Effectiveness of a Social Marketing Strategy, Coupled With Law Enforcement, to Conserve Tigers and Their Prey in Nam Et Phou Louey National Protected Area, Lao People’s Democratic Republic

The intervention compared the 36 villages where the campaign was carried out to 21 control villages, and showed promising results in changing village attitudes and reducing hunting pressure on wildlife.

Remove Excuses - The study identified three important audiences: illegal and legal hunters in the community (for this study), villagers, and government officers. It employed a social marketing campaign that aimed at shifting behavior through several stages: increasing knowledge of hunting regulations and the importance of sustainable hunting for local food security; fostering a positive attitude toward these regulations and their enforcement; promoting interpersonal communication about these topics; addressing barriers to compliance (such as by establishing a wildlife crime hotline); and, leading to behavioral change, such as reporting illegal hunting. Increase the Risk - The Wildlife Crime Unit was restructured and trained to improve enforcement and response to wildlife crime incidents.

The case study described pre-implementation context analysis to inform the intervention. Stakeholder meetings were conducted involving government officials, local villagers, biologists, and NGO staff, and these meetings aimed to validate and adapt existing conceptual models, understand the causes of ungulate decline, rank threats to tigers and their prey, and identify barriers to public participation in conservation efforts. This analysis highlighted illegal hunting as a key threat and the lack of reporting options as a major barrier, leading to the development of the social marketing campaign and the Wildlife Crime Hotline. The case study also provided some details on aspects of the context that influenced the intervention's mechanisms. For instance, prior existence of similar but less intensive outreach activities conducted by the National Protected Area seemingly contributed to the positive baseline knowledge and attitude toward conservation in the control site. Additionally, the district in the control site has historically been more supportive of National Protected Area regulations, suggesting that existing levels of community support could have influenced the effectiveness of the interventions.

The case study provided information on multiple implementation elements, including: Time: The social marketing campaign was designed and conducted from April 2009 to August 2010. Pre-campaign surveys were conducted in July 2009, and post-campaign surveys were conducted in September-October 2010. Resources: The study detailed various resources, including billboards, posters, stickers, notebooks, campaign albums, storybooks, a Muntjac mascot, t-shirts, bags, jackets, and a wildlife crime hotline. The project also organized such activities as village visits with puppet shows and hunting games, concerts, illegal hunting workshops, government workshops, and radio spots through a public address system. Partnerships: The project was a collaborative effort involving the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Rare (an international conservation organization), and the Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic, specifically the Nam Et Phou Louey National Protected Area management unit, and the Viengthong District Authorities. The case study also highlighted several key factors that contributed to the campaign's success, which included: Stakeholder Engagement: The campaign involved stakeholders from various sectors, including government agencies, NGOs, and village representatives, throughout the design and implementation process. This ensured that local knowledge and perspectives were considered and fostered ownership of the campaign. Targeted Messaging: The campaign developed specific messages for each target audience - illegal hunters, villagers, and government officers - based on their respective roles and motivations. Diverse Communication Channels: A variety of materials and activities were employed to reach the target audiences, catering to different preferences and reinforcing key messages through multiple channels. Establishment of Wildlife Crime Unit and Hotline: The revitalization of the Wildlife Crime Unit and the creation of a dedicated hotline provided a tangible mechanism for reporting illegal hunting and wildlife trade, addressing a significant barrier identified during the pre-implementation context analysis. Lastly, some of the key challenges identified by the case study included: Enforcement Risks: Enforcement activities carried risks, making Wildlife Crime Unit staff hesitant, at times, to take action. Villagers were also afraid of retaliation for reporting illegal hunting, which initially limited cooperation, however the anonymous reporting structure of the hotline allowed them to be directly removed from being identified. Communication Barriers: Limited cell phone coverage in some areas posed a challenge for communication between the hotline network and the Wildlife Crime Unit. Incentive Delays: Delays in rewarding hotline reporters posed a challenge to maintaining the informant network's motivation.

The case study does not report concrete financial costs associated with the implementation of the outlined interventions, neither does it provide a cost/benefit analysis.