Freya A. V. St. John

Conservation rangers face extreme occupational and environmental stress, including exposure to conflicts, poor working conditions, and limited occupational support, placing them at high risk of psychological harm. Ranger wellbeing is central to effective and just biodiversity conservation, requiring institutional support, training, and context‐sensitive interventions underpinned by robust mental health monitoring.

Understanding and managing conservation conflicts is important for stakeholders (e.g. policymakers and practitioners) trying to minimise negative impacts on people and biodiversity. A key component of Namibia's community‐based natural resource management system, besides enabling communities to derive benefits from wildlife, is the monitoring of wildlife and reporting of negative wildlife impacts on human lives and livelihoods. Farmers across Namibia may legally kill carnivores found attacking their livestock and may receive financial compensation if reported within 24 h. Both interventions are intended to offset costs and build tolerance towards wildlife. Expanding the Theory of Planned Behaviour by incorporating Descriptive Norm, we investigated farmers' Behavioural Intention to (1) legally kill brown Hyena brunnea and spotted Crocuta crocuta hyena when found killing their livestock and (2) report livestock depredation incidents to the relevant authorities in two governance contexts—inside versus outside communal conservancies. We hypothesised famers inside communal conservancies would have lower behavioural intentions to kill hyena and stronger intentions to report livestock depredation compared to farmers outside conservancies. Questionnaire data were collected from 1139 farmers from inside ( n = 945) and outside ( n = 188) communal conservancies. Most respondents reported no intention to kill hyena that killed their cattle, with no significant difference between farmers living inside (89%) and outside (90%) conservancies. Intention to report depredation incidents differed significantly between groups, with 90% of respondents inside conservancies intending to report compared to 78% outside conservancies. Inside conservancies, Attitude was the strongest predictors of farmers' Behavioural Intention to kill hyena and report incidents of livestock depredation. Outside conservancies, intention to kill hyena was most strongly associated with Perceived Behavioural Control, whilst Attitude was the strongest predictor of intention to report. Including Descriptive Norm improved model fit. Our findings highlight how socio‐psychological factors differ between governance contexts and how they subsequently influence farmer's behavioural intentions. Our improved understanding of perceptions underpinning farmers' decision‐making can inform the design of interventions to reduce retaliatory killing and improve reporting of wildlife impacts. Results from this study could also improve the interpretation of national depredation databases and guide more effective mitigation strategies. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Wild deer populations are increasing across the northern hemisphere, posing challenges to the environment and people. Deer impacts can be managed using lethal and non‐lethal practices, but research suggests lethal control receives mixed support. Differences in perspectives towards management practices may hinder collaborative, landscape‐scale strategies required to achieve resilient ecosystems and tree cover targets. Thus, understanding human‐deer relationships is crucial for sustainable deer management. To investigate perceptions towards deer and their management in England and Wales, we designed a questionnaire measuring the level of support for different actions to manage deer impacts and beliefs regarding the aesthetic and existence, environmental, economic and cultural‐symbolic value of deer. Targeting actors within and outside the land management, the questionnaire was distributed to subscribers of five national organisations, three focussing on wildlife management and two on woodland management. We collected data from 3936 people and, using cluster analysis, characterised groups of respondents based on their beliefs towards deer. We assessed variations between groups by socio‐demographic characteristics and support for lethal and non‐lethal management practices. Lethal control was the most supported and most used deer management practice, followed by tree guards and deer fencing. Our cluster analysis grouped respondents into 4 clusters. The cluster composed predominantly of deer stalkers (47%) held the most positive perceptions of deer and registered the highest support for lethal control and the highest opposition to deer fencing. Conversely, the cluster with the highest proportion of farmers (27%) and lowest proportion of stalkers (16%) expressed more neutral and negative opinions towards deer. There was no evidence of column clusters, indicating that beliefs did not cluster according to value dimensions (e.g. economic, environmental), suggesting that deer were valued similarly across all value dimensions. Differing opinions on deer and land management goals make it difficult for neighbours to collaborate on managing deer. Lethal control received strong support, which could ease concerns about recommending its use by nature organisations and decision‐makers who depend on public backing. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Wild meat can play a crucial role in the food system of rural communities residing near tropical forests. Yet, socio‐ecological changes across tropical landscapes are impacting the patterns and sustainability of meat consumption. To understand the prevalence, frequency and drivers of wild meat, domestic meat and fish consumption in this context, we implemented structured questionnaires across 28 villages in two forested landscapes of Central Kalimantan, a region of Indonesian Borneo characterised by forest‐dependent livelihoods. Across the 632 male household heads surveyed, the primary reason for consumption at the species‐level was taste, followed by ease of access. Conversely, the main reasons for not consuming wild meat more often were cost and low availability. The frequency of wild meat consumption was relatively low, with most respondents consuming it less than once every 6 months. However, local perceptions of biodiversity change and reported difficulties in accessing wild meat suggest this modest consumption was due to declining availability. Freshwater fish was consumed daily by most respondents, serving as an important animal protein in both landscapes. However, we found a positive association between greater well‐being and higher odds of consuming wild meat more frequently. This trend likely reflects disparity in access, with individuals of higher well‐being status better positioned to obtain this declining resource. Our findings highlight the multiple environmental and anthropogenic stressors concurrently affecting both terrestrial and aquatic animal populations in Central Kalimantan, with significant implications for the sustainability of wild meat and wider food security. There were also regional differences in the frequency, diversity and types of domestic and wild species consumed, underscoring the need to consider socio‐demographic diversity when developing wildlife conservation and sustainable food initiatives. Finally, we provide recommendations to work towards sustainable wild meat in these changing rural landscapes. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Urgency to save species from extinction has prompted increased investment in law enforcement in protected areas. To date, such law enforcement has largely focused on increasing costs and reducing opportunities for offending. However, these resource‐intensive approaches are not always effective and can contribute to conflict between people and conservation authorities, undermining human well‐being and conservation goals. Drawing on criminal justice research, we considered how procedural justice theory—which examines how fair process and the perceived legitimacy of rules and enforcers influence behavior— could enhance understanding of compliance dynamics and complement existing law enforcement approaches, particularly in addressing low‐level noncompliance in protected areas. We also explored how principles of procedural justice have been incorporated in general policing and outlined challenges and opportunities to integrating this approach into conservation law enforcement. We considered key opportunity‐based (e.g., routine activity theory) and actor‐based frameworks (e.g., deterrence theory) underpinning most protected areaenforcement. We then focused on procedural justice theory and the role of legitimacy in encouraging compliance. Evidence from general policing shows that when enforcers treat citizens fairly, listen, and make decisions objectively, they gain trust and legitimacy. In turn, people are more inclined to comply with laws and cooperate with enforcers. Procedural fairness can be implemented during encounters by embracing 4 pillars: neutrality, voice, respect, and trustworthiness. Outlining challenges of integrating this approach in conservation law enforcement, we highlight the need to address limited public trust in state authority and other factors including working conditions of enforcers. Alongside ensuring the integrity and accountability of conservation law enforcement, we argue that embedding principles of procedural fairness into interactions between enforcers and citizens could reduce low‐level noncompliance. Success, however, requires conservation law enforcement to be reconceptualized by placing procedural fairness and legitimacy on a more equal footing with deterrence in research and practice.

Protected area management often depends heavily on law enforcement to secure compliance with rules. However, this can contribute to conflict between protected area authorities and local people, negatively affecting both human well‐being and conservation outcomes. Compliance is affected by many factors, including whether those who enforce rules are perceived to do so fairly, as well as the perceived rule‐related behavior of others. We used factorial survey experiments to explore how fair respondents living around protected areas in Indonesia and Tanzania perceive sanctions distributed by law enforcers to be. We presented scenarios to respondents to assess how crime type, offender characteristics, and corruption influenced their judgments regarding the fairness of administered sanctions. We also assessed how descriptive norms and corruption influenced individuals’ willingness to obey protected area rules. Data were collected from 229 people in Indonesia and 217 in Tanzania. Results showed that in both locations, lawful sanctions, such as arrests or warnings, were perceived as fairer, and sanctions that involved corruption were perceived as least fair. Attitudes toward protected area rules, corruption, and descriptive norms all influenced people's willingness to comply, whereas multidimensional poverty did not. Our results highlight the need for conservation policy and practice to move beyond narratives that focus on the need for more law enforcement. To improve protected area compliance and secure better outcomes for people and nature, conservation must focus on ensuring the fair administration of rules and enhancing the legitimacy of rules themselves.

Protected areas (PAs) are central to sustainability targets, yet few evaluations explore outcomes for both conservation and development, or the trade‐offs involved. We applied counterfactual analyses to assess the extent to which PAs maintained forest cover and influenced well‐being across >31,000 villages in Sumatra and Kalimantan, Indonesia. We examined multidimensional aspects of well‐being, tracking education, health, living standards, infrastructure, environment, and social cohesion in treatment and control villages between 2005 and 2018. Overall, PAs were effective at maintaining forest cover compared to matched controls and were not detrimental to well‐being. However, impacts were highly heterogeneous, varying by island and strictness of protection. While health, living standards, and infrastructure aspects of well‐being improved, education access, environmental conditions, and social cohesion declined. Our analysis reveals the contexts through which individual PAs succeed or fail in delivering multiple benefits and provides insights into where further on‐ground support is needed to achieve conservation and development objectives.