DDRIG:A transdisciplinary, comparative analysis of links between individual and household decision-making, negotiation of livelihood risk, & natural resource management conflic

了解濒危野生动物栖息地附近社区的社会经济和生计挑战是全球生物多样性保护的优先事项，因为贫困和资源稀缺可能与环境退化，不可持续的自然资源使用和冲突有关。需要开展研究，以更好地了解在保护区附近面临独特的经济、环境和社会风险因素时的决策，这些因素抑制了家庭的复原力，从而加剧了自然资源管理冲突。在热带欠发达地区，对这种理解的需求尤为迫切，因为保护区附近的社区往往面临极端贫困。为了满足这一需求，本研究在撒哈拉以南非洲地区调查了个人和家庭围绕生计战略的决策如何影响从经济、环境或气候变化相关冲击中恢复的能力，以及承担或减轻风险的决策对资源管理的影响。这项研究是由以下首要问题：如何个人和家庭的风险谈判中作出的决定影响生计的结果？更具体的研究问题和假设检验评估以下内容：1）公园附近社区的家庭如何从自己的角度定义和评估理想的复原力; 2）社会经济地位，风险偏好和公园附近社区家庭的主观复原力之间的关系;以及3）综合保护-发展干预措施如何有针对性地改善家庭结果，如主观复原力。跨学科，混合方法的数据收集和分析计划是定性，定量和空间的性质。本研究测试竞争的解释风险决策，如前景理论和风险敏感的最佳觅食理论，在一个新的设置自然资源冲突，多维贫困，并接近保护区。本研究还通过主观测量的应用推进了弹性理论。最后，本研究解决了一个文献的空白，解释机制，通过风险偏好影响家庭生计的决定，并通过代理，环境保护的成果。因此，这项工作说明了生计决策和风险谈判如何影响家庭的复原力，为参与设计同时促进经济发展，社区福祉和自然资源管理的举措的保护和发展学者，从业者和政策制定者产生更广泛的影响。将风险偏好、多维贫困状况和决策与主观复原力联系起来的行为模型将与在地球仪周围贫困和公园附近社区开展的研究相关。该奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并被认为值得通过使用基金会的知识价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估来支持。

Understanding socioeconomic and livelihood challenges for communities near endangered wildlife habitat is a priority for global biodiversity conservation because poverty and resource scarcity can be linked to environmental degradation, unsustainable natural resource use, and conflict. Research is needed to better understand decision-making in the face of unique economic, environmental, and social risk factors near protected areas that inhibit household resilience, thereby exacerbating natural resource management conflicts. The need for such understanding is particularly urgent in lesser developed regions of the tropics, where communities near protected areas often face extreme poverty. To address this need, this research in Sub-Saharan Africa investigates how the ability to recover from economic, environmental, or climate change-related shocks can be influenced by individual and household decision-making around livelihoods strategies, and the resource management implications of decisions to take on or mitigate risks.Linking behavioral economics, human behavioral ecology, and resilience studies, this research is guided by the following overarching question: How do individual and household decisions made in negotiation of risks influence livelihoods outcomes? More specific research questions and hypothesis tests assess the following: 1) how households in park-adjacent communities define and evaluate desirable resilience from their own perspective; 2) the relationship between socioeconomic status, risk preferences, and subjective resilience for households in park-adjacent communities; and 3) how integrated conservation-development interventions can be targeted to improve household outcomes like subjective resilience. The transdisciplinary, mixed-methods data collection and analysis plan is qualitative, quantitative, and spatial in nature. This research tests competing explanations of risky decision-making, such as prospect theory and risk-sensitive optimal foraging theory, in a novel setting of natural resource conflict, multidimensional poverty, and proximity to protected areas. The study also advances resilience theory through the application of its subjective measure. Finally, this research addresses a literature gap in explaining mechanisms through which risk preferences influence household livelihood decisions, and by proxy, environmental conservation outcomes. This work thus illustrates how livelihood decisions and negotiation of risk influence household resilience, yielding broader impacts for conservation and development scholars, practitioners, and policymakers who are involved in designing initiatives that simultaneously advance economic development, community wellbeing, and natural resource management. The resulting behavioral model linking risk preferences, multidimensional poverty status, and decision-making to subjective resilience will be relevant to research undertaken in poor and park-adjacent communities around the globe.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.