Explore the vast range of titles available.

Few projects adequately address design and evaluation Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) mechanisms leverage economic and social incentives to shape how people influence natural processes and achieve conservation and sustainability goals. Beneficiaries of nature's goods and services pay owners or stewards of ecosystems that produce those services, with payments contingent on service provision ( 1 , 2 ). Integrating scientific knowledge and methods into PES is critical ( 3 , 4 ). Yet many projects are based on weak scientific foundations, and effectiveness is rarely evaluated with the rigor necessary for scaling up and understanding the importance of these approaches as policy instruments and conservation tools ( 2 , 5 , 6 ). Part of the problem is the lack of simple, yet rigorous, scientific principles and guidelines to accommodate PES design and guide research and analyses that foster evaluations of effectiveness ( 4 ). As scientists and practitioners from government, nongovernment, academic, and finance institutions, we propose a set of such guidelines and principles.

▪ Abstract  The world's system of protected areas has grown exponentially over the past 25 years, particularly in developing countries where biodiversity is greatest. Concurrently, the mission of protected areas has expanded from biodiversity conservation to improving human welfare. The result is a shift in favor of protected areas allowing local resource use. Given the multiple purposes of many protected areas, measuring effectiveness is difficult. Our review of 49 tropical protected areas shows that parks are generally effective at curtailing deforestation within their boundaries. But deforestation in surrounding areas is isolating protected areas. Many initiatives now aim to link protected areas to local socioeconomic development. Some of these initiatives have been successful, but in general expectations need to be tempered regarding the capacity of protected areas to alleviate poverty. Greater attention must also be paid to the broader policy context of biodiversity loss, poverty, and unsustainable land use in developing countries.

As wolf (Canis lupus) populations recover in Wisconsin (U.S.A.), their depredations on livestock, pets, and hunting dogs have increased. We used a mail-back survey to assess the tolerance of 535 rural citizens of wolves and their preferences regarding the management of \"problem\" wolves. Specifically, we tested whether people who had lost domestic animals to wolves or other predators were less tolerant of wolves than neighboring residents who had not and whether compensation payments improved tolerance of wolves. We assessed tolerance via proxy measures related to an individual's preferred wolf population size for Wisconsin and the likelihood she or he would shoot a wolf. We also measured individuals' approval of lethal control and other wolf-management tactics under five conflict scenarios. Multivariate analysis revealed that the strongest predictor of tolerance was social group. Bear (Ursus americanus) hunters were concerned about losing valuable hounds to wolves and were more likely to approve of lethal control and reducing the wolf population than were livestock producers, who were more concerned than general residents. To a lesser degree, education level, experience of loss, and gender were also significant. Livestock producers and bear hunters who had been compensated for their losses to wolves were not more tolerant than their counterparts who alleged a loss but received no compensation. Yet all respondents approved of compensation payments as a management strategy. Our results indicate that deep-rooted social identity and occupation are more powerful predictors of tolerance of wolves than individual encounters with these large carnivores.

Crop loss to wildlife impedes local support for conservation efforts at Kibale National Park, Uganda. Systematic monitoring of crop loss to wildlife (mammals larger than 3 kg) and livestock was conducted in six villages around Kibale over a 2-year period. Five wildlife species accounted for 85% of crop damage events: baboons, bushpigs, redtail monkeys, chimpanzees, and elephants. Marked variation in frequency and extent of damage is reported within villages, between villages, and between wildlife species. Fields lying within 500 m of the forest boundary lost 4-7% of crops per season on average, but the distribution of damage was highly skewed such that maize and cassava fields were on occasion completely destroyed. Multivariate analysis was used to test predictors of damage, including human population density, guarding, hunting, sight distance, and distance from the forest. Tests were performed at two levels of analysis, field and village. Distance from the forest edge explained the greatest amount of variation in crop damage, although hunting also influenced the extent of crop damage. Elephants inflicted catastrophic damage to farms but their forays were rare and highly localized. Livestock caused considerable damage to crops but farmers seldom complained because they had institutionalized modes of restitution. Although most of the crop damage by wildlife is restricted to a narrow band of farmers living near the forest edge, risk perception among these farmers has been amplified by legal prohibitions on killing wild animals. Elevating local tolerance for wildlife will require diverse approaches, including channeling economic benefits to Kibale's neighbors and providing compensation in limited cases.

Many carnivore populations escaped extinction during the twentieth century as a result of legal protections, habitat restoration, and changes in public attitudes. However, encounters between carnivores, livestock, and humans are increasing in some areas, raising concerns about the costs of carnivore conservation. We present a method to predict sites of human-carnivore conflicts regionally, using as an example the mixed forest-agriculture landscapes of Wisconsin and Minnesota (U.S.A.). We used a matched-pair analysis of 17 landscape variables in a geographic information system to discriminate affected areas from unaffected areas at two spatial scales (townships and farms). Wolves (Canis lupus) selectively preyed on livestock in townships with high proportions of pasture and high densities of deer (Odocoileus virginianus) combined with low proportions of crop lands, coniferous forest, herbaceous wetlands, and open water. These variables plus road density and farm size also appeared to predict risk for individual farms when we considered Minnesota alone. In Wisconsin only, farm size, crop lands, and road density were associated with the risk of wolf attack on livestock. At the level of townships, we generated two state-wide maps to predict the extent and location of future predation on livestock. Our approach can be applied wherever spatial data are available on sites of conflict between wildlife and humans.

Finding a balance between strict protection and multiple use requires data on wildlife survival in human-managed ecosystems. We examined the habitat use and species composition of mammals >2 kg in size inhabiting an agroforest ecosystem neighboring a park in the Peruvian Amazon. First, we recorded wildlife presence in fields, fallows, and forests within one settlement over a 9-month period. Then we monitored wildlife presence over 21 months in 42 fields across a 65-km transect, including remote and highly disturbed sites. We tested for correlations between the size and number of mammal species visiting fields and human activities measured at different scales. Hunting intensity more powerfully predicted the average biomass and species diversity observed infields than did vegetation disturbance. The number of commercial hunters in the surrounding community had a stronger impact than did the individual field owner's hunting intensity. Large-bodied species appeared only in remote farms neighboring uninhabited areas in the reserve, indicating that undisturbed forests act as sources for wildlife dispersing into agricultural regions. Farmers in these remote areas experience greater crop and livestock losses to wildlife, but by hunting large game they are able to offset losses with bushmeat gains. In more disturbed areas, crop losses exceeded bushmeat gains, although both occurred at negligible levels. Our case study suggests that large herbivores, large carnivores, and most primates are unlikely to persist in multiple-use zones in Amazonian forests unless hunting is effectively restricted. Even highly disturbed agroforests are not empty of wildlife, however, but are inhabited by a suite of adaptable, fast-reproducing species able to withstand human activity (e.g., brown agoutis [Dasyprocta variegata], armadillos [Dasypus novemcinetus], and red brocket deer [Mazama gauazoubira]). These \"weedy\" species may not be of immediate concern to conservation biologists, and they will not attract tourists. But they have both economic and ecological value and deserve to be taken into account in management decisions.

Throughout much of the tropics, human-wildlife conflict impedes local support for national parks. By channelling tourism revenue to local residents, conservationists hope to offset wildlife costs and improve local attitudes toward conservation. To date tourism revenue-sharing (TRS) programmes have met mixed success. Local conditions and national policies that shape the success of TRS programmes were identified by comparing the experiences of both implementers and beneficiaries of pilot TRS programmes at three parks in western Uganda. Between 1995 and 1998, communities around these parks used a total of US $83 000 of tourism revenue to build 21 schools, four clinics, one bridge, and one road. In 1996, the Ugandan parliament passed legislation that changed both the amount of money available for TRS and the institutions responsible for sharing the money. The programme was suspended at all three parks while the implementing agency (Uganda Wildlife Authority) struggled to design a programme that complied with the new legislation. TRS funds collected before 1996 were shared through 1998, but since then no revenue has been shared. However, a revised TRS programme is expected to resume in 2001. In semi-structured interviews, both implementers and beneficiaries evaluated local TRS programmes and compared them to other benefit-sharing projects, particularly those promoting sustainable use of non-timber products within park boundaries (n = 44). Both groups of respondents listed revenue-sharing as the most important advantage of living next to a national park. Seventy-two per cent of respondents indicated that they thought TRS had improved attitudes towards the protected areas, and 53% thought TRS was more important then sustainable use of non-timber forest products. Although respondents were generally positive about TRS, in informal discussions respondents repeatedly mentioned four potential obstacles to TRS success, namely poorly defined TRS policies and unsteady implementing institutions, corruption, inadequate funds, and numerous stakeholders with differing priorities. From this survey and literature from experiences in other African countries, there are four key components of successful revenue-sharing programmes: long-term institutional support, appropriate identification of the target community and project type, transparency and accountability, and adequate funding. With firm institutional support and realistic expectations, TRS can play an important role in improving local attitudes towards conservation.

1. Primates dominate lists of pests that damage crops around African parks and reserves. Beyond creating management problems, crop foraging is integral to the ecology of primates inhabiting forest-agriculture ecotones. 2. Twenty-three months of data from four villages around Kibale National Park, Uganda, revealed that redtail monkeys Cercopithecus ascanius, olive baboons Papio cynocephalus and chimpanzees Pan troglodytes selected different crops or plant parts. Baboons took root and tuber crops ignored by other primates, and fed on the greatest variety of crops. All three species preferred maize and/or bananas. Redtails ate only banana fruit, baboons ate banana fruit more frequently than pith, and chimpanzees raided pith and fruit in equal proportions. 3. Each primate showed a distinct monthly pattern of crop foraging, significantly non-random for baboons and redtail monkeys, weakly for chimpanzees. Large intermonthly variation was observed for all three primates, but was least pronounced in redtails. 4. Raiding frequency on maize peaked approximately 8 weeks after the onset of rains and was strongly correlated between the three primate species. Abundant forest fruit did not diminish primate appetite for maize. 5. Raiding frequency on bananas varied considerably despite continuous availability of fruit and pith. Peaks in banana consumption were unrelated to rainfall or maize raiding, but were associated instead with forest fruit shortages, specifically Mimusops bagshawei. 6. Chimpanzees consumed banana pith more frequently when forest fruits were scarce, whereas baboons targeted more banana fruits. The use of banana pith by chimpanzees supports the suggestion that energy-rich pith is crucial to chimpanzees during fruit scarcity. 7. Conservation of Mimusops bagshawei and other key forest fruit trees may lessen primate raiding intensity on perennial crops, e.g. bananas. Maize raiding appears unaffected by forest fruit abundance. Such highly palatable crops are best planted > 500 m from the forest edge. 8. Planting agroforestry buffers along park edges creates ideal habitat for crop-raiders. This management strategy is appropriate where human population density is low and crop raiding species are legal game. When dangerous or destructive wildlife species forage amidst densely settled subsistence farmland, managers are challenged to separate forests from agriculture using non-palatable plant barriers or electric fences.