Diversionary feeding: an effective management strategy for conservation conflict?

Kubasiewicz, L. M., Bunnefeld, N., Tulloch, A. I. T., Quine, C. P. and Park, K. J. (2015) Diversionary feeding: an effective management strategy for conservation conflict?. Biodiversity and Conservation, 25 1: 1-22. doi:10.1007/s10531-015-1026-1

Author Kubasiewicz, L. M.
Bunnefeld, N.
Tulloch, A. I. T.
Quine, C. P.
Park, K. J.
Title Diversionary feeding: an effective management strategy for conservation conflict?
Journal name Biodiversity and Conservation   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1572-9710
Publication date 2015-11-20
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.1007/s10531-015-1026-1
Open Access Status DOI
Volume 25
Issue 1
Start page 1
End page 22
Total pages 22
Place of publication Dordrecht, Netherlands
Publisher Springer Netherlands
Language eng
Subject 1105 Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
2303 Ecology
2309 Nature and Landscape Conservation
Abstract Human population growth has led to increased contact between people and wildlife, with adverse impacts for both, such as damage to economic crops and wildlife persecution. Diversionary feeding, where food is used to draw animals away from problem activities or locations, is sometimes proposed as a socially acceptable conservation action, but little information exists on its success or what influences its efficacy. Here, we review literature on diversionary feeding and evaluate factors contributing to its success or failure. Success varied greatly among studies and successful uptake of diversionary food did not consistently produce outcomes that met stakeholder objectives. Studies often failed to report results in sufficient detail to allow a quantitative evaluation of efficiency. Of 30 trials presented in 21 studies, 13 enabled assessment of outcomes related to the ultimate objective of reducing conflict (related to threatened prey density, crop yield or nuisance reports) and only five of these were considered successful by the researchers conducting the study. A grand mean increase of 15 % in respective measures of success at the outcome stage was found across all studies. Although diversionary feeding is considered expensive, cost-effectiveness analyses were rarely conducted. Only a third of studies reported information on costs and benefits that could be used to inform future management actions. We propose a decision-making framework that incorporates ecological knowledge, financial costs and evidence from previous studies to aid the planning and implementation of diversionary feeding in an adaptive format. Future studies of diversionary feeding should clearly report objectives, results, costs and effort to allow the return-on-investment to be calculated for different levels of management effort.
Keyword Conflict mitigation
Conservation management
Cost-effectiveness analysis
Decision analysis
Human-wildlife conflict
Supplementary feeding
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: Official 2016 Collection
School of Biological Sciences Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 9 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 10 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 08 Dec 2015, 10:28:35 EST by System User on behalf of Scholarly Communication and Digitisation Service