There is growing interest in developing effective interventions to manage socially- and environmentally-damaging conservation conflicts. Recent studies have identified a wide variety of different intervention strategies in various contexts but the reasons why one type of intervention is chosen over another remain underexplored. In this international study we surveyed conservation researchers and practitioners (N = 427) to explore how the characteristics of conflicts and characteristics of decision-makers influence conflict recommendations. Using a fully-factorial design, we experimentally manipulated three aspects of eight different conflict scenarios - the development status of the country, the conflict framing, and whether wildlife killing was illegal - and recorded whether respondents prioritised one of five intervention types: wildlife impact reduction, awareness, enforcement, economic incentives or stakeholder engagement. We also recorded information on respondents' demographic and disciplinary backgrounds. Stakeholder-based interventions were recommended most often in the survey and in written feedback. However, fitting multinomial mixed logit models with no missing scenarios (N = 411), we find that recommendations are influenced by small changes in the details of conflict, and differ according to respondent characteristics. Enforcement and awareness interventions are prioritised more in conflicts in more highly developed nations and by respondents with more natural-science backgrounds and less experience of conflicts. Contrastingly, economic interventions are prioritised more when wildlife killing is described as illegal. Respondent age, gender and the development status of their home country also predicted some intervention decisions. Further interrogating the influences shaping conservation decision-making will help towards developing evidence-informed interventions. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

中文翻译：

---

预测野生动物冲突的干预重点

人们越来越有兴趣开发有效的干预措施来管理对社会和环境造成破坏的保护冲突。最近的研究已经确定了在不同背景下的各种不同的干预策略，但选择一种干预而不是另一种干预的原因仍未得到充分探索。在这项国际研究中，我们调查了保护研究人员和从业人员 (N = 427)，以探讨冲突的特征和决策者的特征如何影响冲突建议。使用全因子设计，我们实验性地操纵了八种不同冲突情景的三个方面——国家的发展状况、冲突框架以及杀害野生动物是否非法——并记录受访者是否优先考虑五种干预类型之一：野生动物影响减少、意识、执法、经济激励或利益相关者参与。我们还记录了受访者的人口统计学和学科背景信息。在调查和书面反馈中最常推荐基于利益相关者的干预措施。然而，在没有缺失场景（N = 411）的情况下拟合多项混合 logit 模型，我们发现建议受到冲突细节的微小变化的影响，并根据受访者的特征而有所不同。在更高度发达国家的冲突中，以及具有更多自然科学背景和更少冲突经验的受访者，执法和意识干预措施被优先考虑。相比之下，当野生动物捕杀被描述为非法时，经济干预更为优先。受访者年龄，其母国的性别和发展状况也预测了一些干预决定。进一步探讨影响保护决策的影响将有助于制定循证干预措施。本文受版权保护。版权所有。