Elsevier

Journal of Environmental Management

Volume 153, 15 April 2015, Pages 134-143
Journal of Environmental Management

Review
Understanding and managing compliance in the nature conservation context

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.02.013Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Nature conservation requires peoples' rule compliance.

  • Environmental noncompliance is among the world's largest illegal activities.

  • Tools for compliance management are scattered in a wide array of literature.

  • This paper offers solutions to understand and manage compliance in conservation.

Abstract

Nature conservation relies largely on peoples' rule adherence. However, noncompliance in the conservation context is common: it is one of the largest illegal activities in the world, degrading societies, economies and the environment. Understanding and managing compliance is key for ensuring effective conservation, nevertheless crucial concepts and tools are scattered in a wide array of literature. Here I review and integrate these concepts and tools in an effort to guide compliance management in the conservation context. First, I address the understanding of compliance by breaking it down into five key questions: who?, what?, when?, where? and why?. A special focus is given to ‘why?’ because the answer to this question explains the reasons for compliance and noncompliance, providing critical information for management interventions. Second, I review compliance management strategies, from voluntary compliance to coerced compliance. Finally, I suggest a system, initially proposed for tax compliance, to balance these multiple compliance management strategies. This paper differs from others by providing a broad yet practical scope on theory and tools for understanding and managing compliance in the nature conservation context.

Introduction

Central to nature conservation, from species to ecosystem scales, is the regulation of human activities. Countless regulations are set towards nature conservation; however, noncompliance is often the rule rather than the exception. Illegal wildlife trade; illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; and illegal timber trade are amongst the largest illicit activities in the world (Haken, 2011). The impacts of noncompliance in the conservation context can be broad. Illegal fishing, for example, affects food security, causes the loss of millions of dollars of catch, and drives overexploitation and environmental degradation (MRAG, 2005). Impacts from noncompliance can be extreme, driving extinctions (Branch et al., 2013, Wilkie et al., 2011), and even the death of poachers and the murder of rangers (Dudley et al., 2013). Surprisingly, compliance receives relatively little focus in the conservation literature when compared to other aspects of conservation. However, key concepts and tools that help understand and manage compliance are dispersed in a wide array of literature, including sociology and economics. This review is aimed at conservation practitioners,1 and it expands on recent contributions by integrating key concepts and tools from other disciplines.

Here, compliance means adherence to rules related to natural resource use and conservation. Compliance can be interpreted as dichotomous or as a gradation of behaviour. As a dichotomy, the term compliance refers to whether a person or system adheres to rules or not. More realistically, as a gradation, compliance refers to the degree of adherence to rules, as when a person breaks some rules but not all, or respects rules most of the time, but not always. A gradation of compliance could be represented by continuous values or categories such as ‘high’, ‘medium’ or ‘low’. So the words ‘compliance’ and ‘noncompliance’ are opposites that, as a dichotomy, allow only two values, or lie at either end of a gradation and allow intermediate values.

Compliance management is improved by understanding the factors describing and causing compliance. Here I explore compliance using the Kiping Method or 5W's (who?, what?, where?, when?, and—perhaps the most vital—why?). I consider each of the W's, focussing on ‘why?’, and then suggest a system for managing compliance (Fig. 1). Because of the breadth of compliance in the nature conservation context this is not intended to be an exhaustive review, but rather one that enriches the literature, and facilitates discussion and, most importantly—action.

Section snippets

The 5W's

Journalists and law enforcement officers typically use the 5W's to gather a complete story. Here I use the same tool, breaking down compliance in the following questions, with no particular order: 1) Who complies (or not)?; 2) What is the noncompliance act?; 3) Where is noncompliance occurring?; 4) When is noncompliance occurring?; and 5) Why is compliance (or noncompliance) occurring?

Managing compliance

Not all people comply, and not all of them comply for the same reasons. Hence there is a need for comprehensive compliance management strategies, even when compliance is prevalent. Compliance can be voluntary or coerced, and each strategy should correspond to a particular type of individual: varying from the always compliant to the repeat and blatant offenders (Fig. 1). Perverse outcomes can arise when a strategy is misapplied. For example, a hiker who unintentionally enters a closed area in a

Conclusion

Noncompliance can render a rule ineffective—defeating the rule's purpose. Nature conservation requires compliance. The concepts and tools that I describe here provide solid foundations for compliance management in the nature conservation context. However, the operationalization of compliance management is context dependent and requires ongoing adaptation. The multiple examples provided in this review demonstrate the diversity of ways in which compliance managers can gather information and

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Sam Ham for introducing me to and guiding me through the fascinating tangle of human behaviour. I thank Josh Cinner, Brock Bergseth, Jorge Álvarez-Romero, Bob Pressey, Reg Parsons and John Knott for their input. I also express gratitude to the Australian Research Council, and the Australian people for support through AusAID.

References (116)

  • C.A. Klöckner

    A comprehensive model of the psychology of environmental behaviour—A meta-analysis

    Glob. Environ. Change

    (2013)
  • T. Kuemmerle et al.

    Forest cover change and illegal logging in the Ukrainian Carpathians in the transition period from 1988 to 2007

    Remote Sens. Environ.

    (2009)
  • W.F. Laurance

    A crisis in the making: responses of Amazonian forests to land use and climate change

    Trends Ecol. Evol.

    (1998)
  • J.K. Lein

    Implementing remote sensing strategies to support environmental compliance assessment: a neural network application

    Environ. Sci. Policy

    (2009)
  • C. Leisher et al.

    Measuring the benefits and costs of community education and outreach in marine protected areas

    Mar. Policy

    (2012)
  • K.K.W. Mak et al.

    Cyanide fishing and cyanide detection in coral reef fish using chemical tests and biosensors

    Biosens. Bioelectron.

    (2005)
  • T.R. McClanahan et al.

    A comparison of marine protected areas and alternative approaches to coral-reef management

    Curr. Biol.

    (2006)
  • N.L. Peluso

    Coercing conservation?: the politics of state resource control

    Glob. Environ. Change

    (1993)
  • C.H. Ainsworth et al.

    Full compliance with harvest regulations yields ecological benefits: Northern Gulf of California case study

    J. Appl. Ecol.

    (2012)
  • I. Ajzen

    Theory of Planned Behaviour

    (2013)
  • I. Ajzen et al.

    The influence of attitudes on behavior

  • A.S. Akella et al.

    Strengthening the Weakest Links: Strategies for Improving the Enforcement of Environmental Laws Globally: Center for Conservation and Government at Conservation International

    (2004)
  • J. Alder

    Costs and effectiveness of education and enforcement, Cairns Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

    Environ. Manag.

    (1996)
  • A. Arias et al.

    Optimizing enforcement and compliance in offshore marine protected areas: a case study from Cocos Island, Costa Rica

    Oryx

    (2014)
  • A. Arias et al.

    Understanding recreational fishers' compliance with no-take zones in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

    Ecol. Soc.

    (2013)
  • J. Baker et al.

    Linking protected area conservation with poverty alleviation in Uganda: integrated conservation and development at Bwindi impenetrable National Park

  • A. Balmford et al.

    Fusion or failure? the future of conservation biology

    Conserv. Biol.

    (2006)
  • N.C. Ban et al.

    A social–ecological approach to conservation planning: embedding social considerations

    Front. Ecol. Environ.

    (2013)
  • G.S. Becker

    Crime and punishment: an economic approach

  • B.J. Bergseth et al.

    Measuring and monitoring compliance in no-take marine reserves

    Fish Fish.

    (2013)
  • F. Berkes et al.

    Globalization, roving bandits, and marine resources

    Science

    (2006)
  • V. Braithwaite et al.

    An evolving compliance model for tax enforcement

  • S.D. Brooke et al.

    Surveillance and Enforcement of Remote Maritime Areas. Paper 1: Surveillance Technical Options

    (2010)
  • T.J. Brown et al.

    Picking up litter: an application of theory-based communication to influence tourist behaviour in protected areas

    J. Sustain. Tour.

    (2010)
  • R.B. Cialdini

    Crafting normative messages to protect the environment

    Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci.

    (2003)
  • R.B. Cialdini et al.

    Social influence: compliance and conformity

    Annu. Rev. Psychol.

    (2004)
  • R.B. Cialdini et al.

    A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places

    J. Personal. Soc. Psychol.

    (1990)
  • J.E. Cinner

    Poverty and the use of destructive fishing gear near east African marine protected areas

    Environ. Conserv.

    (2010)
  • J.E. Cinner et al.

    Comanagement of coral reef social-ecological systems

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA

    (2012)
  • L. Clayton et al.

    Bringing home the bacon: a spatial model of wild pig hunting in Sulawesi

    Indones. Ecol. Appl.

    (1997)
  • J. Colding et al.

    Social taboos: “Invisible” systems of local resource management and biological conservation

    Ecol. Appl.

    (2001)
  • K.L.F. Davis et al.

    Surveillance and poaching on inshore reefs of the great barrier reef Marine park

    Coast. Manag.

    (2004)
  • E.L. Deci et al.

    A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation

    Psychol. Bull.

    (1999)
  • A. Dell'Apa et al.

    The influence of culture on the international management of shark finning

    Environ. Manag.

    (2014)
  • N. Dudley et al.

    Wildlife crime poses unique challenges to protected areas

    Parks

    (2013)
  • S.L. Eliason et al.

    Techniques of neutralization used by deer poachers in the western united states: a research note

    Deviant Behav.

    (1999)
  • M. Fabinyi

    Illegal fishing and masculinity in the Philippines: a look at the Calamianes Islands in Palawan

    Philipp. Stud.

    (2007)
  • E. Fehr et al.

    The nature of human altruism

    Nature

    (2003)
  • P.J. Ferraro et al.

    Quantifying causal mechanisms to determine how protected areas affect poverty through changes in ecosystem services and infrastructure

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.

    (2014)
  • Cited by (126)

    • Social networks that shape conservation outcomes

      2024, Environmental Science and Policy
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text