Introduce alternative income sources to replace hunting or harvesting of reptiles

Overall effectiveness category Awaiting assessment
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

not assessed
Certainty

not assessed
Harms

not assessed

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Introducing appropriate alternative income-generating activities may reduce the reliance of communities on earning money from collecting/hunting and selling wild animals, and in turn reduce the collecting/hunting pressure on wild populations. Studies in this section should ideally directly test the effect of the intervention on wild populations, as well as the income benefits and participation levels within the communities.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on reptile populations of introducing alternative income sources to replace hunting or harvesting of reptile populations. This study was in St Kitts¹.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (1 STUDY)

Human behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in St Kitts¹ found that fishers that took jobs on a turtle management project reported that they ceased turtle fishing activity.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A before-and-after study in 2006–2009 in St Kitts (Stewart et al. 2016) found that offering alternative livelihoods relating to sea turtle management to sea turtle fishers resulted in fishers reporting that they had ceased turtle fishing activity. Fishers that accepted jobs on the turtle management project reported that they had stopped harvesting sea turtles as a result. Prior to this, fishers reported that they caught between 25 and 100 turtles/year. In 2006, an initial survey of seven fishers was carried out that assessed how dependent fishers were on the sea turtles and how many they were capturing. Fishers that expressed interest in a Fishers’ Technician Programme were offered positions on the turtle management project. Those fishers that took up positions on the technician programme subsequently reported on their sea turtle harvesting activities (details of reporting method are unclear).
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Stewart K.M., Norton T.M., Tackes D.S. & Mitchell M.A. (2016) Leatherback ecotourism development, implementation, and outcome assessment in St. Kitts, West Indies. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 15, 197-205.

Please cite as:

Sainsbury K.A., Morgan W.H., Watson M., Rotem G., Bouskila A., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2021) Reptile Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for reptiles. Conservation Evidence Series Synopsis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Reptile Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Commercially breed reptiles to reduce pressure on wild populations Action Link	Awaiting assessment	1	Synopsis Link
Regulate wildlife harvesting Action Link	Awaiting assessment	4	Synopsis Link
Introduce alternative income sources to replace hunting or harvesting of reptiles Action Link	Awaiting assessment	1	Synopsis Link