22 R. A. Shidqi et al.


Tenggara marine protected area network, they can provide legal support for thresher shark protection. As of 2021, the provincial government administered .700,000 ha of marine protected areas (Dinas Kelautan dan Perikanan Provinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur, 2021).


Community outreach and pride We conducted commu- nity outreach and campaigns via the Thresher Shark Conservation Champion initiative, inspired by the environ- mental leadership and ambassador model programme (Batbold, 2020; Sandbrook et al., 2021). The initiative in- cluded open recruitment via extensive outreach to local youth and religious groups, to engage young people as am- bassadors to raise awareness of thresher shark conservation in Alor’s coastal villages and schools. Selected participants followed a 1-week training programme that covered effective communication, community engagement, governance, regulations relating to sharks and marine environments, and project planning (Kapos et al., 2008; BirdLlife International, 2012). The project planning module taught participants to lead and evaluate creative outreach pro- grammes (e.g. radio announcements, school education, seminars). After the training, the participants, which were now referred to as champions of the project, received small grants (USD 200–400) and remuneration for 3–5 months of implementation in coastal schools and com- munities. Before starting on their activities, the champions were inaugurated by the district government, to make it an official district mandate and enhance pride in their ambassadorial duties.


Impact assessment


We used a combination of theory-based and statistical methods to demonstrate the impact of our intervention, with a focus on providing empirical evidence of the impacts on conservation and livelihoods and demonstrating the causal pathway by which these impacts occurred.


Theory of change Weused a theory-based method to dem- onstrate hypothesized causal links between project activ- ities, intermediate results and conservation impacts, with the latter based on changes in thresher shark catches (a proxy for mortality; Rogers & Weiss, 2007; White, 2009; Booth et al., 2021). Our theory of change (Fig. 2) then offered a conservation hypothesis, which we evaluated using amixed-methods approach.Weassessed and triangu- lated empirical evidence at each stage of the hypothesized causal chain using the project data (Booth et al., 2021). Empirical support for the theory of change was derived from various project data sources (Table 1), including pro- ject reports and supplementary materials such as sign-up sheets, meeting minutes, photographs, policy documents,


community agreements and income log sheets, to obtain in- formation on results and objectives. To describe intermedi- ate behavioural results, we analysed meeting minutes from monthly group monitoring with fishers who had adopted al- ternative livelihoods. We categorized perceptions in terms of attitudes, norms and perceived control based on the the- ory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1985; St John et al., 2010; Booth et al., 2023). We coded and grouped the common themes and salient beliefs that emerged during themeetings, focusing on understanding the intentions of individuals (i.e. whether they were inclined to revert to thresher fish- ing) based on their behavioural and normative beliefs.


Statistical analysis We collected pelagic thresher catch data, which served as a proxy for mortality, during March 2021–November 2023 to assess conservation outcomes. An independent enumerator trained by the project team was tasked with gathering these data with authorization from the village government and community members.However, we utilized only data collected after the intervention as we had insufficient pre-intervention data. We divided the data among three groups of fishers: (1) participant target group (n = 9), who voluntarily transitioned to alternative livelihoods, (2) non-participant target group (n = 2), who continued targeted thresher fishing and were not part of the intervention group, and (3) other non-target fishers (n = 16), who engaged in opportunistic thresher fishing for sup- plementary income. To test whether the livelihood-based intervention had a positive impact on thresher shark conser- vation, we conducted a simple t test to compare mean monthly shark catches after the intervention (August 2021–November 2023) across the groups, whereby the non- participants and other fishers were used as non- experimental quasi-control groups who did not receive the intervention (Supplementary Table 1). We used an F test to determine variance in monthly catch data across these groups for the t test (Supplementary Table 2). We used self-reported monthly income to assess liveli-


hood outputs. We were unable to collect income data for non-participants and other fishers; therefore we compared the reported income of participant fishers before and during the intervention to assess changes. We conducted a t test to assess whether these differences were statistically significant.


Results


Livelihoods-based intervention The alternative livelihoods commenced in July 2021, with nine of the 27 thresher shark fishers voluntarily participating. Nine women formed a group to set up small and medium enterprises; some were the wives of the shark fishers. Leadership roles, rules and sanctions were formalized with the assistance of the project team. Group members signed agreements, witnessed by the


Oryx, 2025, 59(1), 19–30 © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605324001376


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140