The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effect of Local Cultural Context on the Success of Community‐Based Conservation Interventions
Open accessAbstract
Abstract: Conservation interventions require evaluation to understand what factors predict success or failure. To date, there has been little systematic investigation of the effect of social and cultural context on conservation success, although a large body of literature argues it is important. We investigated whether local cultural context, particularly local institutions and the efforts of interventions to engage with this culture significantly influence conservation outcomes. We also tested the effects of community participation, conservation education, benefit provision, and market integration. We systematically reviewed the literature on community‐based conservation and identified 68 interventions suitable for inclusion. We used a protocol to extract and code information and evaluated a range of measures of outcome success (attitudinal, behavioral, ecological, and economic). We also examined the association of each predictor with each outcome measure and the structure of predictor covariance. Local institutional context influenced intervention outcomes, and interventions that engaged with local institutions were more likely to succeed. Nevertheless, there was limited support for the role of community participation, conservation education, benefit provision, and market integration on intervention success. We recommend that conservation interventions seek to understand the societies they work with and tailor their activities accordingly. Systematic reviews are a valuable approach for assessing conservation evidence, although sensitive to the continuing lack of high‐quality reporting on conservation interventions.
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
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482
A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales
Cohen, J. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000104 · Cited by 42,398
Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action
Ostrom, E. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511807763 · Cited by 20,653
Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit
Cohen, J. (1968) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0026256 · Cited by 8,736
Agresti, A. (2002) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471249688 · Cited by 6,746
A Direct Approach to False Discovery Rates
Storey, J. D. (2002) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00346 · Cited by 5,603
North, D. C. (1991) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.5.1.97 · Cited by 5,232
Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation
Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. C. (1999) · World Development · doi:10.1016/s0305-750x(98)00161-2 · Cited by 2,908
Measures of Association for Cross Classifications
Goodman, L. A., & Kruskal, W. H. (1979) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-9995-0 · Cited by 2,244
Rethinking Community‐Based Conservation
BERKES, F. (2004) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00077.x · Cited by 1,884
Cited by
A Guide to Understanding Social Science Research for Natural Scientists
MOON, K., & BLACKMAN, D. (2014) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.12326 · Cited by 678
Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., Silvius, K. M., & Soares-Filho, B. S. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1214786110 · Cited by 592
Kareiva, P., & Marvier, M. (2012) · BioScience · doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.5 · Cited by 566
Management strategy evaluation: a powerful tool for conservation?
Bunnefeld, N., Hoshino, E., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2011) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.05.003 · Cited by 253
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- WAYLEN, K. A., FISCHER, A., MCGOWAN, P. J. K., THIRGOOD, S. J., & MILNER‐GULLAND, E. J.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-07-15
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1119-1129
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W1519629334
- Cited by
- 318
- References
- 50
- FWCI
- 11.43
- 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: Effect of Local Cultural Context on the Success of Community‐Based Conservation Interventions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01446.x
- The paper
- WAYLEN, K. A., FISCHER, A., MCGOWAN, P. J. K., THIRGOOD, S. J., & MILNER‐GULLAND, E. J. (2010). Effect of Local Cultural Context on the Success of Community‐Based Conservation Interventions. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01446.x
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.