08

;3

5,D

un

woody

20

07

;3

6,Ja

cobso

n&

McD

uff

20

09

.

Conservation Biology

Volume 23, No. 6, 2009

Treves et al. 1583

wild habitat may combine direct and indirect interven-tion steps; and voluntary, negotiated household reloca-tion or resettlement projects may reduce threats fromwildlife. If outcomes include improved human safetyor livelihoods, one may also see higher tolerance forwildlife. Several methods of mitigating human–wildlifeconflicts were unknown to the authors before the PIPworkshops. The participants in Bolivia introduced us tochaku (wildlife drives) (Table 1)—a multimodal repellentprocedure in which large numbers of community mem-bers move through grazing areas making noise, holdinglit firecrackers, and generally clearing the way of preda-tors and grazing competitors. The same participants in-troduced us to captura y castigo, wherein a problematicwild animal is live trapped, punished in a cage, and thenreleased 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 poultrycoops so that poultry can find safety from aerial attack inits dense branches or hop and climb onto low branchesto 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 Ecuadorworkshop and 4–8 h in the two Bolivia workshops,longer in the latter probably because of larger area ofland and greater number of wildlife species considered.The participants reported no problems in conceptual-izing the feasibility criteria. Nonetheless, cost-effectivedesign seemed to require the most time and producedthe greatest uncertainty. The participants were unani-mous that sociopolitical acceptance had to be consideredcarefully. We included a fourth criterion—monitoring de-mands or constraints—but we found no evidence that theparticipants thought it was important (A.T., personal ob-servation).

Although direct interventions at first glance may seemthe most straightforward and effective way to preventwildlife 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 changemotivations 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 participantsunderstood that retaliation or opposition to conservationstemmed from common, contributing factors or indirectthreats (e.g., lack of education, poverty, unwise legisla-tion, or lack of management capacity). Therefore, thedirect threats or proximate contributing factors mightrespond efficiently to a cascade of “upstream” changestriggered by one indirect intervention (e.g., education,policy reform, or training). For example, training farmersto detect and deter transgressing wildlife seemed more ef-

ficient than inviting central authorities or an outside teamto do so. Likewise changing policy sometimes seemedmore feasible than trying to stop every infringement ofexisting rules.

Discussion

Our literature review and PIP workshops revealed 13types of interventions and several dozen subtypes in-tended to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts in one sit-uation or another (Table 1). Although we believe thatour 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 formercould encompass changes as diverse as livestock ownersswitching breeds, vaccinating herds, removing carcasses,and improving pastures and farmers switching crops, ro-tating fields, and clearing brush (Mech et al. 2000; Osborn2002; Wydeven et al. 2004). Addition of other methodsto this catch-all category might materially change our rec-ommendations.

Although our classification of the interventions intodirect and indirect types is a useful heuristic deviceand 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 wildlifeamong hunters and affected communities (Linnell et al.2001; Mincher 2002). Its effectiveness at both these goalsneeds systematic study. (2) Similarly wildlife laws or poli-cies that give affected communities ownership of or au-thority over wildlife may raise tolerance and preventretaliation against wildlife because they are valued as“property” (Du Toit 2002; Virtanen 2003). (3) Incentiveschemes that combine payments for surviving wildlifewith 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 fromwildlife. If human safety and livelihoods improve as well,this intervention may also raise tolerance for wildlife.The feasibility and effectiveness of such schemes stillneed to be verified independently and generalized toother settings (Karanth & Madhusudan 2002; Karanth2005).

These dual-purpose interventions represent complex,manifold collaborations between users, managers, andpolicy makers. This underscores the importance of

Conservation Biology

Volume 23, No. 6, 2009

1584 Participatory Intervention Planning

integrating social science with ecological science to un-derstand human–wildlife conflicts and the importanceof conducting research to test hypothesized cause-and-effect relationships between threats and interventions.

Conservation Planning

Standard definitions and practices of conservation aregaining wide acceptance. Salafsky et al. (2008) call for sys-tematic classifications of conservation actions to permitcomparison across projects and better information shar-ing. Although we prefer the term intervention as moreexplicit and more generally understandable than conser-

vation action, we offer just such a detailed classificationscheme 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 theassumption that only one or a few solutions exist for agiven threat. Our results challenge this assumption. Firstwe showed that several paths to intervention exist if oneexplicitly identifies the causal chains underlying a conser-vation problem (Fig. 1). Second, our thorough review ofthe literature demonstrated how many alternative meth-ods exist for the same general set of threats (Table 1).Admittedly human–wildlife conflicts have been studiedfor decades and solutions attempted for millennia (Smithet al. 2000a, 2000b), but we maintain that finding sev-eral alternative interventions (direct and indirect) is notunique to our topic. Acknowledging multiple paths tointervention and listing alternative methods for interven-tion spurred our participants to suggest varied solutions.Furthermore our PIP method separated the identificationof solutions from the assessments of relative feasibilityamong the alternatives—a step toward more explicit, sys-tematic planning.

The second, related problem is the selection of the firstsolution that comes to mind to the exclusion of others.For example, ecotourism is often proposed as a way tomake conservation pay for itself, and other forms of in-centives (e.g., conservation performance payments andsustainable use) are not explored fully. Any proposed in-tervention should be weighed against alternatives withexplicit criteria, lest conservation be more art than sci-ence.

We do not propose that threats can be equally wellabated by multiple, alternative interventions. Instead twoor more candidates always exist because direct and in-direct pathways to intervention are universal—and thepathways and methods should be weighed explicitly bytheir relative merits. Nor do we argue that the instinctsand experiences of experts are a poor guide to planningbecause experts will be needed to evaluate alternatives,in addition to other key roles. Rather we believe that a sys-tematic, explicit examination of alternative interventionsfor a given threat will improve the design and successof interventions. Such deliberation and discussion likely

will stimulate creative thinking that can result in newsolutions or catalyze the integration of different ideas.Furthermore we believe that conservation expertise isnot the sole province of formally trained scientists orfield-tested conservation practitioners, but it should alsoengage 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 andbiodiversity needs so that the eventual intervention (orlack of action) reflects sociopolitical acceptance.

Third we argue that the selection of interventions inany field should be based on feasibility, not just effec-tiveness, which includes cost-effective design, wildlifespecificity and selectivity, and sociopolitical acceptabil-ity. Our participants supported this idea to the extentthat they estimated feasibility from pragmatic estimatesof 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 localpracticality or impinges on the other realms of life. Forexample, Indian communities undermined effective bar-riers to wildlife because they sought resources on theother 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), yetwildlife authorities balk at the costs of such interventionsand research shows that they rarely reduce damages inthe long run (Linnell et al. 1997). Similarly the effectsof interventions on target wildlife and unintended con-sequences for non-target wildlife may lower the relativefeasibility 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 triedto introduce: monitoring demands. This supports one ex-pert’s assertion that “. . .you want to pick the best strategyfor the job and then figure out how to monitor it as bestyou can” (N. Salafsky, personal communication). Weigh-ing one criterion over another is likely to be a subjectivedecision 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 wellknown from democratic theory and natural resourceparticipation theory (Gillingham 2001; Halvorsen 2003;Raik et al. 2005). For PIP methods potential costs ofparticipation include the transaction costs of meeting,communicating, and building a shared vision; the risk thatopponents consolidate to disrupt planning or implemen-tation; and the risk that participants are unrepresentative

Conservation Biology

Volume 23, No. 6, 2009

Treves et al. 1585

of interest groups that then undermine their decisions.Potential benefits include the generation of diverse ideas:participation in decision making may raise tolerance forwildlife or management even in the absence of measur-able reductions in threats; participants may offer helpto implement or monitor interventions; and participantsmay gain skills in negotiation, democracy, and coalitionbuilding. Ideally planners will consider optimal partici-pation. For example, our method for strategic choice ofinterventions 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 andinformal knowledge.

Planners may not be so free, however, because somethreats or interventions engender strong emotions or eco-nomic self-interest. Hence individuals and organizationsmay demand to be involved in planning interventions,regardless of their capacity to contribute. Excluding in-fluential or interested stakeholders from planning canitself trigger opposition, regardless of any good inten-tions. Indeed some interventions become saddled withbroader sociopolitical issues that interest many stake-holder groups. For example, wolf reintroduction in theUnited States was slowed by long-standing debates aboutpublic use of federal lands for grazing and mining (Bangset al. 1998; Nie 2002).

Disagreements and intractable conflicts of interest canbog down participatory processes. For example, Raiket al. (2005) described PIP-like procedures to resolvehuman–deer (Odocoileus virginianus) conflicts in sub-urban and rural U.S. communities. Some of the dozencommunities considered in the study took years to decideon interventions, most often because the participants dis-agreed about killing deer. We believe that deadlockedmeetings can be avoided if facilitators articulate goalsclearly (top down) or build a shared vision among partic-ipants (bottom up) at the outset. For example, the goalof balancing deer needs and human needs will generatedifferent sets of interventions than the goal of reducingdeer damage to property. The latter would more likelypromote lethal control. The appropriate choice of top-down or bottom-up planning of interventions dependsin part on whether participants are formulating policyrecommendations (cf. our Bolivian workshops) or im-plementing interventions. Then implementers who actindependently may opt for different goal statements thanwould communal implementers. In the former case thegoal statement may be general because each participanttakes away her or his preferred method (cf. our Ecuado-rian workshop), whereas in the latter case, facilitatorsshould relinquish control and allow consensus goals tosurface.

We expect intervention planning will stand on a firmerfooting when the choice of conservation interventions issystematized and made explicit. One step in that direc-

tion is to be clear about cause and effect of direct andindirect interventions. We also advocate the use and re-finement of the criteria for evaluating alternative inter-ventions, while optimizing the level of participation inplanning.

Acknowledgments

We thank the many participants in the workshops, in-cluding J. Zapata, R. Nallar, M. Augusta Arevalo, S.Criollo, L. Lojano, and K. Chamorro, and other staff mem-bers of the Wildlife Conservation Society and FundacionCordillera Tropical for assistance in conducting the work-shops. We also thank L. Naughton for help in preparingthis manuscript. The authors were supported by grantsfrom the International Bear Association, Pittsburgh ZooConservation Fund, and COEX: Sharing the Land withWildlife.

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 inSwitzerland. 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 restorationin Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26:785–793.

Bulte, E. H., and D. Rondeau. 2005. Why compensating wildlife damagesmay be bad for conservation. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:14–19.

Burns, R. J., H. J. Tietjen, and G. E. Connolly. 1991. Secondary hazard oflivestock protection collars to skunks and eagles. Journal of WildlifeManagement 55:701–704.

Chapman, L. J., C. A. Chapman, and R. W. Wrangham. 1992. Balan-

ites wilsoniana: elephant dependent dispersal. Journal of TropicalEcology 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 naturalresource monitoring. Ambio 36:566–570.

Du Toit, J. T. 2002. Wildlife harvesting guidelines for community-basedwildlife management: a southern African perspective. Biodiversityand 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. Killerwhale 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 theMamiraua Sustainable Development Reserve, Amazonas. Society andNatural 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 23, No. 6, 2009

1586 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 ElephantSpecialist Group, Nairobi, Kenya.

Jacobson, S. K., and M. D. McDuff. 2009. Communication as an effectivemanagement 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-wildlifeconflicts in southern Asia. Pages 250–264 in J. Terborgh, C. P. VanSchaik, M. Rao, and L. C. Davenport, editors. Making parks work:identifying key factors to implementing parks in the tropics. IslandPress, Covelo, California.

Knight, J., editor. 2000. Natural enemies: people-wildlife conflicts inanthropological 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, and M. E. Smith.1997. Translocation of carnivores as a method for managing problemanimals: a review. Biodiversity and Conservation 6:1245–1257.

Linnell, J. D. C., J. E. Swenson, and R. Andersen. 2001. Predators andpeople: conservation of large carnivores is possible at high humandensities if management policy is favorable. Animal Conservation4:345–349.

Manfredo, M. J., H. C. Zinn, L. Sikorowski, and J. Jones. 1998. Publicacceptance of mountain lion management: a case study of Den-ver, Colorado, and nearby foothill areas. Wildlife Society Bulletin26:964–970.

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 Conservation114:401–412.

Mason, J. R., J. A. Shivik, and M. W. Fall. 2001. Chemical repellentsand other aversive strategies in predation management. EndangeredSpecies Update 18:175–181.

Mech, L. D., E. K. Harper, T. J. Meier, and W. J. Paul. 2000. Assessingfactors that may predispose Minnesota farms to wolf depredationson cattle. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:623–629.

Meriggi, A., and S. Lovari. 1996. A review of wolf predation in southernEurope: does the wolf prefer wild prey to livestock? Journal ofApplied Ecology 33:1561–1571.

Mincher, B. J. 2002. Harvest as a component of Greater Yellow-stone Ecosystem grizzly bear management. Wildlife Society Bulletin30:1287–1292.

Mishra, C., P. Allen, T. McCarthy, M. D. Madhusudan, A. Bayarjargal, andH. H. T. Prins. 2003. The role of incentive schemes in conserving thesnow leopard, Uncia uncia. Conservation Biology 17:1512–1520.

Montag, J. 2003. Compensation and predator conservation: limitationsof compensation. Carnivore Damage Prevention News 6:2–6.

Naughton-Treves, L., and A. Treves. 2005. Socioecological factorsshaping local support for wildlife in Africa. Pages 253–277 in R.Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, editors. People andwildlife, conflict or coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, United Kingdom.

Naughton-Treves, L., R. Grossberg, and A. Treves. 2003. Paying fortolerance: the impact of livestock depredation and compensationpayments on rural citizens’ attitudes toward wolves. ConservationBiology 17:1500–1511.

Nie, M. A. 2002. Wolf recovery and management as value-based politicalconflict. Ethics, Place and Environment 5:65–71.

Noss, A. J., and R. L. Cuellar. 2001. Community attitudes towardswildlife management in the Bolivian chaco. Oryx 35:292–300.

Osborn, F. V. 2002. Capsicum oleoresin as an elephant repellent: fieldtrials 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 approachfor reducing the conflict between elephants and people: a reviewof current research. Oryx 37:80–84.

Raik, D. B., T. B. Lauber, D. J. Decker, and T. L. Brown. 2005. Managingcommunity controversy in suburban wildlife management: adopt-ing practices that address value differences. Human Dimensions ofWildlife 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 raccoondepredation of sea turtle nests. Journal of Wildlife Management61:368–376.

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: apractical and cost-effective approach to evaluating conservation anddevelopment 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 andresearch agenda for conservation science. Conservation Biology16:1469–1479.

Salafsky, N., et al. 2008. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conser-vation: unified classifications of threats and actions. ConservationBiology 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 depredationby gray wolves. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33:142–148.

Shaw, H. G., N. G. Woolsey, J. R. Wegge, and R. L. J. Day. 1988. Factorsaffecting 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. Guardiananimals. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A Animal Science50:279–290.

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 forestfragments. Science 294:1923.

Thirgood, S., S. Redpath, I. Newton, and P. Hudson. 2000. Raptorsand 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 wildlifearound 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 controlin the management of human-wildlife conflict. Pages 86–106 in

Conservation Biology

Volume 23, No. 6, 2009

Treves et al. 1587

R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, editors. People andwildlife, 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 ofWildlife 11:1–14.

Virtanen, P. 2003. Local management of global values: community-basedwildlife management in Zimbabwe and Zambia. Society and NaturalResources 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 Biology22:247–251.

Conservation Biology

Volume 23, No. 6, 2009