Intervene or wait? Modelling the timing of intervention in conservation conflicts adaptive management under uncertainty

The timing of biodiversity managers’ interventions can be critical to the success of conservation, especially in situations of conflict between conservation objectives and human livelihood, i.e., conservation conflicts. Given the uncertainty associated with complex social-ecological systems and the potentially irreversible consequences of delayed action for biodiversity and livelihoods, managers tend to simply intervene as soon as possible by precaution. However, refraining from intervening when the situation allows it can be beneficial, notably by saving critical management resources. Here, we introduce a strategy for managers to decide, based on monitoring, whether intervention is required or if waiting is possible. This study evaluates the performance of this waiting strategy compared to a strategy of unconditional intervention at every opportunity. We built an individual-based model of conservation conflict between a manager aiming to conserve an animal population and farmers aiming to maximize yield by protecting their crop from wildlife damage. We then simulated a budget-constrained adaptive management over time applying each strategy, while accounting for uncertainty around population dynamics and around decision-making of managers and farmers. Our results showed that when the decision for the manager to intervene was based on a prediction of population size trajectory, the waiting strategy performed at least as well as unconditional intervention while also allowing managers to save resources by avoiding unnecessary interventions. Under difficult budgetary constraints on managers, this waiting strategy ensured as high yields as unconditional intervention while significantly improving conservation outcomes by compensating managers’ lack of resources with the benefits accrued over waiting periods. This suggests that waiting strategies are worth considering in conservation conflicts, as they can facilitate equitable management with a more efficient use of management resources, which are often limiting in biodiversity conservation.

Review of Work-Life Balance Theories

Objective - This paper’s objective is to make a comprehensive compilation of the various theories used in studies of work-life balance (WLB) in order to understand their usage. Methodology/Technique – Based on past literature, this paper focused on review of relevant literature from various online data bases as well as manual texts of studies on WLB with particular attention on the theories used. Using descriptive layout, the paper gives adequate review of WLB theories. Finding – This paper found that there are numerous prevailing theories on WLB explaining the relationships in various WLB studies. Such as Overall Appraisal, Structural Functionalism, Enhancement, Facilitation, Segmentation Spill-over, Compensation, Conservation, Conflict, Human Capital, Congruence, Ladder, Instrumental, Resource drain, Ecology, Border, Boundary and Integration Theories. Based on literature, this paper found that Boundary theory and Border theory are the two major foundation theories used in many studies to explain the different aspects of WLB. Novelty - This paper found that there are no universally accepted theories for WLB. Theories used on WLB studies depend on the range of the study’s framework, variables or perspectives of the study. This leads to omissions or overlapping in frameworks. Type of Paper: Review JEL Classification: B54, D63, E24, J24. Keywords: Work-life Balance; WLB Concepts; Work-Life Balance Theories; Family-Work Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Bello, Z; Tanko, G.I. (2020). Review of Work-Life Balance Theories, GATR Global J. Bus. Soc. Sci. Review, 8(4): 217 – 227. https://doi.org/10.35609/gjbssr.2020.8.4(3)

Climate change contributing to conflicts between livestock farming and guanaco conservation in central Chile: a subjective theories approach

Negative interactions between guanacos Lama guanicoe and ranchers have recently intensified in central Chile because guanacos are perceived to be competing with livestock for pasture resources. We examined this conservation conflict with a novel approach that considers ranchers' subjective theories, to better understand the origins of the conflict and to identify effective conservation measures based on the participants' explanations. Our findings indicate that ranchers see the source of the current problem in a shift towards increasingly arid conditions associated with climate change. We suggest the ranchers’ perceived problems are not only caused by interspecific resource competition arising from this climatic shift, but also by reported difficulties in negotiating with governmental institutions. This study adds to knowledge of human–wildlife interactions by exploring a further dimension of the complex ecological and social interactions taking place on livestock farms. We recommend identifying effective, acceptable solutions by considering and understanding the everyday knowledge of the conflict's protagonists and their potential for change.

Transforming conflict over natural resources: a socio-ecological systems analysis of agricultural drainage

Agricultural drainage is a complicated and often conflict-ridden natural resource management issue, impacting contested ecosystem services related to the retention of wetlands as well as the productivity of farmland. This research identifies opportunities to transform the conflict over agricultural drainage in Saskatchewan, Canada, towards collaboration. We report on ethnographic research informed by a conservation conflict-transformation framework to evaluate the nature of the conflict and whether drivers of the conflict operate principally at the level of disputes over discrete ecosystem services or if they reach deeper into local social circumstances and build on larger unresolved conflict(s) among groups in the region. In addition to the conflict-transformation framework, we apply the Social–Ecological Systems Framework to elicit details regarding the substantive, relational, and material dimensions of this conflict. Our research suggests that processes for governing natural resources, such as those in place for governing drainage in Saskatchewan, need to have mechanisms to facilitate relationship building and shared understandings, need to be adaptable to people’s changing needs and concerns, and should focus on inclusivity and empowerment of actors to address conflict.