The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human–carnivore coexistence
Open accessAbstract
One of the greatest challenges in biodiversity conservation today is how to facilitate protection of species that are highly valued at a global scale but have little or even negative value at a local scale. Imperiled species such as large predators can impose significant economic costs at a local level, often in poverty-stricken rural areas where households are least able to tolerate such costs, and impede efforts of local people, especially traditional pastoralists, to escape from poverty. Furthermore, the costs and benefits involved in predator conservation often include diverse dimensions, which are hard to quantify and nearly impossible to reconcile with one another. The best chance of effective conservation relies upon translating the global value of carnivores into tangible local benefits large enough to drive conservation “on the ground.” Although human–carnivore coexistence involves significant noneconomic values, providing financial incentives to those affected negatively by carnivore presence is a common strategy for encouraging such coexistence, and this can also have important benefits in terms of reducing poverty. Here, we provide a critical overview of such financial instruments, which we term “payments to encourage coexistence”; assess the pitfalls and potentials of these methods, particularly compensation and insurance, revenue-sharing, and conservation payments; and discuss how existing strategies of payment to encourage coexistence could be combined to facilitate carnivore conservation and alleviate local poverty.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Accelerated Human Population Growth at Protected Area Edges
Wittemyer, G., Elsen, P., Bean, W. T., Burton, A. C. O., & Brashares, J. S. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1158900 · Cited by 731
Cited by
Complementary benefits of tourism and hunting to communal conservancies in Namibia
Naidoo, R., Weaver, L. C., Diggle, R. W., Matongo, G., Stuart‐Hill, G., & Thouless, C. (2016) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.12643 · Cited by 331
An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human–predator relations
Pooley, S., Barua, M., Beinart, W., Dickman, A., Holmes, G., Lorimer, J., Loveridge, A. J., Macdonald, D. W., Marvin, G., Redpath, S., et al. (2017) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.12859 · Cited by 277
Self-citationRangeland Systems: Processes, Management and Challenges
(2017) · Springer Series on Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46709-2 · Cited by 197
Lessons From 20 Years of Human–Elephant Conflict Mitigation in Africa
Hoare, R. (2015) · Human Dimensions of Wildlife · doi:10.1080/10871209.2015.1005855 · Cited by 128
Socioeconomic Benefits of Large Carnivore Recolonization Through Reduced Wildlife‐Vehicle Collisions
Gilbert, S. L., Sivy, K. J., Pozzanghera, C. B., DuBour, A., Overduijn, K., Smith, M. M., Zhou, J., Little, J. M., & Prugh, L. R. (2017) · Conservation Letters · doi:10.1111/conl.12280 · Cited by 94
Metadata
- Authors
- Dickman, A. J., Macdonald, E. A., & Macdonald, D. W.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2011-08-22
- Volume
- 108
- Issue
- 34
- Pages
- 13937-13944
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W2164330956
- Cited by
- 465
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human–carnivore coexistence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1012972108
- The paper
- Dickman, A. J., Macdonald, E. A., & Macdonald, D. W. (2011). A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human–carnivore coexistence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012972108
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.