Low-cost electric fencing for peaceful coexistence: An analysis of human-wildlife conflict mitigation strategies in smallholder agriculture

AbstractPrimate crop raiding is a major cause of human-wildlife conflict around the forests of western Uganda. In an attempt to ameliorate the situation a conflict mitigation strategy was established in villages around the Budongo Forest Reserve in 2001. Live-traps were constructed that allowed the identification of crop raiding animals; pest species could be disposed of and threatened species released unharmed. However, by 2004 none of the traps in the study area were functioning and interviews were conducted to assess the reasons for their decline and local people's acceptance of the intervention. Forty-one percent of respondents did not believe the strategy was effective and the majority of local farmers did not accept responsibility for the traps. This was because of operational failures in four areas: (1) the identification of key stakeholders, (2) objective evaluation to assess the efficacy and benefit of the intervention, (3) participatory monitoring and evaluation, and (4) long-term funding commitment by conservation agencies. We examine the impact of these four elements upon the sustainability of the live-trap programme and stress the importance of recognizing and reporting failures to develop effective and acceptable mitigation strategies.

Download Full-text

Human-Wildlife Conflict Mitigation Impacts Community Perceptions around Kibale National Park, Uganda

Diversity ◽

10.3390/d13040145 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (4) ◽

pp. 145

Author(s):

Lev Kolinski ◽

Krista M. Milich

Keyword(s):

National Park ◽

Mitigation Strategies ◽

Kibale National Park ◽

Crop Damage ◽

Community Members ◽

Papio Anubis ◽

Wildlife Conflict ◽

The Impact ◽

Human Wildlife Conflict ◽

Conflict Mitigation

The attitudes of community members living around protected areas are an important and often overlooked consideration for effective conservation strategies. Around Kibale National Park (KNP) in western Uganda, communities regularly face the threat of crop destruction from wildlife, including from a variety of endangered species, such as African elephants (Loxodonta africana), common chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), and red colobus monkeys (Piliocolobus tephrosceles), as well as other nonhuman primates, including olive baboons (Papio anubis). These frequent negative interactions with wildlife lead many community members to resent the park and the animals that live within it. To mitigate these issues, community members around KNP partnered with researchers to start a participatory action research project to reduce human-wildlife interactions. The project tested four sustainable human-wildlife conflict mitigation strategies: digging and maintaining trenches around the park border, installing beehive fences in swampy areas where trenches could not be dug, planting tea as a buffer, and growing garlic as a cash crop. These physical exclusion methods and agriculture-based deterrents aimed to reduce crop destruction by wild animals and improve conditions for humans and wildlife alike. We conducted oral surveys with members of participating communities and a nonparticipating community that border KNP to determine the impact of these sustainable human-wildlife conflict mitigation strategies on attitudes toward KNP, wildlife officials, and animal species in and around KNP. We found that there is a positive correlation between participation in the project and perceived benefits of living near KNP. We also found that respondents who participated in the project reported more positive feelings about the Uganda Wildlife Authority, the organization that oversees KNP. This research will help inform future conservation initiatives around KNP and other areas where humans and animals face conflict through crop damage.

Download Full-text

Indirect approach on human-wildlife conflict mitigation: potential local landscape based ecotourism in Margahayu, Labuhan Ratu VII

International Journal of Ecophysiology ◽

10.32734/ijoep.v1i2.1269 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 1 (2) ◽

pp. 81-87

Author(s):

Elly Lestari Rustiati

Keyword(s):

Plant Diversity ◽

National Park ◽

Local Economy ◽

Local People ◽

Mitigation Potential ◽

Indirect Approach ◽

Wildlife Conflict ◽

Way Kambas National Park ◽

Human Wildlife Conflict ◽

Conflict Mitigation

Human-wildlife conflict in Way Kambas National Park is still going on with some social and economic lost. Indirect conflict mitigation through the building local landscape based ecotourism was studied in Margahayu, Labuhan Ratu VII, East Lampung. Its local people awareness play important role in supporting its local economy empowerment. Besides Rumah Konservasi, potential natural track showing plant diversity, entrance point for wild elephant to the settlement, orange plantation and natural swamp was chosen for further works. Name boards were assigned.

Download Full-text

Dead or alive? Comparing costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal human–wildlife conflict mitigation on livestock farms

Oryx ◽

10.1017/s0030605313001610 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 49 (4) ◽

pp. 687-695 ◽

Cited By ~ 74

Author(s):

J. S. McManus ◽

A. J. Dickman ◽

D. Gaynor ◽

B. H. Smuts ◽

D. W. Macdonald

Keyword(s):

Control Measures ◽

First Year ◽

Costs And Benefits ◽

Lethal Control ◽

Wildlife Conflict ◽

The Mean ◽

Livestock Farms ◽

Mean Cost ◽

Human Wildlife Conflict ◽

Conflict Mitigation

AbstractLivestock depredation has implications for conservation and agronomy; it can be costly for farmers and can prompt retaliatory killing of carnivores. Lethal control measures are readily available and are reportedly perceived to be cheaper, more practical and more effective than non-lethal methods. However, the costs and efficacy of lethal vs non-lethal approaches have rarely been compared formally. We conducted a 3-year study on 11 South African livestock farms, examining costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal conflict mitigation methods. Farmers used existing lethal control in the first year and switched to guardian animals (dogs Canis familiaris and alpacas Lama pacos) or livestock protection collars for the following 2 years. During the first year the mean cost of livestock protection was USD 3.30 per head of stock and the mean cost of depredation was USD 20.11 per head of stock. In the first year of non-lethal control the combined implementation and running costs were similar to those of lethal control (USD 3.08 per head). However, the mean cost of depredation decreased by 69.3%, to USD 6.52 per head. In the second year of non-lethal control the running costs (USD 0.43 per head) were significantly lower than in previous years and depredation costs decreased further, to USD 5.49 per head. Our results suggest that non-lethal methods of human–wildlife conflict mitigation can reduce depredation and can be economically advantageous compared to lethal methods of predator control.

Download Full-text

Economic Analysis of Electric Fencing for Mitigating Human-wildlife Conflict in Nepal

Journal of Resources and Ecology ◽

10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2014.03.006 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 5 (3) ◽

pp. 237-243 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Saraswoti Sapkota ◽

Achyut Aryal ◽

Shanta Ram Baral ◽

Matt W. Hayward ◽

David Raubenheimer

Keyword(s):

Economic Analysis ◽

Wildlife Conflict ◽

Electric Fencing ◽

Human Wildlife Conflict

Download Full-text

Use of patch selection models as a decision support tool to evaluate mitigation strategies of human–wildlife conflict

Biological Conservation ◽

10.1016/j.biocon.2013.02.002 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 160 ◽

pp. 263-271 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Sharon Baruch-Mordo ◽

Colleen T. Webb ◽

Stewart W. Breck ◽

Kenneth R. Wilson

Keyword(s):

Decision Support ◽

Decision Support Tool ◽

Mitigation Strategies ◽

Patch Selection ◽

Selection Models ◽

Support Tool ◽

Wildlife Conflict ◽

Human Wildlife Conflict

Download Full-text

Community Attitude and Religious Bonding in Human-Wildlife Conflict Mitigation: A Study of Kilpura-Khatima-Surai Corridor, Terai Arc Landscape, India

Asian Journal of Environment & Ecology ◽

10.9734/ajee/2018/41957 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

pp. 1-13

Author(s):

Khima Balodi ◽

Meraj Anwar

Keyword(s):

Wildlife Conflict ◽

Community Attitude ◽

Human Wildlife Conflict ◽

Conflict Mitigation

Download Full-text

History, Location, and Species Matter: Insights for Human–Wildlife Conflict Mitigation From India

Human Dimensions of Wildlife ◽

10.1080/10871209.2017.1334106 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 331-346 ◽

Cited By ~ 24

Author(s):

Krithi K. Karanth ◽

Sahila Kudalkar

Keyword(s):

Wildlife Conflict ◽

Human Wildlife Conflict ◽

Conflict Mitigation

Download Full-text

Coexistence between human and wildlife: the nature, causes and mitigations of human wildlife conflict around Bale Mountains National Park, Southeast Ethiopia

BMC Ecology ◽

10.1186/s12898-020-00319-1 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Sefi Mekonen

Keyword(s):

National Park ◽

Local Community ◽

Group Discussion ◽

Local Communities ◽

Mitigation Strategies ◽

Crop Damage ◽

Benefit Sharing ◽

Human Settlement ◽

Wildlife Conflict ◽

Human Wildlife Conflict

Abstract Human–wildlife conflict occurs when the needs and behavior of wildlife impact negatively on humans or when humans negatively affect the needs of wildlife. To explore the nature, causes and mitigations of human wildlife conflict, the coexistence between human and wildlife assessment was conducted around Bale Mountains National Park. Data were collected by means of household questionnaires, focus group discussion, interview, field observation and secondary sources. The nature and extent of human wildlife conflict in the study area were profoundly impacted humans, wild animal and the environment through crop damage, habitat disturbance and destruction, livestock predation, and killing of wildlife and human. The major causes of conflict manifested that agricultural expansion (30%), human settlement (24%), overgrazing by livestock (14%), deforestation (18%), illegal grass collection (10%) and poaching (4%). To defend crop raider, farmers have been practiced crop guarding (34%), live fencing (26%), scarecrow (22%), chasing (14%), and smoking (5%). However, fencing (38%), chasing (30%), scarecrow (24%) and guarding (8%) were controlling techniques to defend livestock predator animals. As emphasized in this study, human–wildlife conflicts are negative impacts on both human and wildlife. Accordingly, possible mitigate possibilities for peaceful co-existence between human and wildlife should be create awareness and training to the local communities, identifying clear border between the closure area and the land owned by the residents, formulate rules and regulation for performed local communities, equal benefit sharing of the local communities and reduction of human settlement encroachment into the national park range. Generally, researcher recommended that stakeholders and concerned bodies should be creating awareness to local community for the use of wildlife and human–wildlife conflict mitigation strategies.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of Agricultural Extension Wildlife Mitigation Strategies on Human-Wildlife Conflict Among Small-Scale Maize Farmers in Laikipia County, Kenya

Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education ◽

10.5191/jiaee.2018.25105 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 25 (1) ◽

pp. 51-59

Author(s):

Ronald Orare Nyamwamu ◽

Justus Moturi Ombati

Keyword(s):

Natural Habitat ◽

Agricultural Extension ◽

Mitigation Strategies ◽

Crop Damage ◽

Primary Data ◽

Small Scale ◽

Wildlife Conflict ◽

Agricultural Industries ◽

Small Scale Farmers ◽

Human Wildlife Conflict

Agriculture is critical in the achievement of food security, employment of creation opportunities, steering economic growth, and also a source of raw materials for agricultural industries in many Sub-Saharan countries. However, farmers face various challenges which negatively affect farm productivity and production. Human-wildlife conflict is one of the most pressing challenges that smallholder maize farmers experience in some parts of Kenya. It arises from either people’s encroachment on wildlife habitats or the movement of wildlife from their natural habitat into neighboring farmland. Small-scale farmers use various agricultural extension strategies to mitigate the conflict. However, the effectiveness of the agricultural extension mitigation strategies adopted by smallholder maize farmers in Laikipia County had not been investigated and information on the same was inadequate and poorly documented. This study sought to determine the effectiveness of the agricultural extension wildlife conflict mitigation strategies adopted by smallholder maize farmers in Laikipia County. Whereas a document review guide was used to collect secondary data, semi-structured questionnaires were used to collect primary data from maize farmers and extension agents. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze primary data. It was established that crop damage was very severe, even up to 70% per cropping season although farmers used mitigation strategies such growing of unpalatable plants, live fences, hairy crops, and digging trenches. This study concluded that the Agricultural Extension Mitigation Strategies used were not effective. It was recommended concerted efforts between stakeholders in the conflict to realize the benefits of synergies so as to stem crop damage and give small-scale farmers a chance to be food secure.

Download Full-text