Search

Funder: Churchill/Sidney Sussex Southern African Cambridge Scholarship, Funder: WildiZe Foundation, Funder: Wildlife Conservation Society (Tellus Leadership Scholarship), Funder: Wildlife Conservation Network (Schink Scholarship for Wildlife Conservation), Funder: Churchill College (Pennett Fund Grant and Lundgren Research Award), Gaining insights into local people’s views, values and preferences for different conservation management options are increasingly gaining importance among conservationists and decision-makers. This can be achieved through the assessment and understanding of conservation attitudes and perceptions of rural communities including demographic characteristics predicting the attitudes to design and implement conservation policies in a more socially acceptable manner. In this study, we developed and validated user-friendly indices to measure attitudes towards the African elephant, a flagship species and its conservation in Trans Mara District. An iterative item reliability analysis was executed on household data from a random sample of 367 respondents using Cronbach’s Alpha in SPSS. Results yielded two indices; (i) Elephant Attitude Index (EAI); and (ii) Maasai Mara National Reserve Attitude Index (MAI). The EAI had a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of 0.73 while the MAI had a Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of 0.77. Data analysis revealed that (i) location of residence; (ii) age of respondent; (iii) number of income sources; (iv) gender of the respondent; and (v) benefit reception were the main determinants of EAI and MAI in TM. Our attitude indices can assist conservation practitioners and decision-makers to prioritise resources, on the assumption that high-scoring individuals are more likely to participate in conservation initiatives. We encourage making available different sources of income for residents and working towards improving the involvement of younger people and women in conservation activities in TM.

1. Decision-making is a complex process that typically includes a series of stages: identifying the issue, considering possible options, making judgements and then making a decision by combining information and values. The current status quo relies heavily on the informational aspect of decision-making with little or no emphasis on the value positions that affect decisions.\ud \ud 2. There is increasing realization of the importance of adopting rigorous methods for each stage such that the information, views and judgements of stakeholders and experts are used in a systematic and repeatable manner. Though there are several methodological textbooks which discuss a plethora of social science techniques, it is hard to judge the suitability of any given technique for a given decision problem.\ud \ud 3. In decision-making, the three critical aspects are “what” decision is to be made, “who” makes the decisions and “how” the decisions are made. The methods covered in this paper focus on “how” decisions can be made. We compare six techniques: Focus Group Discussion (FGD), Interviews, Q methodology, Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), Nominal Group Technique and the Delphi technique specifically in the context of biodiversity conservation. All of these techniques (with the exception of MCDA) help in understanding human values and the underlying perspectives which shape decisions.\ud \ud 4. Based on structured reviews of 423 papers covering all six methods, we compare the conceptual and logistical characteristics of the methods, and map their suitability for the different stages of the decision-making process. While interviews and FGD are well-known, techniques such the Nominal Group technique and Q methodology are relatively under-used. In situations where conflict is high, we recommend using the Q methodology and Delphi technique to elicit judgements. Where conflict is low, and a consensus is needed urgently, the Nominal Group technique may be more suitable.\ud \ud 5. We present a nuanced synthesis of methods aimed at users. The comparison of the different techniques might be useful for project managers, academics or practitioners in the planning phases of their projects and help in making better informed methodological choices.

Conservation policy decisions can suffer from a lack of evidence, hindering effective decision-making. In nature conservation, studies investigating why policy is often not evidence-informed have tended to focus on Western democracies, with relatively small samples. To understand global variation and challenges better, we established a global survey aimed at identifying top barriers and solutions to the use of conservation science in policy. This obtained the views of 758 people in policy, practice, and research positions from 68 countries across six languages. Here we show that, contrary to popular belief, there is agreement between groups about how to incorporate conservation science into policy, and there is thus room for optimism. Barriers related to the low priority of conservation were considered to be important, while mainstreaming conservation was proposed as a key solution. Therefore, priorities should focus on convincing the public of the importance of conservation as an issue, which will then influence policy-makers to adopt pro-environmental long-term policies.