The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The sleeping policeman: understanding issues of enforcement and compliance in conservation
Open accessAbstract
Rules governing human behaviour are at the heart of every system of natural resource management. Without compliance, however, rules are meaningless so effective enforcement is essential if conservation is to be successful. There is a large body of theory concerning enforcement and compliance with rules spread over several disciplines, including psychology, economics and sociology. However, there have been few attempts to extend this theory to conservation applications and there is little practical guidance for managers and conservation planners on the optimal design of enforcement programmes. We review approaches to understanding why individuals break rules and how optimal policy choices can reduce rule‐breaking, highlighting research which has specifically dealt with natural resources. Because of the difficulty of studying rule‐breaking behaviour directly, modelling approaches have been particularly important and have been used to explore behaviour at the individual, group and institutional levels. We illustrate the application of models of enforcement and compliance to conservation using the African elephant Loxodonta africana as a case study. Further work is needed to create practical tools which can be applied to the design of enforcement measures in conservation. Particular challenges include understanding the importance of violations of rationality assumptions and incorporating intertemporal choice in models of decision making. In conclusion, we argue that a new field of robust theory and practice is urgently needed to ensure that issues of enforcement and compliance do not undermine conservation initiatives.
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
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122574 · Cited by 15,467
Olson, M. (1965) · doi:10.4159/9780674041660 · Cited by 14,191
Altruistic punishment in humans
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/415137a · Cited by 5,616
Tyler, T. R. (2006) · doi:10.1515/9781400828609 · Cited by 5,156
Altruistic punishment and the origin of cooperation
Fowler, J. H. (2005) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0500938102 · Cited by 473
Cited by
Governance matters: climate change, corruption, and livelihoods in Bangladesh
Rahman, M. A. (2018) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2139-9 · Cited by 63
Metadata
- Authors
- Keane, A., Jones, J. P. G., Edwards‐Jones, G., & Milner‐Gulland, E. J.
- Venue
- Animal Conservation
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-03-27
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 75-82
- ISSN
- 1367-9430 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1795
- OpenAlex
- W1966746644
- Cited by
- 350
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 10.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
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.