Avoiding parachute science when addressing conflict over wildlife

Abstract As a solutions‐oriented discipline, our attention is often placed on the substance of conservation challenges. Ideally, conservation science is relevant for policy and practice, contributing relevant data to fill key knowledge gaps. Thus, the data value is not only determined by methodological rigor, but also by its usefulness. In this perspective, we contend that trust in the purpose and process of data collection is integral to evidence‐based conservation and threatened by parachute science. We describe the substance, process, and relationships involved in the establishment of a community‐based reporting network for evaluating conflict responses and interventions to wildlife damage. We demonstrate how reflection on the process of science can provide the foundation for meaningful collaboration. We illustrate how, as a multinational team, supporting local researchers to establish a community‐based program, trust and demonstration of a long‐term commitment are essential to avoid the pitfalls of parachute science.

Abstract licence: CC BY

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.