Literature DB >> 23163302

Poaching risks in community-based natural resource management.

Jessica S Kahler1, Gary J Roloff, Meredith L Gore.   

Abstract

Poaching can disrupt wildlife-management efforts in community-based natural resource management systems. Monitoring, estimating, and acquiring data on poaching is difficult. We used local-stakeholder knowledge and poaching records to rank and map the risk of poaching incidents in 2 areas where natural resources are managed by community members in Caprivi, Namibia. We mapped local stakeholder perceptions of the risk of poaching, risk of wildlife damage to livelihoods, and wildlife distribution and compared these maps with spatially explicit records of poaching events. Recorded poaching events and stakeholder perceptions of where poaching occurred were not spatially correlated. However, the locations of documented poaching events were spatially correlated with areas that stakeholders perceived wildlife as a threat to their livelihoods. This result suggests poaching occurred in response to wildlife damage occurred. Local stakeholders thought that wildlife populations were at high risk of being poached and that poaching occurred where there was abundant wildlife. These findings suggest stakeholders were concerned about wildlife resources in their community and indicate a need for integrated and continued monitoring of poaching activities and further interventions at the wildlife-agricultural interface. Involving stakeholders in the assessment of poaching risks promotes their participation in local conservation efforts, a central tenet of community-based management. We considered stakeholders poaching informants, rather than suspects, and our technique was spatially explicit. Different strategies to reduce poaching are likely needed in different areas. For example, interventions that reduce human-wildlife conflict may be required in residential areas, and increased and targeted patrolling may be required in more remote areas. Stakeholder-generated maps of human-wildlife interactions may be a valuable enforcement and intervention support tool.
© 2012 Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23163302     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01960.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  5 in total

1.  People-Centered and Ecosystem-Based Knowledge Co-Production to Promote Proactive Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development in Namibia.

Authors:  Axel Schick; Christina Sandig; Anja Krause; Peter R Hobson; Stefan Porembski; Pierre L Ibisch
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2018-08-17       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Drivers of prohibited natural resource collection in Chitwan National Park, Nepal.

Authors:  Scott T Yabiku; Abigail Sullivan; Abigail M York; Qunshan Zhao; Jennifer E Glick; Sharon J Hall; Dirgha J Ghimire; Li An
Journal:  Environ Conserv       Date:  2022-04-07       Impact factor: 4.075

Review 3.  A conceptual framework for understanding illegal killing of large carnivores.

Authors:  Neil H Carter; José Vicente López-Bao; Jeremy T Bruskotter; Meredith Gore; Guillaume Chapron; Arlyne Johnson; Yaffa Epstein; Mahendra Shrestha; Jens Frank; Omar Ohrens; Adrian Treves
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2016-11-16       Impact factor: 5.129

4.  Using participatory risk mapping (PRM) to identify and understand people's perceptions of crop loss to animals in Uganda.

Authors:  Amanda D Webber; Catherine M Hill
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  Predators and the public trust.

Authors:  Adrian Treves; Guillaume Chapron; Jose V López-Bao; Chase Shoemaker; Apollonia R Goeckner; Jeremy T Bruskotter
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2015-11-03
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.