scholarly journals Patterns of Human-Wildlife Conflict and People’s Perception towards Compensation Program in Nilambur, Southern Western Ghats, India

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelat Kandari Rohini ◽  
Tharemmal Aravindan ◽  
Karumampoyil Sakthidas Anoop Das ◽  
Pandanchery Arogyam Vinayan
Keyword(s):  
Local Community ◽  
Crop Damage ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Community Perception ◽  
Wildlife Conflict ◽  
Wildlife Species ◽  
Conservation Implications ◽  
Compensation Program ◽  
Human Wildlife Conflict ◽  
North And South

Aim: The aim of this research was to examine patterns of human-wildlife conflict and assess community perception towards compensation program implemented to ameliorate human-wildlife co-existence.Location: North and South Forest Divisions, Nilambur, South India.Material and Methods: Data were collected from the official archives of applications made by victims or their families at Divisional Forest Office, Nilambur North and South Forest Division, for the period 2010–2013. The data included (a) types of conflict, (b) wildlife species involved in the conflict, (c) dates of application made by applicants, (d) dates of final decision made by concerned authority and (d) relief amount sanctioned. People’s perceptions towards compensation program were gathered using a questionnaire survey (n=179).Key findings: Crop damage was the most common type of conflict, followed by property damage, injury and death by wildlife attack. Crop damage was contributed mainly by elephant (Elephas maximus) (59%) and wild boar (Sus scrofa) (32%). The other wildlife species involved in conflict were bonnet macaque (Macaca radiata) (3.8%), leopard (Panthera pardus) (3.3%), Malabar giant squirrel (Ratufa indica) (0.47%), porcupine (Hystrix indica) (0.29%), Guar (Bos gaurus) (0.95%) and Sambar deer (Cervus unicolor)(0.29 %). On average, people took 13 days to claim compensation, which received decisions in 90 days. The majority of respondents (67%) were not satisfied with the compensation schemes. The main causes of such dissatisfaction were (a) allocation of insufficient money for the compensation (46.6%), (b) prolonged and difficult administrative procedures to make claims (20%), (c) people’s convictions that compensation scheme does not eradicate the conflict (20%) and (d) disbelief on the officials involved in compensation program (6.6%).Conservation implications: Our results suggest that compensation program has not gained acceptance among local community as an effective strategy to mitigate human-wildlife conflict. Although it may reduce hostile attitude towards wildlife, alternative approaches are urgently needed that avoid conflicts.

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

BMC Ecology ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Assessment Of Human-Wildlife Conflict And Its Implication For Conservation at sundarpur, Udayapur, Eastern Nepal

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 15-30
Author(s):  
Chandramani Aryal ◽  
Manoj Pokharel
Keyword(s):  
Wildlife Conservation ◽  
Household Surveys ◽  
Crop Raiding ◽  
Wildlife Conflict ◽  
Wildlife Species ◽  
Key Informant ◽  
Observation Method ◽  
Sloth Bear ◽  
Human Wildlife Conflict ◽  
Direct Observation Method

This study was carried out to document the prevailing situation of human-wildlife conflict in Sundarpur of Udayapur district, Nepal where significant numbers of sloth bear along with other troublesome wildlife species occur. Data about conflict and people's perception towards wildlife conservation was collected using household surveys supplemented by key informant interviews and direct observation method. Monkeys (93%) and elephants (86%) were found to be major animals involved in conflict mostly resulting into crop raiding, which was the major form of conflict as reported by (95%) of respondents. Livestock depredation cases were mostly by common leopard (84%) and sloth bear was involved in majority of human attack cases (90%). According to respondents, the trend of conflict was found to be increasing for elephants (63%) and monkeys (73%) while it was found to be decreasing for sloth bear (64%), wild boar (85%), and leopard (46%), where people believed natural attraction of wildlife towards crops/livestock to be the major driving factor of conflict. Despite the prevalence of conflict most of the respondents showed positive attitude towards wildlife conservation in Sundarpur. This implies a better future for wildlife conservation in this area if the issues associated with human-wildlife conflict are addressed effectively.

scholarly journals Survey of human-leopard (Panthera Pardus) conflict in Ayubia National Park, Pakistan

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 39-46
Author(s):  
Nabeel Awan ◽  
Atif Yaqub ◽  
Muhammad Kamran
Keyword(s):  
National Park ◽  
Crop Damage ◽  
Mitigation Measures ◽  
Panthera Pardus ◽  
Important Species ◽  
Livestock Depredation ◽  
Wildlife Conflict ◽  
Community Based Conservation ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Human Wildlife Conflict

Wildlife populations are at a risk of extinction mainly because of human-wildlife conflict (HWC). The present study was designed to evaluate the ongoing HWC with special reference to Common Leopard (Panthera pardus) in Ayubia National park through field study as well as a literature-based approach. Questionnaire interview surveys were designed for wildlife officials working in the park and the locals who bear the cost for leopard conflict through livestock depredation and crop damage. The study showed that human-leopard conflict in the study area has been increasing. More than 60% of people considered livestock depredation as the major reason for their negative perception towards the common leopard. Among livestock, goats were more vulnerable which showed that leopards mostly preferred smaller prey. A number of reported human injuries and deaths on account of Human-Leopard conflict in the study area helped conclude that human-wildlife conflict is a significant issue. Mitigation measures may hence be recommended, such as livestock compensation schemes and community-based conservation approaches, etc. It is critical to avoid human-Leopard conflict not only to keep the public and their property safe but also to help conserve this important species of common leopard (Panthera pardus).

scholarly journals Attitudes Toward Predators and Conservancies Among Namibian Farmers

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niki Rust ◽  
Laurie Marker
Keyword(s):  
Rural Communities ◽  
Rural Development ◽  
Natural Resources ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Financial Loss ◽  
Carnivore Conservation ◽  
Wildlife Conflict ◽  
Wildlife Species ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
Human Wildlife Conflict

Conservancies provide the opportunity for land-occupiers to manage natural resources in a collaborative, sustainable, and profitable manner. Human–wildlife conflict, however, has limited their success due to the financial loss of crops, livestock and game by certain wildlife species. Questionnaires (n = 147) were conducted in five conservancies and four resettled farms in Namibia to determine the attitudes toward predators and conservancy membership. Attitudes were significantly affected by perceived depredation and when respondents asked for help to reduce predation. Attitudes toward predators and conservancies were more positive when individuals perceived they received benefits from both. Improving livestock husbandry practices in conjunction with increasing tangible benefits of predators and conservancies may improve the attitudes of rural communities, leading to an increase in the viability of integrated carnivore conservation and rural development in sub-Saharan Africa.

scholarly journals Status of Human-Wildlife Conflict and Assessment of Crop Damage by Wild Animals in Gaurishankar Conservation Area, Nepal

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bairam Awasthi ◽  
Nanda Bahadur Singh
Keyword(s):  
Animal Species ◽  
Black Bear ◽  
Participatory Approach ◽  
Wild Animal ◽  
Crop Damage ◽  
Crop Loss ◽  
Conservation Area ◽  
Wildlife Conflict ◽  
The Status ◽  
Human Wildlife Conflict

This study tries to explore the status of Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) within the Gaurishankar Conservation Area (GCA), Nepal. The maximum damage of maize (39%) and potato (30%) crops were reported due to wildlife in the study area. Major wildlife pests were monkey, porcupine, goral, barking deer, jackal and Himalayan black bear. About ninety five percent of respondents reported crop damage problem was increasing in the area after GCA establishment. Fair and quick disbursement of compensation for crop loss and regular monitoring of the wild animal needed to be adopted to reduce human-wildlife conflicts. Change in cropping and crop composition, particularly cultivation of high value medicinal plants were also suggested. The findings suggest participatory approach to manage problematic animal species in GCA.Journal of Institute of Science and Technology, 2015, 20(1): 107-111

scholarly journals Status and trends of human-wildlife conflict: A case study of Lelep and Yamphudin region, Kanchenjunga Conservation Area, Taplejung, Nepal

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roshan Sherchan ◽  
Ananta Bhandari
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Group Discussion ◽  
Loss Rate ◽  
Group Discussion ◽  
Crop Damage ◽  
Conservation Area ◽  
Severe Problem ◽  
Wildlife Conflict ◽  
Kanchenjunga Conservation Area ◽  
Human Wildlife Conflict

Aim Human-wildlife conflict is one of the major challenges in Kanchenjunga Conservation Area. It may erode public support in wildlife conservation. Here, we review the extent to which wildlife damages livestock and crops. Location Lelep and Yamphudin region, Kanchenjunga Conservation Area, Taplejung, Nepal Materials and methodsThe study employed a combination of surveying methods such as focus group discussion, key informant interview and field observation from 21 July to 06 August 2013. Focus group discussion was done primarily with the representatives of snow leopard conservation committee in Lelep and Yamphudin. Key Findings Livestock depredation in Ghunsa valley, Lelep village development committee was increasing with an annual average loss rate of 11% in ten years (2005- 2014). Despite community-based insurance schemes, loss has increased to 28% from 17.2% in 2014. No retaliatory killings of snow leopards were reported since 2005, which may be attributable to the insurance scheme. In Yamphudin, the average annual livestock loss rate was 4.7% from 2005 to 2014, mostly by wild dogs. Similarly, crop damage was a severe problem in Yamphudin, mostly by the Himalayan black bear, palm civet, barking deer, rhesus monkey and porcupine. Conservation implication Although strict guarding was effective to reduce conflict, alternative strategy is needed that requires minimum human involvement. Premium and relief amount is inadequte. It therefore needs a thorough revision. Predator proof corals in Lonak, Dhudhpokhari, Ramjer and Dasa pasture can be effective means to reduce the potential conflict.

scholarly journals Community perception of the real impacts of human–wildlife conflict in Laikipia, Kenya: capturing the relative significance of high-frequency, low-severity events

Oryx ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 497-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alec G. Blair ◽  
Thomas C. Meredith
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Full Range ◽  
Individual Species ◽  
Community Perception ◽  
Relative Significance ◽  
Wildlife Conflict ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Human Wildlife Conflict

AbstractBiodiversity conservation outside protected areas requires cooperation from affected communities, hence the extensive discussions of trade-offs in conservation, and of a so-called new conservation that addresses human relations with nature more fully. Human–wildlife conflict is one aspect of those relations, and as land use intensifies around protected areas the need to understand and manage its effects will only increase. Research on human–wildlife conflict often focuses on individual species but given that protecting wildlife requires protecting habitat, assessments of human–wildlife conflict should include subsidiary impacts that are associated with ecosystem conditions. Using a case study from Laikipia, Kenya, where conservation outside protected areas is critical, we analysed human–wildlife conflict from a household perspective, exploring the full range of impacts experienced by community members on Makurian Group Ranch. We addressed questions about four themes: (1) the relationship between experienced and reported human–wildlife conflict; (2) the results of a high-resolution assessment of experienced human–wildlife conflict; (3) the relative impact of high-frequency, low-severity conflict vs high-severity, low-frequency conflict; and (4) the effect of experienced conflict on receptivity to the conservation narrative. Our results show that high-frequency, low-severity conflict, which is often absent from reports and discussion in the literature, is a significant factor in shaping a community's perception of the cost–benefit ratio of conservation. Local, ongoing, high-resolution monitoring of human–wildlife conflict may facilitate more realistic and effective incorporation of the experienced impacts of human–wildlife conflict in conservation planning and management. Such monitoring could help to define locally appropriate trade-offs in conservation and thereby improve conservation outcomes.

Assessment of Wildlife Species Mostly Involved in Human-Wildlife Conflict around Yankari Game Reserve, Bauchi State, Nigeria

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (09) ◽  
pp. 20262-20277
Author(s):  
Y. A. Magama ◽  
M. Babagana ◽  
A. U. Usman ◽  
A. A. Gujja ◽  
A. Adamu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Local Community ◽  
Structured Interview ◽  
Survey Method ◽  
Anthropogenic Factors ◽  
Multiple Choice Questions ◽  
Species List ◽  
Wildlife Conflict ◽  
Game Reserve ◽  
Roan Antelope ◽  
Human Wildlife Conflict

The present study assessed the species of wildlife mostly incriminated in human-wildlife conflicts around Yankari Game Reserve (Bauchi State, Nigeria). Three districts of Alkaleri Local Government Area were selected for the study viz; Duguri, Fali and Gwana districts. A total of 113 respondents comprising of 44 staff of Yankari Game Reserve and 69 local community members formed part of the study’s sample size selected through Systematic Random and Purposive sampling techniques. The study made use of the Descriptive Survey method involving mixed methods using self-made open ended questionnaire with multiple choice questions as well as Structured Interview Guide. Demographic characteristics of the local people indicated that the majority of them lack the basic formal western education and were mainly farmers. Study findings showed that 8 different species of wildlife were mainly involved in human-wildlife conflict along the Game Reserve. These were: Buffalo, Tantalus monkey, Patas monkey, Roan antelope, Western hartebeest, Bush buck, Waterbuck and African elephant. However, the number of these species of wildlife was also found to be declining fast in the area mainly due to anthropogenic factors such as reprisal attacks on the animals by the local communities in vengeance of damages caused by the animals. Thus, if unwanted contacts between the wildlife and the surrounding communities are not checked, human-wildlife conflict in the area will continue to escalate and many of these animals can be killed. Some are already on the endangered species list. Hence, strict measures should be adopted with the aim of minimizing the rate of encroachment of the wildlife into surrounding communities in order to stop human-wildlife conflict in the area.

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

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.

scholarly journals Human Wildlife Conflict and Impacts on Livelihood: A Study in Community Forestry System in Mid-Hills of Nepal

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (23) ◽  
pp. 13170
Author(s):  
Kedar Baral ◽  
Hari Prasad Sharma ◽  
Ripu Kunwar ◽  
Craig Morley ◽  
Achyut Aryal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Local Community ◽  
Agricultural Land ◽  
Wildlife Habitat ◽  
Financial Loss ◽  
Human Settlements ◽  
Community Forests ◽  
Wildlife Conflict ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Human Wildlife Conflict ◽  
Prey Populations

Human wildlife conflict (HWC) impacts the livelihood of many rural communities worldwide. This study investigated the impact of HWC on people living near community forests (CF) in Nepal. Using databases provided by the Division of Forest Offices and data obtained from surveys between October 2019–March 2020, we quantified the financial loss of HWC to the local people. Between 2015 and 2019, 3315, or 27%, of the livestock owned by the survey respondents were killed by wild predators in the Kaski and Tanahun Districts. Chicken (Gallus spp.) was the most common prey taken (80%), followed by sheep (Ovis spp.) and goats (Capra spp.) (15%), cows (Bos spp.) (2%), pigs (Sus spp.) (2%), and buffalo (Bubalus spp.) (1%). Leopards (Panthera pardus) were the primary predators, followed by golden jackals (Canis aureus), jungle cats (Felis chaus), yellow-throated martens (Martes flavigula), and Himalayan black bears (Ursus thibetanus). The financial loss of livestock during this period was USD $115,656.00, equivalent to USD $142.61 per household. Crops were also damaged and eaten by wildlife, and 2165 crop-raiding events were recorded between 2015 and 2019. Rice (Oryza sativa), followed by maize (Zea mays), millet (Panicum miliaceum), and potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) were the main crops lost. Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) were the most common crop raiders, causing 74% of the damage, followed by Indian field mice (Mus booduga) (12%). From 2015 to 2019, crop losses equated to USD $83,424.00. Forest regeneration on abandoned agricultural land expanded wildlife habitats, enabling wild animals to come within reach of human settlements, which increased the likelihood of HWC events. Although the success of the community forest restoration program resulted in increased forest-cover, marginally increasing biodiversity, the reduced distance between human settlements and wildlife habitat, compounded by a lack of natural prey, may have unwittingly exacerbated HWC in this region. We recommend surveying predator and prey populations in the forest habitat, and implementing a habitat management program to improve prey populations within the community forests. Meantime, we propose establishing a financial relief and insurance program for crop and livestock losses at the local community level to alleviate any financial difficulties to the local communities caused by HWC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document