Global patterns and trends in human–wildlife conflict compensation
Global patterns and trends in human–wildlife conflict compensation
复制标题
人类与野生动物冲突补偿的全球模式和趋势
DOI：
10.1111/cobi.12948
复制
发表时间：
2017
影响因子：
6.3
通讯作者：
P. Nyhus
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jeremy P Ravenelle;P. Nyhus
人与野生动物的冲突是一个重大的保护挑战，对野生动物损害的赔偿是一种广泛使用的经济工具，以减轻这种冲突。这一管理工具的有效性受到广泛讨论。与补偿成功相关的因素的相对重要性尚不清楚，在补偿计划的应用中，对全球地理或分类学差异知之甚少。我们回顾了有关野生动物损害赔偿的研究，以确定地理和分类学差距，分析与赔偿相关的积极和消极评论的模式，并评估全球赔偿金的相对规模。我们分析了288篇涉及野生动物补偿的出版物，并确定了138个独特的补偿计划。这些出版物报告说，自1980年以来，50个国家的赔偿支出为2.22亿美元（按通货膨胀调整）。欧洲人发表的文章最多，欧洲的赔偿资金最高，狼和熊的掠夺是最常见的赔偿损失。在我们查阅的出版物中，作者对薪酬的负面评价是正面评价的两倍。四分之三的负面评论与项目管理有关。相反，四分之三的积极评论与项目成果有关。改善赔偿计划的三个最常见的建议包括要求索赔人采取损害预防措施，例如改善畜牧业或作物围栏以获得赔偿（n = 25，15%）;将事后补偿计划修改为某种形式的基于成果的绩效支付（n = 21，12%）;和改变程序，使赔偿支付更快（n = 14，8%）。我们认为，进一步了解补偿作为缓解冲突工具的优势和劣势，将需要更系统地评估驱动这些意见的因素，区分过程和结果并理解它们之间的联系将导致更富有成效的分析，最终更有效地缓解冲突。
Human–wildlife conflict is a major conservation challenge, and compensation for wildlife damage is a widely used economic tool to mitigate this conflict. The effectiveness of this management tool is widely debated. The relative importance of factors associated with compensation success is unclear, and little is known about global geographic or taxonomic differences in the application of compensation programs. We reviewed research on wildlife‐damage compensation to determine geographic and taxonomic gaps, analyze patterns of positive and negative comments related to compensation, and assess the relative magnitude of global compensation payments. We analyzed 288 publications referencing wildlife compensation and identified 138 unique compensation programs. These publications reported US$222 million (adjusted for inflation) spent on compensation in 50 countries since 1980. Europeans published the most articles, and compensation funding was highest in Europe, where depredation by wolves and bears was the most frequently compensated damage. Authors of the publications we reviewed made twice as many negative comments as positive comments about compensation. Three‐quarters of the negative comments related to program administration. Conversely, three‐quarters of the positive comments related to program outcomes. The 3 most common suggestions to improve compensation programs included requiring claimants to employ damage‐prevention practices, such as improving livestock husbandry or fencing of crops to receive compensation (n = 25, 15%); modifying ex post compensation schemes to some form of outcome‐based performance payment (n = 21, 12%); and altering programs to make compensation payments more quickly (n = 14, 8%). We suggest that further understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of compensation as a conflict‐mitigation tool will require more systematic evaluation of the factors driving these opinions and that differentiating process and outcomes and understanding linkages between them will result in more fruitful analyses and ultimately more effective conflict mitigation.