Design, monitoring and evaluation of a direct payments approach for an ecotourism strategy to reduce illegal hunting and trade of wildlife in Lao PDR.

Paul Frederick Eshoo,Arlyne Johnson,Troy Hansel,Sivilay Duangdala,Stephanie S. Romanach

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186133

Paul Frederick Eshoo, Arlyne Johnson + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186133

Copy DOI

Journal: PloS one	Publication Date: Feb 28, 2018
Citations: 26	License type: CC BY 4.0

Affiliation: Wildlife Conservation Society Laos

Abstract

Ecotourism as a strategy for achieving biodiversity conservation often results in limited conservation impact relative to its investment and revenue return. In cases where an ecotourism strategy has been used, projects are frequently criticized for not providing sufficient evidence on how the strategy has reduced threats or improved the status of the biodiversity it purports to protect. In Lao PDR, revenue from ecotourism has not been directly linked to or dependent on improvements in biodiversity and there is no evidence that ecotourism enterprises have contributed to conservation. In other developing countries, direct payments through explicit contracts in return for ecosystem services have been proposed as a more cost-effective means for achieving conservation, although further research is needed to evaluate the impact of this approach. To address this need, a new model was tested in the Nam Et-Phou Louey National Protected Area (NPA) in Lao PDR using a direct payments approach to create ecotourism incentives for villagers to increase wildlife populations. Over a four-year period, we monitored along a theory of change to evaluate assumptions about the linkages between intermediate results and biological outcomes. Preliminary results show a negative correlation between ecotourism benefits and hunting infractions in target villages; no increase in hunting sign in the ecotourism sector of the NPA relative to a three-fold increase in hunting sign across the NPA’s non-tourism sectors; and an overall increase in wildlife sightings. This case provides key lessons on the design of a direct payments approach for an ecotourism strategy, including how to combine threat monitoring and data on wildlife sightings to evaluate strategy effectiveness, on setting rates for wildlife sightings and village fees, and the utility of the approach for protecting very rare species.

Highlights

IntroductionThe assumption of an indirect payments approach is that increased income from an ecotourism operation will result in those benefitting from ecotourism (e.g., communities, private sector, etc.) placing a greater value on biodiversity and acting to conserve it—without an explicit agreement to do so [3, 4]
Our theory of change (TOC), which is a string of expected outcomes that result from implementing a conservation strategy [39, 40] [Fig 2] hypothesized that if all potential hunters have an economic stake in protecting wildlife by sharing the financial benefits of ecotourism, and if these benefits are pegged to the actual numbers of wildlife viewed by tourists, a positive loop of increasing benefits and wildlife could be created
Hunting catch per unit effort (CPU) may, be too technical for rural communities to understand when negotiating community-based direct payment agreements, in which case infractions would be the preferred threat indicator. The assumptions of this ecotourism strategy were that increased income from payments for wildlife sightings would reduce threats of illegal hunting and trade and increase wildlife sightings as an indicator of wildlife abundance

Summary

Introduction

The assumption of an indirect payments approach is that increased income from an ecotourism operation will result in those benefitting from ecotourism (e.g., communities, private sector, etc.) placing a greater value on biodiversity and acting to conserve it—without an explicit agreement to do so [3, 4]. Implicit in this assumption when applied in developing countries is that rising incomes from ecotourism will contribute to poverty reduction that will lead to reduced dependence on natural resources as well as increased support from ecotourism beneficiaries for regulations to conserve the biodiversity upon which the ecotourism is based. There is valid concern that ecotourism projects have typically not provided evidence to validate the assumption that ecotourism reduces threats and leads to positive changes in the status of biodiversity, which leaves conservation project managers with no clear guidance as to whether or not an investment in ecotourism as a strategy for achieving conservation is effective or not [5, 6]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion