Conflicts between the interests of biodiversity conservation and other human activities pose a major threat to natural ecosystems and human well‐being, yet few methods exist to quantify their intensity and model their dynamics. We develop a categorization of conflict intensity based on the curve of conflict, a model originally used to track the escalation and deescalation of armed conflicts. Our categorization assigns six intensity levels reflecting the discourse and actions of stakeholders involved in a given conflict, from coexistence or collaboration to physical violence. Using a range of case studies, we demonstrate the value of our approach in quantifying conflict trends, estimating transition probabilities between conflict stages, and modeling conflict intensity as a function of relevant covariates. By taking an evidence‐based approach to quantifying stakeholder behavior, the proposed framework allows for a better understanding of the drivers of conservation conflict development across a diverse range of socioecological scenarios.

Endangered species are not simply revealed but are presented. This process of presentation is shaped by conservation discourses that reflect how actors understand, categorize, and imagine nonhuman life. Such discourses combine to produce narratives of endangerment, which influence policy and conservation efforts. This article examines how particular physical, epistemic, and cultural geographies mediate the production of conservation discourses and narratives of endangerment. It explores an anomalous case in which the endangered species presented never physically existed: the story of the conservationist Sir Peter Scott and the Loch Ness phenomena (Nessie). By reinterpreting Scott's correspondence covering the Loch Ness Phenomena Investigation Bureau in the 1960s and 1970s, this article outlines the discursive production of Nessie as, first, a scientifically recognized species, and, second, an endangered creature warranting protection. Nessie's nonphysical existence is argued to reveal the ways in which living things are ancillary to the discourses through which they become protected. Specifically, this article demonstrates how Nessie's proposed endangerment was produced through ostensibly scientific discourses accessed through particular social networks, understandings, values, procedures, and imagery. In doing so it highlights the other physical and human geographies, including nationalism, landscape, media, and technology, that shaped this and likely other presentations of endangerment.

There is growing interest in developing effective interventions to manage socially and environmentally damaging conservation conflicts. There are a variety of intervention strategies that can be applied in various contexts, but the reasons one type of intervention is chosen over another remain underexplored. We surveyed conservation researchers and practitioners (n = 427) to explore how characteristics of conflicts and characteristics of decision makers influence recommendations to alleviate conservation conflict. Using a full-factorial design, we experimentally manipulated 3 aspects of the descriptions of 8 different wildlife-conflict scenarios (development status of the conflict country, conflict framing, and legality of killing wild animals) and recorded which of 5 intervention types (wildlife impact reduction, awareness, enforcement, economic incentives, or stakeholder engagement) respondents prioritized. 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, when we fitted multinomial mixed logit models with fully completed scenario responses (n = 411), recommendations were influenced by small changes in the details of conflict and differed according to respondent characteristics. Enforcement and awareness interventions were prioritized relatively more for conflicts in more highly developed nations and by respondents with more natural science backgrounds and relatively less experience with conflict. Contrastingly, economic interventions were prioritized more when wildlife killing was described as illegal. Age, gender, and development status of the respondent's home country also predicted some intervention decisions. Further, interrogating the influences shaping conservation decision making will further helps in the development of evidence-informed interventions.

Abstract Conservation conflicts exist in complex socio‐ecological systems and are damaging to both people and wildlife. There is much interest in designing interventions to manage them more effectively, but the importance of who does the intervening remains underexplored. In particular, conflicts are influenced by perceptions of the trustworthiness of natural resource managers and conservation organizations. However, experimental studies of how the different facets of trustworthiness shape responses to interventions are rare in conflict settings. We develop an experimental, framed public goods game to test how support for otherwise identical elephant conflict interventions varies with perceptions of the trustworthiness of two different intervening groups—a community group or a conservation organization—and compare game behaviour to pre‐ and post‐game interviews. Results from three agro‐pastoral communities (n = 212 participants) in northern Tanzania show that participants cooperate more with interveners they perceive to be more trustworthy. Results also suggest that different aspects of trustworthiness matter differentially—with perceptions of interveners' integrity and benevolence more strongly predicting cooperation than perceptions of their ability. The findings suggest that trust‐building and greater consideration of who is best placed to intervene in conflicts may help improve natural resource management and increase stakeholder support for conservation interventions. This study also further demonstrates how experimental games offer opportunities to test behaviour change interventions and help to inform evidence‐based conservation. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

In this commentary, we explore how blockchain is being leveraged to address the fundamental problems with market-based forest protection globally. In doing so, we consider the ways `cryptocarbon' initiatives are creating new challenges that have so far escaped critical scrutiny. A blockchain is a distributed and immutable electronic database - a ledger of every transaction that has ever taken place on a network, stored as cryptographically secured blocks, strung together in a chain. The technology is being increasingly hyped as applicable for a whole range of industries, social service provisions, and environmental management concerns. This includes the facilitation of natural asset market mechanisms, like Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD + ). The original aim of REDD + was to incentivise conservation, making tropical forests more valuable standing than cut down. Multiple factors, including lack of consumer interest, created an oversupply of carbon commodities. Ninety-five percent of the world's avoided deforestation credits, representing millions of hectares of conserved forest, were stuck without a buyer. Several flagging REDD + projects are now hoping that blockchain technology can carry them to new heights of market capitalisation. However, like with any powerful new technology, the benefits remain ambiguous.

anged the groups framed as responsible for carrying out the intervention. We found that cooperation with the conflict intervention was significantly higher when the intervening group is framed as local Maasai moran compared to a WMA group. We found this variation in cooperation to be best explained by differences in levels of trust in the intervening group. From this we can make two suggestions. Firstly, it matters which group carries out a conservation conflict intervention. For this reasons conservation conflict managers should think carefully about which actors are best suited to deliver interventions. Secondly, highly trusted actors are more likely to receive greater support. Conservation conflict managers should therefore consider a number of strategies to increase stakeholder trust. Redpath, S.M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W.M., Sutherland, W.J., Whitehouse, A., Amar, A., Lambert, R.A., Linnell, J.D., Watt, A. and Gutierrez, R.J., 2013. Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in ecology & evolution, 28(2), pp.100-109. Stern, M. and Baird, T., 2015. Trust ecology and the resilience of natural resource management institutions. Ecology and Society, 20(2). Travers, H., Clements, T., Keane, A. and Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2011. Incentives for cooperation: The effects of institutional controls on common pool resource extraction in Cambodia. Ecological Economics, 71, pp.151-161.

Conservation conflicts are widespread and are damaging for biodiversity, livelihoods and human well-being. Conflict management often occurs through interventions targeting human behaviour. Conservation interventions are thought to be made more effective if underpinned by evidence and a Theory of Change – a logical argument outlining the steps required to achieve goals. However, for conservation conflicts, the evidence and logic supporting different types of interventions has received little attention. Using conflict-related keywords, we reviewed trends in behavioural intervention recommendations across conflict contexts globally, as published in peer-reviewed literature. We developed typologies for conflict behaviours, intervention recommendations, and conflict frames and identified associations between them and other geographical variables using Pearson's Chi-squared tests of independence. Analysing 100 recent articles, we found that technical interventions (recommended in 38% of articles) are significantly associated with conflicts involving wildlife control and the human-wildlife conflict frame. Enforcement-based interventions (54% of articles) are significantly associated with conflicts over illegal resource use, while stakeholder-based interventions (37% of articles) are associated with the human-human conflict frame and very highly developed countries. Only 10% of articles offered “strong” evidence from the published scientific literature justifying recommendations, and only 15% outlined Theories of Change. We suggest that intervention recommendations are likely influenced by authors' perceptions of the social basis of conflicts, and possibly also by disciplinary silos.

Conservation conflicts represent complex multilayered problems that are challenging to study. We explore the utility of theoretical, experimental, and constructivist approaches to games to help to understand and manage these challenges. We show how these approaches can help to develop theory, understand patterns in conflict, and highlight potentially effective management solutions. The choice of approach should be guided by the research question and by whether the focus is on testing hypotheses, predicting behaviour, or engaging stakeholders. Games provide an exciting opportunity to help to unravel the complexity in conflicts, while researchers need an awareness of the limitations and ethical constraints involved. Given the opportunities, this field will benefit from greater investment and development.

SUMMARY Growing concern about the biodiversity crisis has led to a proliferation of conservation responses, but with wide variation between countries in the levels of engagement and investment. Much of this variation is inevitably attributed to differences between nations in wealth. However, the relationship between environmentalism and wealth is complex and it is increasingly apparent that other factors are also involved. We review hypotheses that have been developed to explain variation in broad environmentalism and show that many of the factors that explain such variation in individuals, such as wealth, age and experience, also explain differences between nation states. We then assess the extent to which these factors explain variation between nation states in responses to and investment in the more specific area of biodiversity conservation. Unexpectedly, quality of governance explained substantially more variation in public and state investment in biodiversity conservation than did direct measures of wealth. The results inform assessments of where conservation investments might most profitably be directed in the future and suggest that metrics relating to governance might be of considerable use in conservation planning.