Search

Simple Summary: Local communities living on the edge of protected areas often experience negative impacts on their livelihoods due to wildlife. These situations threaten support for long-term conservation of wildlife and wild habitats so a key for conservation sustainability should be based on implementing socially accepted and economically sustainable mitigation practices. For successful design and implementation of mitigation strategies, it is vital to engage local communities and understand their preferences and previous experiences. In this study, we present a choice experiment as a tool to analyze local farmer preferences for the most common farm-based solutions to reduce African elephant crop damage. Results show that there are significant differences among responses triggered by farmers' previous experience with elephants and socioeconomic situation, with a marked spatial distribution among respondents. This methodology, based on a choice modeling approach considering the differential availability of resources and previous experience with elephants or other wildlife, is highly applicable, with small changes in other areas where wildlife competes with local communities for resources. This approach also represents a suitable instrument for identifying stakeholders' preferences in each specific context. Local communities surrounding wildlife corridors and natural reserves often face challenges related to human–wildlife coexistence. To mitigate the challenges and ensure the long-term conservation of wildlife, it is important to engage local communities in the design of conservation strategies. By conducting 480 face-to-face interviews in 30 villages along and adjacent to the Selous-Niassa Wildlife Corridor (Tanzania), we quantified farmers' preferences for farm-based measures to mitigate African elephant damage using choice experiments. Results show that farmers considered no action the least preferred option, revealing that they are open to trying different measures. The most preferred management strategy matched with the preferences of wildlife rangers in the area, suggesting low concern about the potential conflicts between stakeholders. However, a latent class model suggests that there are significant differences among responses triggered by farmers' previous experience with elephants, the intensity of the elephant damage, and the socioeconomic situation of the farmer. Results show a marked spatial distribution among respondents, highlighting the benefits of zone management as conflicts were found to be highly context dependent. Understanding the human dimension of conservation is essential for the successful planification and implementation of conservation strategies. Therefore, the development and broad utilization of methodologies to gather specific context information should be encouraged. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Conservation Biology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Abstract: This article analyses the willingness to pay for a program that promotes the production of electricity from forest biomass, instead of that based on fossil fuels. The program decreases greenhouse gas emissions, reduces the pressure on non-renewable resources, lowers the risk of summer forest fires, creates employment in rural areas. Results from a choice experiment show that consumers are willing to pay a higher price for electricity in order to obtain the external benefits of the substitution. Respondents attach a higher value to programs that decrease the pressure of non-renewable resources and the risk of forest fires. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• Biodiversity indicators influence societal preferences towards conservation programs. • The use of a broad set of indicators produces higher values towards conservation. • Area covered, keystone elements and species richness provide the highest values. • The choice of indicators gives different total value of conservation programs. Preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity brings multiple health, societal and economic benefits, including life-supporting services. Biodiversity indicators are important in framing the benefits of conservation and management programs and monitoring progress toward their outcomes. Biodiversity indicators therefore provide useful tools for policymakers in helping to communicate the benefits of conservation to society but also in garnering public support for conservation. This research aimed to help improve our understanding of the role of biodiversity indicators in the way that they influence preferences towards conservation programs. A discrete choice experiment was used to estimate relative societal preferences towards multilevel dimensions of biodiversity in relation to the conservation of pine forests in the Spanish Iberian Peninsula. Results show that (i) the level of biodiversity indicator (within species, between species and within ecosystems) matters, (ii) indicators related to the biodiversity within ecosystems are valued the most, and (iii) the use of several biodiversity indicators together is generally better at delivering benefits to society, but the value of these is reduced where there is redundancy between them. Overall, the most preferred indicators were the area of land covered by the conservation project, the status of keystone ecosystem components, and the number of native species. Some indicators such as invasive alien species and genetic diversity are least preferred and may be less helpful to how conservation efforts are perceived by the citizens. By careful consideration of which biodiversity indicators to use, policymakers and conservation managers can maximize societal acceptability of public investments in conservation efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]