five years before transference the presence of civilian targeting is similar in protected areas that will be transferred to AP and in those that will not be (Figure S13a). As in our tourism analysis, we prefer binary measures of conflict in order to reduce potential measurement error stemming from reporting bias (SI A.6 and Figure S15). However, it is important to note that we do not find an effect of AP management on the number of civilian targeting events (Figure S16). We also find no clear evidence that AP changes the probability of any battles occurring within 25 km of the protected areas it manages, nor does AP appear to affect the probability of any protests and riots within 25 km of the protected areas it manages (Figure 3, Rows 7-8).

# **2.5 Mechanisms**

Which aspects of AP management might explain its capacity to improve wildlife conservation and tourism but exacerbate one form of conflict? We utilize survey data on management practices recorded with the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) [74]. METT is a standardized questionnaire that is typically filled out as a group exercise among protected area managers and other stakeholders [75, 76]. It is designed to characterize the management and governance of protected areas by quantifying aspects such as planning, resource levels, law enforcement, and stakeholder involvement. These data are self-reported and only available for some protected areas and years; nonetheless, they represent the best opportunity to quantitatively understand the ways in which AP management differs from government management of protected areas.

Following previous research, we group responses to the METT’s 30 questions into four distinct categories [53, 76]:

**Design and Planning:** This category captures the legal framework of the protected area and whether its strategic design and planning promote effective operations [77]. AP management increases this dimension by 0.683 standard deviations, reflecting AP’s proactive and robust planning approach, although this effect is not statistically significant due to the limited METT data available (Table 1).

**Capacity and Resources:** This dimension relates to the availability and management of resources, including staff count and budget. Effective management requires adequate resources and capacities, encompassing well-trained staff and sufficient equipment to enforce regulations, diminish threats, and enhance ecological conditions [76, 77]. We find an increase of 0.581 standard deviations in this category due to AP management, signifying AP’s effective fundraising and resource management (Table 1). However, this effect is also not statistically significant.

**Monitoring and Enforcement Systems:** This category assesses the enforcement capacity of the protected area, evaluates if its legal framework permits action against the protected area’s primary threats, and measures understanding of the biological conditions within the protected area. AP management significantly improves this dimension, with an increase of 0.926 standard deviations (Table 1). This result aligns with AP’s focus on law enforcement and monitoring.

**Decision-Making Inclusiveness:** This dimension pertains to stakeholder involvement and their influence on management decisions. Including diverse stakeholders can improve the perceived legitimacy of the protected area and facilitate its

11