human animal conflict research paper

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.11(17); 2021 Sep

Human–wildlife conflict in the roof of the world: Understanding multidimensional perspectives through a systematic review

Prashanti sharma.

1 International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu Nepal

Nakul Chettri

Kesang wangchuk, associated data.

The datasets generated as bibliography during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Human–wildlife conflicts have intensified by many folds and at different levels in recent years. The same is true in the case of the Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH), the roof of the world, and a region known for its wealth in biodiversity. We present a systematic literature review (SLR) using the search, appraisal, synthesis, and analysis (SALSA) framework; and for spatial and network analysis, we employed the VOSviewer software. The review—covering 240 peer—articles within a span of 27 years (from 1982 to 2019)—revealed that in the last decade, there was a 57% increase in publications but with a disproportionate geographical and thematic focus. About 82% of the research concentrated on protected areas and large carnivores and mega herbivores played a big role in such conflicts. About 53% of the studies were based on questionnaires, and the main driver reported was habitat disturbance of animals due to land‐cover change, urbanization, and increase in human population. On the management front, the studies reported the use of traditional protection techniques like guarding and fencing. Our analysis of 681 keywords revealed a prominent focus on ‘human‐wildlife conflict,’ ‘Nepal,’ ‘Bhutan,’ ‘Snow Leopard,’ and ‘Leopard’ indicating the issue linked with these species and countries. The involvement of 640 authors from 36 countries indicates increasing interest, and Nepal and India are playing key roles in the region. As for the spatial analysis that was conducted, while it showed regional variations, there were conspicuous limitations in terms of having a transboundary focus. Thus, particular attention ought to be paid to building transboundary partnerships and improving management interventions; there is also a pressing need to understand the patterns of human–wildlife convergence, especially involving meso‐mammals.

We present a systematic review on human–wildlife conflict from the roof of the world. The review presents results from 240 peer‐reviewed articles with an increasing trend of publications. About 82% of the research reported cases from protected area indicating conservation challenges. Scholars highlight habitat disturbance through land‐cover change, urbanization, and human population increase as major drivers. More focus on pattern of interactions at transboundary level and effective mitigation measures are recommended.

1. INTRODUCTION

The interactions between wildlife and human beings have often resulted in agonistic behavior and conflicts (König et al.,  2020 ; Nyhus,  2016 ). While instances of human–wildlife conflict (HWC) date back to prehistoric times (Berger & McGraw,  2007 ; Gordon,  2009 ), its severity and complexity have increased in the current era (Madden,  2004 ; Sharma et al.,  2020 ). The animals are known to launch lethal attacks on humans, damage property, raid crops, and kill livestock; on the contrary, humans indulge in retaliatory killings, hunting, and poaching—and these could even involve endangered or keystone wildlife species, thereby posing a threat to biodiversity and imposing legal issues on humans (Peterson et al.,  2010 ; White & Ward,  2011 ). HWC, thus, has led to economic and psychological disruption, as well as to the spread of zoonotic diseases; it also raises the spectre of extinction as far as certain wildlife species are concerned (Barua et al.,  2013 ; Nyhus,  2016 ; Thirgood et al.,  2005 ).

The reasons behind HWC are multiple: In the case of the wild animals, it is their habitat loss and its degradation owing to urbanization, intensification of agriculture, and growth in human population (Nyhus,  2016 )—increased human dominance in natural landscapes intensifies competition for space and resources, especially for large carnivores like the Royal Bengal tiger ( Panthera tigris tigris ) and the common leopard ( Panthera pardus )—that have led to their antagonistic behavior (DeFries et al.,  2010 ; Zimmerman et al.,  2010 ); while in the case of humans, it is primarily the raiding of their crops by the animals—due to food shortage (Hill,  2018 ) and habitat fragmentation (Choudhury,  2004 ) that has led to their confrontational posture (Acharya et al.,  2017 ). It is then obvious that the mitigation of this conflict is central to human safety and the health of the ecosystem; but this requires a profound understanding of interrelated social–ecological relations (Carter & Linnell,  2016 ; Treves et al.,  2006 ).

Globally, research on HWC and the coexistence of humans and wildlife has exponentially grown over the last decade in the form of peer‐reviewed articles and reports (Holland et al.,  2018 ; König et al.,  2020 ; Nyhus,  2016 ). According to a recent study, over the last decade, 87% of the publications on HWC concentrated on the Asian countries of India, Nepal, and Indonesia (Torres et al.,  2018 ). This region accounts for the richest collection of earth's biological diversity, but this is being continuously threatened by the expansion of agriculture and overexploitation of wildlife (Monastersky,  2014 ; Sodhi & Brook,  2006 ). The Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH), stretching across eight countries (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, and Pakistan), is the highest, youngest, and one of the richest in terms of species, genetic, and ecosystem diversity among the global mountain biomes (Xu et al.,  2019 ). Indeed, this roof of the world is home to four of the 36 global biodiversity hotspots—the Himalaya, Indo‐Burma, the mountains of Southwest China, and the mountains of Central Asia (Mittermeier et al.,  2011 ). However, in recent years, the HKH has been experiencing rapid demographic and economic growth leading to overexploitation of natural resources; this has resulted in significant Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) changes and in forest loss (Xu et al.,  2019 ). The loss of the region's core forest areas meant a reduction in the dispersal ability of wildlife in their home ranges, thereby forcing them to move into human territory (Acharya et al.,  2017 ). In the HKH, this problem is rather prominent in India, Nepal, and Bhutan in the form of crop‐raiding monkeys and human‐eating tigers (Sharma et al.,  2020 ). In Nepal, for example, between the years 2010 and 2014, on average, as many as 115 people were attacked annually by large mammals such as the Asian elephant ( Elephas maximus ), the Royal Bengal tiger, the Asian black bear ( Ursus thibetanus ), and the common leopard (Acharya et al.,  2016 ). The shrinking of animal habitat also poses threat to the animal's own life, as in the case of India's West Bengal state, where, from 2004 to 2015, 62 elephant fatalities were reported; these elephants were hit by trains that were running on tracks through forest corridors (Roy & Sukumar,  2016 ).

Several authors employed different scientific approaches to identify the sources and causes of HWC and the means to mitigate it (Acharya et al.,  2017 ; Bashir et al.,  2018 ; Sarker & Røskaft,  2010 ). The literature that has been published covers various dimensions of HWC, such as those related to crop and property damage, compensation and insurance schemes, people–park relations, and the threat to biodiversity (Aryal et al.,  2014 ; Carter et al.,  2014 ; Huang et al.,  2018 ; Limbu & Karki,  2003 ).

While it is a fact that diligent efforts are being made by government bodies, research organizations, NGOs, and local communities to tackle HWC, most of their efforts are limited in scope as they are country‐ and location‐specific. The transboundary nature of HWC is an aspect that has been less recognized in the HKH. Moreover, as observed by Wester et al. ( 2019 ), countries in the region suffer from inadequate and scattered knowledge generation, which is a major hindrance to understanding the underlying drivers and effects of HWC; this also limits efforts at collaborative natural resource governance (Davies & White,  2012 ). So, to arrive at a profound comprehension of the “transboundary‐ness” of the HKH, a systematic review and analysis of the existing information became inevitable. Such a review and analysis were bound to provide a holistic insight into the region's knowledge base, its information gaps, and its priority areas for future interventions (Kandel et al.,  2016 ). Besides, the findings of this review and analysis could foster regional learning and cooperation. Taking all these factors into consideration, a systematic review of the literature on HWC in the HKH was thus conducted with two main objectives guiding it. The first objective was to characterize and analyze the scientific literature on HWC according to its spatial and temporal distribution, the scale and theme of the research, its methodological tools and approaches, taxonomy, the drivers of change, and management actions. The second objective was to analyze the collaborative network of research through the study of keywords, coauthorship links, and partnerships among countries to better understand research trends, priorities, alliances, and knowledge gaps.

We followed the systematic literature review (SLR) approach of qualitative content analysis, as it is systematic, explicit, and reproducible for identifying, evaluating, and synthesizing the existing body of scientific information (Fink,  2019 ). The review was conducted using the framework of Grant and Booth ( 2009 ), which involved four sequential steps (Figure  1 ): search, appraisal, synthesis, and analysis (SALSA). The steps of the SALSA framework are explained in Table  1 . This method is accurate, systematic, exhaustive, and reproducible (Mengist et al.,  2020 ; Vicente‐Sáez & Martínez‐Fuentes,  2018 ).

Flow diagram for systematic literature review using Search, Appraisal, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) framework

The SALSA framework (Grant & Booth,  2009 ) used in the systematic review of scientific literature

2.1. Search

In this step, the relevant sources of information were identified from various databases using appropriate search strings. The search databases were Scopus (Elsevier), Google Scholar, and the Google search engine. We opted for Scopus since it is the largest database of peer‐reviewed literature and has more indexed journals (Mongeon & Paul‐Hus,  2016 ), while Google Scholar and the Google search engine were used to collect all the relevant peer‐reviewed articles and gray literature (reports, conference proceedings, perspectives, keynotes, and book chapters) which were not indexed in Scopus. The term “human–wildlife” conflict in this paper refers to both direct interactions of humans with wildlife through encounters and livestock depredation, and indirect relationships expressed via people's attitudes/perceptions and their sense of well‐being (Lozano et al.,  2019 ). Therefore, we used various combinations of search strings for an exhaustive and comprehensive literature search covering the broad dimensions of HWC. For example, for Nepal, we used the advanced search filter in Scopus with keyword strings: “Human–wildlife conflict” and “Nepal”. A similar search was carried out for all the other seven countries of the HKH (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, and Pakistan) which formed our study area. Besides, we searched for names of administrative divisions within countries—for instance, “Nepal” and “Chitwan” districts. The search string was also extended to include conflicts involving specific species or families of wildlife for each of the countries of the HKH and its administrative divisions, for instance: “human–carnivore conflict”, “human– monkey conflict”, “human‐elephant conflict”, and “human–rhino conflict”. Moreover, to include the dimension of livestock depredation and crop damage by the animals, keywords such as “wildlife crop raid”, “livestock depredation”, and “animal attack” were used against each of the country names; this also narrowed down the volume of literature to the region of interest. The systematic search for these strings was based on the literature's title, abstract, and keywords and was carried out until December 2019 with no lower‐year limit. Our search was restricted to English‐language articles for this study. For the literature search on Google Scholar and the Google search engine, we employed a similar strategy, mostly aimed at retrieving gray and unindexed literature.

2.2. Appraisal

The appraisal phase was about selecting the literature through a screening process. A total of 554 literature data, including peer‐reviewed journal articles and gray literature, were collected from various database sources. The initial step involved separating all the gray literature from the published peer‐reviewed journal articles. We then selected the studies that were exclusively conducted within the HKH boundary (note that countries like India and Bangladesh have a large proportion of such studies outside the HKH). On acquiring the literature data from within our study region, we removed all duplications, which resulted in a total of 255 journal articles and 24 pieces of gray literature. These were then selected for abstract screening.

A total of 240 out of the 255 journal articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the final database. The literature removed after the abstract screening was on the basis that these research works did not directly adhere to HWC. All the 24 pieces of gray literature qualified to be included in the final database.

2.3. Synthesis

The qualitative approach to synthesize the derived knowledge helps to explore, interpret, and present new perspectives on the acquired data (Vicente‐Sáez & Martínez‐Fuentes,  2018 ). Hence, in this step, we extracted the relevant data relating to HWC from the 240 journal articles. These data were then maintained and managed in MS Excel for processing. Table  2 shows the categorization of the extracted data into various classes and variables of interest; this was done to meet the SLR objectives. These data were further used for analysis through tabular and graphical representations.

Categorization of information from the selected articles according to various criteria

2.4. Analysis

This phase involved evaluating the synthesized data to gain meaningful information and answers to the research questions. The categories were quantified and analyzed to explain the results (Table  2 ). This further paved way for discussions and indicated knowledge gaps in HWC in the region. The study also applied VOSviewer ( https://www.vosviewer.com ), a desktop‐based, open‐source software, for constructing and visualizing bibliometric networks (Van Eck & Waltman,  2010 ). The VOSviewer made use of comma‐separated values (CSV) format of the database comprising 240 selected articles. We then investigated the HWC research collaboration network among the various countries and authors in the HKH and also visualized the frequency of keywords to analyze the most researched areas related to HWC.

A map created in the VOSviewer consisted of one type of item (country names, keywords, or author names) connected by lines or links. Each link has a strength, which is represented by a positive numerical value. The strength of a link may, for example, indicate the number of publications two researchers have coauthored (in the case of coauthorship links), the number of publications where the same keywords have occurred together (in the case of keyword co‐occurrence), and the number of publications in which two countries have collaborated (in the case of country coauthorship). A closely linked set of items forms clusters that are linked to other clusters which then constitute a network. The size of each item in a network is weighted by the number of documents, citations, or link strength between two items. The color of an item is determined by the cluster to which the item belongs (Van Eck et al.,  2013 ). We used the number of documents as a weight for calculating the size of the items in mapping keywords, authors, and countries’ networks for HWC in the HKH.

3.1. Temporal and spatial pattern

In the HKH, the research on the conflict between humans and wildlife saw steady growth during the review period of 1982–2019. Over those 37 years, the number of articles rose from a meager two in 1982 to a healthier 25 in 2019 (Figure  2 ). The largest number of 30 research articles were published in 2018. The progress of research shown by the overall trend could be grouped into three specific phases: Phase I (1982–2002), where notably, only three research papers were published in 1997—this phase constituted 9% of the total publications under review; Phase II (2003–2008) saw a slight increase, by 4%, in the number of research papers compared with the previous phase—with two publications in 2007 and nine in 2008, thereby suggesting an erratic phase; and Phase III (2009–2019) witnessed an exponential growth in HWC research publications in the HKH with an average increase of 1.5 articles per year—this period of 10 years accounted for 78% of the publications and an increase by 57% compared with the previous two phases.

Number of published peer‐reviewed research articles on human–wildlife conflict from 1982 to 2019 in Hindu Kush Himalaya. Trendline represents five‐year moving average indicating increasing volume of publication

As shown by Figure  3 , the research on HWC during the review period reveals an uneven pattern across the HKH. The largest number (87) of peer‐reviewed articles was published from India which accounts for only14% of the HKH area; the second largest number (85) came from Nepal (whose entire area is within the HKH), followed by Pakistan, Bhutan, and China. Very few studies were recorded from Myanmar (three) and Afghanistan (two) which take up 47% and 60%, respectively, of the HKH area. As for Bangladesh—with 9% of its area in the HKH—it recorded just one study. The districts with the largest number of publications from India were Pauri Garhwal and Chamoli in the state of Uttarakhand, while those from Nepal were Chitwan, Mustang, and Bardiya. In Pakistan, more articles came from the northern‐most district, while in the case of Bhutan, the largest number of research studies were from the Punakha district.

(a) Number of published peer‐reviewed research articles produced by each country verses the percentage of country's area under Hindu Kush Himalaya and (b) spatial pattern of published peer‐reviewed research articles across Hindu Kush Himalaya

3.2. Spatial scale and theme

The research sites were also analyzed based on their scale—whether it was local, or was a country, or had a transboundary character (Martínez‐Harms & Balvanera,  2012 )—and management regimes—whether it was a protected area (PA), wildlife corridor, or outside a PA. It was found that the majority (82%) of the research in the HKH on HWC were local‐level studies, followed by those at the country (12%) and transboundary levels (6%—Figure  4a ).

(a) Percentage of research articles according to scale (local, country, and transboundary) and regimes (within protected area, outside protected area, and corridors) of study sites and (b) Percentage of research articles conducted in various regimes (within protected area, outside protected area, and corridors) according to scale (local, country, and transboundary) of study sites

About the management regimes of the study sites, nearly half (49%) of the studies were conducted outside PAs, such as in villages and towns; studies within and along PA boundaries, such as in and around wildlife sanctuaries, national parks, conservation areas, and biosphere reserves, covered 48%, while research within wildlife corridors accounted for 3% of the total publications.

A comparative analysis of the scale and regime of the study sites revealed that most local‐level studies (56%) were conducted within and along PA boundaries, followed by those (43%) outside PAs (Figure  4b ). In the case of country‐level studies, most (81%) of them were conducted outside PAs. This is relevant since very few studies (19%) were conducted for protected areas within various parts of the country, qualifying as country‐level studies within PAs while none took place within wildlife corridors. About the transboundary‐level studies, they constituted the least number of publications, with most (53%) of the research taking place outside PAs, followed by 27% in the wildlife corridors and 20% within PAs.

In terms of the types of conflict, 50% of the articles discussed confrontations related to wildlife damaging crops and livestock; 26% focused on threats to biodiversity; 13% dwelt on aspects of human safety (by way of lethal attacks and the resultant psychological disruption); 8% examined human–human conflict arising mostly out of stakeholder disagreements (Figure  5a ); and 3% of the pieces covered property damages involving destruction of built‐up structures and fences by the wild animals.

Percentage of research articles according to their (a) types of conflict, (b) methods used for collection of data, (c) methods used for analysis of data

3.3. Research methods

Over half (53%) of the articles used data from interviews based on questionnaires and focus group discussions; about 16% used secondary data from reports, journal articles, and documents from government and nongovernment organizations; 12% carried survey results of biological samples like hair, scat, scrapes, and footprints of wild animals; 8% relied on direct observations or sightings of animals; 5% depended on camera trapping; 4% on GIS‐based satellite data such as for climate, elevation, and land‐cover maps; and 2% used the GPS radio‐collaring method for the data collection on HWC studies in the region (Figure  5b ).

The various approaches adopted in these studies to analyze data included the use of simple statistics that involved the calculation of percentage, mean, and standard deviation, as well as the use of t test—this approach was illustrated in 72% of the research articles; 13% depended on spatial mapping using GIS tools; 11% on statistical modeling techniques like logistic regression and generalized linear mixed models; and 4% relied on DNA‐based molecular tracking of biological samples to understand the dietary habits of the relevant wild animals (Figure  5c ).

3.4. Focal species or taxonomical group

The classification of studies based on wildlife taxonomical groups (Peterson et al.,  2010 ) revealed that 46% of the research focused on large carnivores (Table  3 ) such as the snow leopard, the common leopard, the Royal Bengal tiger, the gray wolf ( Canis lupus ), and the dhole ( Cuon alpinus ); 27% dwelt on omnivores such as the Asian bear, the brown bear ( Ursus arctos ), the monkey ( Macaca mulatta ), and the boar ( Sus scrofa) ; 16% concentrated on mega herbivores such as the elephant and the one‐horned rhinoceros ( Rhinoceros unicornis ); 7% studied crop raids and illegal poaching of herbivores such as ungulates and antelopes (7%); and 4% focused on meso‐mammals like the porcupine ( Hystrix brachyuran) and the marmot ( Marmota himalayana ). We also found 1% mention of medium carnivores like the Himalayan lynx ( Lynx isabellinus ) and the leopard cat ( Prionailurus bengalensis ), and 0.4% references to small carnivores, particularly the yellow‐throated marten ( Martes flavigula ).

Percentage of research articles relating to various wildlife taxonomic groups

3.5. Drivers for the conflict

Over half (60%) of the articles considered at least one driver of change triggering HWC (Figure  6 ). The most frequent (27%) cause of disruption reported was disturbance of the natural landscape due to human population growth, rapid urbanization, and widespread land‐use changes; 24% of these studies centered on shortage of food such as forage and wild preys; 23% discussed the proximity of human settlements to PAs, which enabled the forest communities to access them for firewood and herbal medicines, thereby leading to conflicts between these communities and the wildlife around them; 13% of the research articles were on retaliatory killing and illegal poaching of wild animals; 7% were on changes in conservation policies; 4% dealt with culture and its shifting patterns, while only 2% of the articles deliberated on how climate change was an important driver of HWC in the region.

Drivers of human–wildlife conflict related change considered by research articles expressed in percentages

3.6. Management interventions

As for HWC mitigation strategies, only 20% of the selected literature specifically discussed or recommended them (Figure  7 ); and each of these articles recommended two or more management actions or interventions. The most commonly recommended interventions (43%) were protecting fields and livestock by deploying watchdogs and scarecrows, and constructing sound sheds or corrals for the livestock; growing alternative cash crops like tea, chilli, and tobacco; and building electric or bio fences, and water towers. Among other suggestions, 23% of the articles recommended community interventions in the form of promoting ecotourism and setting up response teams. Some (19%) articles put forth management plans to tackle HWC and also proposed improvements in compensation policies. A few (15%) others recommended interventions such as relocation, selective culling, radio‐collaring, and captive breeding of wild animals (Figure  7 ).

Management actions on human–wildlife conflict recommended by research articles expressed in percentages

3.7. Inclusion of perception, attitude, and gender aspects

About 22% of the articles investigated people's perception and attitude toward HWC, while only 5% dwelt on the issue of gender; and out of this 5%, only one article focused exclusively on the role of gender in HWC while the rest considered it as one among the other factors influencing these conflicts.

3.8. Co‐occurrence of keywords; coauthorship linkages; and country collaborations

A total of 681 keywords were found in the selected HWC literature, out of which 533 appeared only once. Some of them were “activity pattern”, “anthropogenic threats”, “agro‐pastoralism”, “aggressive behavior”, and “alternatives” (Figure  8 ). The keyword that occurred most frequently (48 times) was, expectedly, “human–wildlife conflict”, followed by “conservation” (32 times) and “Nepal” (25 times). The total strength of the co‐occurrence link or the total link strength of these keywords was high compared with the keywords with low occurrence. “India”, “livestock depredation”, “snow leopard”, “Himalaya”, and “Asian elephant” were among the top 100 keywords with the highest total link strength apart from the keywords with high occurrence.

Network of Keywords co‐occurrence for human–wildlife conflict research in the Hindu Kush Himalaya

As many as 640 individual authors contributed to the research on HWC in the HKH during the study period. Among these, only 228 authors were interconnected, to each other forming 21 clusters of authors (Figure  9 ). As for coauthorship, 22% ( n  = 52) of the papers were written by two authors, while 4% ( n  = 9) of them involved 10 authors. And, about 10% ( n  = 25) of the articles were written by a single author. The dataset also contains an article by 14 authors, the highest number, and one by 12 authors. Further, the study looked into the most sizeable contribution made by authors to research on HWC in the HKH; it was found that four authors—A. Aryal, B.R. Lamichhane, C. Mishra, and S. Sathyakumar—were most prominent constituting 2% of the total research on the subject in the HKH. The other sizeable contributions came from researchers D. Raubenheimer, M. Dhakal, and N. Subedi. The list of the top 15 authors in terms of the total number of articles authored and coauthored is presented in Table  4 .

Network of coauthorship between researchers on human–wildlife conflict in the Hindu Kush Himalaya

Top 15 authors in HKH‐HWC research

The research on HWC in the HKH has had some degree of country partnership networks (Figure  10 ). Our study identified authors from 36 regions—17 from Asia, 11 from Europe, and the remaining from Africa, North America, Australia, and Oceania—being involved in such collaborative exercises. Notably, there was no collaboration with countries in South America. In terms of the number of articles published by the collaborating countries, India stood at the top ( n  = 87), followed by Nepal ( n  = 64) and the United States ( n  = 53). The size of this circle is indicative of the number of articles published by each country, as illustrated in VOSviewer. Among the nine clusters of countries in the collaboration network, Nepal had the highest number of collaborations (also known as the total link strength; in this case, 81 links) with other countries, followed by the United States and India. The top authors from Nepal were affiliated with institutions in the developed countries, while the ones from India were mainly related to government organizations. Nepal collaborated with three other HKH countries—India, Pakistan, and China—as well as with other countries from Asia, America, Africa, and Europe. The United States, with the second‐highest collaboration links ( n  = 65), partnered with authors from five HKH countries—Bhutan, China, India, Nepal, and Pakistan—and with other international collaborators. The third on the list was India, which entered into collaborations with three HKH countries—China, Myanmar, and Nepal—and was also involved in a few other international partnerships. Interestingly, one study from the HKH region of Bangladesh was found to be not part of the co‐authors’ country collaboration network.

Network of country collaboration on human–wildlife conflict research in the Hindu Kush Himalaya

4. DISCUSSIONS

4.1. temporal and spatial pattern.

The growing interest of scholars in wildlife conflict and management (Seoraj‐Pillai & Pillay,  2017 ) is reflected in the global increase in the number of research articles since the 1980s on the science of applied ecology related to conservation and biodiversity (Anderson et al.,  2021 ). Though the research publications on HWC from the region remained low in the initial phases, their rates climbed considerably by 57% in the last decade. This trend coincided with an increase in the severity and frequency of HWC in several parts of the HKH (Inskip & Zimmermann,  2009 ) as a result of growing human dependency on natural resources and the degradation of wildlife habitats (Manral et al.,  2016 ; Xu et al.,  2019 ). About 465 human fatalities were reported from Nepal between 2010 and 2014, which highlighted the gravity of the problem (Acharya et al.,  2016 ). Meanwhile, there was a considerable increase in the population of livestock, especially goats, in the mountains of Bhutan, India, and Pakistan, which made them vulnerable to attacks (Tulachan,  2001 ). On the contrary, Nepal also made significant progress in terms of conservation—for instance, by reversing the decreasing trend—which lasted for three consecutive years—in the population of rhinoceros; this came about by achieving the target of zero poaching (Acharya,  2016 ).

As indicated earlier, most of the research on HWC in the HKH emerged from India and Nepal, which constituted 72% of the total publications. Though only 14% of India's area lies within the HKH, the number of publications from that country was the highest among all. At the other extreme were Myanmar and Afghanistan, which, despite having half of their territory within the HKH, accounted for only a limited number of studies on HWC. In the case of India, its districts of Pauri Garhwal and Chamoli in Uttarakhand drew major attention from the researchers since these districts were known to be among those with the highest number of HWCs, especially involving large carnivores (Agarwal et al.,  2016 ; Gupta and Bhatt, 2009 ; Naha et al.,  2018 ; Sondhi et al.,  2016 ). Another focal point of interest for the researchers was Nepal's Chitwan district where several studies were conducted in and around Chitwan National Park (Lamichhane,  2019 ; Sapkota et al.,  2014 ). Here, it was be noted that almost half of the HWC studies which came under this review took place within and along PAs. In the HKH, there are 545 PAs with varying degrees of protection and status, and these occupy about 40% of the region's terrestrial land (Chettri et al.,  2008 ; Chaudhary et al.—yet to be published). However, these PAs, home to many significant animal species, have been under tremendous pressure from livelihood‐dependent communities (Gu et al.,  2020 ; Sharma & Yonzon,  2005 ). The intensification of land‐use for agriculture and the rearing of livestock within and along the periphery of PAs have increased instances of crops and livestock being attacked by wild animals. As for studies on HWC in the wildlife corridors, these were few and far between—only about 3% of the overall research during the review period. The corridors mentioned in these studies were the Rajaji‐Corbett Corridor, the Laljhadi‐Mohana Corridor, the Khata Corridor, and the Wakhan Corridor.

4.2. Spatial scale and theme

As indicated earlier, since most of the studies on HWC in the region were local, they were not able to take up the issue on a transboundary level. While it is a fact that instances of HWC in and around PAs and corridors in a transboundary complex such as the Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) between India and Nepal have been reported (Balodi & Anwar,  2018 ; Jasmine et al.,  2015 ), no significant intercountry collaboration has yet taken place to tackle the problem (MoFSC,  2015 ). This lack of cross‐border partnerships and understanding about the transboundary nature of HWC is a glaring gap in HWC research in the region; not enough studies have explored the migratory bent or the compulsion of wild animals which takes them across national borders (ICIMOD, WCD, GBPNIHESD, RECAST 2017 ; Sharma et al.,  2020 ).

This review establishes that half of the HWC research conducted in the region has focused on the damage caused to crops and livestock by wild animals. In this regard, it was found that Bhutanese households incurred an annual loss in income by around 25% due to crop raids by foraging animals (Tobgay et al.,  2019 ) and by about 10%–19% because of livestock depredation (Jamtsho & Katel,  2019 ). Such huge losses pose a challenge to any country's local food system, while also adversely affecting the livelihood of its people and their food and nutrition security (Sharma et al.,  2020 ). Hence, to address this problem, a large volume of research concentrated on understanding the foraging characteristics of animals and the pattern of livestock depredation; the studies also assessed habitats (both animals in conflict and their preys) and discussed ways of how humans and wildlife could live peacefully with each other (Aryal et al.,  2015 ; Bargali & Ahmed,  2018 ; Bhattacharjee & Parthasarathy,  2013 ; Rao et al.,  2002 ). Besides stressing on conserving endangered species, the researchers emphasized the threat to biodiversity in the region owing to illegal hunting, killing, and trade in animal body parts (Bhattarai & Kindlmann,  2012 ; Rao et al.,  2010 ; Rimal et al.,  2018 ; Thapa,  2014 ; Uprety et al.,  2021 ). Globally, the researchers highlighted the need for shifting attention toward human–wildlife coexistence, a sustainable state wherein humans and wildlife coadapt to live in shared landscapes (König et al.,  2020 ; Peterson et al.,  2010 ). Although the disharmony between biodiversity conservation efforts and communities affected by conflict is vast, smaller amount of research (15% of the total) has taken place in this area. Discord involving disagreements among communities, stakeholders, and policymakers is an area that requires an understanding of the socio‐political processes that affect conservation management (Rastogi et al., 2014 ). These disagreements between the region's indigenous forest‐dependent communities—who feel a sense of stewardship over the forests and grasslands—and the forest departments over governmental policies on resource utilization and compensation impede effective management and resolution of issues related to HWC.

4.3. Research methods

The researchers collected about 53% of primary‐level data from the region through household surveys and focus group discussions, and also supplemented their research with the existing secondary data. Only a small percentage of the data was collected with the aid of GPS radio‐collaring, GIS‐based satellite images, and camera trapping. Though the data on HWC in the region are not generally deficit, it is mostly skewed toward understanding of the human dimension of HWC. There is a gap in the use of better technologies for data collection vis‐à‐vis the analysis of the patterns of interaction of wildlife with their surroundings; the same is mostly true in the case of studying their migratory routes and dietary habits. Mostly, in about 73% of the cases, the data analysis was based on simple statistics; while the rest depended on spatial mapping and modeling. The use of advanced methods such as DNA‐based molecular tracking of biological samples to understand the dietary habits of wild animals contributed only a small portion to HWC research in the region. It is important here to state that inferences on the feeding behavior of wild animals help in understanding how their food habits influence the ecosystem; these inferences also give insights into the wild animals’ relationship with the local livestock, thereby aiding in the establishment of reliable management programs that can pre‐empt instances of HWC.

4.4. Focal species or taxonomical groups

As mentioned earlier, during the review it was found that the majority (46%) of the research on the conflict between humans and wildlife in the HKH dealt with large carnivores, with the snow leopard being the one that was researched the most (20%), followed by the leopard (18%), and the tiger (15%). The relatively large number of research articles on the conflict between snow leopards (commonly found in the high mountains of China and South Asia) and humans reflects the spate of such incidents in the Himalayas and the Karakoram range since 1994 (Rashid et al.,  2020 ); this had to do with the dwindling number of the snow leopard's wild preys which forced it to indulge in retaliatory attacks against the high‐mountain communities and pastoralists (Chetri et al.,  2019 ; Rosen et al.,  2012 ). As for studies on human conflicts with other carnivores such as wolves and dholes—predators inhabiting the central‐western parts of the Himalayas and the eastern Himalayas, respectively (Johnsingh et al.,  2007 ; Xu et al.,  2015 )—they were much less compared with those involving snow leopards. Another conflict that attracted significant research attention was the one involving omnivores (bears, monkeys, and boars) and mega herbivores (elephants and rhinoceros), and particularly their propensity to attack livestock and crops. In 2008 , researcher P. Yonzon pointed out that in Nepal alone, up to 20,000 people in the southern lowlands were caught in conflicts with elephants, thereby suggesting that confrontations with mega herbivores were an issue of huge concern. However, while the issue of conflict with large carnivores, omnivores, and mega herbivores drew much research attention, the same could not be said of conflicts involving small carnivores, meso‐mammals, birds, and reptiles—only about 1% and 0.4% of the studies covered carnivores of medium and small sizes, respectively. This was because they were perceived to pose less danger than large carnivores, though Sunar et al. ( 2012 ) found out that the yellow‐throated marten alone was responsible for half of the attacks on village livestock in and around Senchal Wildlife Sanctuary in Darjeeling, India. This would have to do with the fact that these small carnivores live within a narrow habitat range (commonly within 1,700–2,000 masl) and their survival in many parts of the HKH is threatened by degradation of habitat, shortage of food in the wild, and poaching. Similarly, studies on HWC concerning meso‐mammals, birds, and reptiles have been rather sparse in the region even though porcupines, peafowls, marmots, and civets are known to be a menace to many farmlands in the HKH (ICIMOD, WCD, GBPNIHESD, RECAST 2017 ; Pradhan,  2018 ).

4.5. Drivers of conflict

Since the HKH is one of the most affected areas in terms of human and animal deaths due to HWC (Torres et al.,  2018 ), it is important to understand the dynamics that drive the relationship between humans and wildlife. Most often, the factors are area‐specific and highly complex; they are known to hinge on the socioecological behavior of humans, the nature of wildlife, and the availability of resources (Dickman,  2010 ; Nyhus,  2016 ). Most articles point to habitat disturbance—as a result of land‐cover change and forest fragmentation, as well as due to population growth (leading to pressure on natural resources), urbanization, and industrialization—as a major cause behind HWC (Reshamwala et al.,  2018 ). Some studies say that the unavailability of fodder in the wild (Acharya et al.,  2016 ) and the presence of human habitation in the vicinity of most forests have pushed the wild animals into a corner from where it becomes inevitable that they resort to attacks on humans, their livestock, and their crops.

As for research literature discussing climate change as a factor influencing HWC in the region, only about 2% of the studies took up the issue, even though that the HKH is a hotspot in terms of climate change (Sharma et al.,  2019 ). Among those few studies, the one by Bashir et al. ( 2018 ) states that climate change affects the phenology of forage in the wild and causes a shift in habitat whereby the animals come into conflict with the nearby communities.

4.6. Management interventions

Some of the literature describes various traditional management techniques of mitigation that have been in practice in the region for decades. The communities in the HKH rely on watchdogs, guards, and fences to safeguard their livestock and crops. In Nepal, farmers find guarding from watchtowers with flaming sticks and noise effective in scaring away elephants, while barriers like net wires and trenches are useful against smaller mammals (Dhakal & Thapa,  2019 ). As suggested by the SAARC Forestry Centre in 2014 , many local communities have installed electric and solar fences to ward away predatory wildlife. However, these actions alone do not prevent attacks on crops and livestock; the farmers need to be on a constant vigil and the barriers need to be well maintained and repaired when required. Interestingly, a recent study (Perrotton et al.,  2017 ) notes no significant difference between guarded and unguarded fields in terms of revenue loss from crop raids. But what usually works is a community‐based guarding system, like in the case of large farming blocks, as is in place in parts of the Indo‐Gangetic plains (Gross et al.,  2019 ). A few articles state that community intervention and adaptation methods, such as by way of ecotourism and local management of resources, have the potential to uplift local livelihoods as well as sustainably develop ecosystem services (Bhalla et al.,  2016 ).

Some of the researchers have also laid stress on formulating proper compensation policies and programs, which, they say, discourage retaliatory killings and build community support for conservation (Agarwala et al.,  2010 ; Naughton‐Treves et al.,  2003 ; Persson et al.,  2015 ). However, these compensation schemes are often vulnerable to corruption and long administrative delays; they also fail to account for transaction costs; further, in many HKH countries, the compensation policies are rather restricted in scope, as they are targeted only toward losses from large carnivores and mega herbivores (Upadhyay,  2013 ). In a similar vein, the conflict–response system of various government agencies in the HKH could be strengthened through a better mechanism for complaint submission by conflict victims, the lowering of transaction costs, the inclusion of relevant conflict‐prone species in the scheme of things, and the standardization of policies (Karanth et al.,  2018 ).

4.7. Inclusion of perceptions, attitude, and gender

Several research articles also studied the HKH people's perception and attitude toward conflict with wildlife and how to manage it. Such a study of the perception and attitude of the local communities is important to ensure that wildlife management policies are effective and also sensitive to local conditions. Though most studies revealed that the communities nursed a negative attitude toward conservation authorities, such as officials of national parks, they did express a positive attitude toward conservation and coexistence, guided by religious and cultural beliefs (Anand et al.,  2018 ; Xu et al.,  2015 ). Meanwhile, on the issue of gender, while it has been reported that risks and priorities in terms of HWC are seen differently by women and men (Gore & Kahler,  2012 ), this is a deficient area of research in the HKH. Another area of research that has to be explored substantially relates to the study of how humans and wildlife can coexist peacefully if effective wildlife management practices are in place and a mechanism developed for human–wildlife interface through appropriate tools and techniques.

4.8. Co‐occurrence of keywords, coauthorship linkages, and country collaboration

In this literature review, when we analyzed keywords, HWC featured prominently along with associated species, type of damage including hotspot areas. In the authorship, we noted, as mentioned earlier, that out of the 640 authors who worked on HWC, only 228 of them coauthored HWC publications in the HKH, thereby forming a collaborative network (Figure  9 ). We also noted that the authors in this network (Figure  10 ) were less interconnected when compared to other areas of research in the HKH, such as in the field of ecosystem services (Kandel et al.,  2020 ). Further, we found out that there were no networks of HWC studies among the HKH countries of India, Pakistan, Myanmar, and Bangladesh. Since HWC has an intrinsic transboundary character, it calls for regional cooperation at multiple levels—be it in research or for administrative purposes—such as in the form of trans‐frontier complexes like TAL that covers areas in India and Nepal that have been highly affected by human–wildlife confrontations. In this regard, a recent study by Sharma et al. ( 2020 ) is the first instance of transboundary research collaboration involving authors from Bhutan, India, and Nepal in the landscape of Kangchenjunga. Such regional‐level HWC studies would also be useful for transboundary areas such as Karakoram, Pamir Knot, and the Kailash Sacred Landscape in the HKH (Din et al.,  2019 ; Hussain et al.,  2018 ).

5. CONCLUSION

This study evaluated the status, analyzed trends, and identified gaps in HWC research in the HKH. It is evident that the HKH is one of the hotspots of HWC, having suffered severe losses in terms of both human and animal lives, as well as by way of crops and livestock, but there is yet no silver‐bullet option available to resolve the issue. Since the literature on HWC has been rather disproportionately focused on geographical and thematic topics such as PAs, large carnivores, and mega herbivores, a huge knowledge gap exists in this field of study. This warrants more and meticulous analyses of several aspects of HWC, especially in the western and far‐eastern Himalayas, and these should mainly deal with mitigation options and patterns of human–wildlife interaction. To date, most studies have revolved around localized PAs. But the escalating cases of HWC in the HKH demand greater emphasis on studies of a larger scale at the transboundary level, whereby wildlife corridors also come into the picture. This is also a time to reinforce the methodologies and precision of the studies in the HKH through the adoption of advanced technological tools such as camera traps and DNA‐based molecular trackers.

Most studies on HWC in the region have been on large mammals; however, given the fact that small mammals and birds also inflict damages on crops and livestock, their roles ought to be investigated in depth in future studies. Another area of study that requires close attention relates to the connection between climate change and HWC, especially because the HKH is prone to habitat degradation and shift in species habitat. Equally important is the aspect of gender which has not yet been adequately captured in the research on HWC in the region. Finally, and most importantly, it is the transboundary nature of HWC in a region that has a common ecosystem; hence, there is an urgent need for better research collaboration among the HKH countries that would also enable the academically weak countries to be on a stronger footing in tackling HWC.

In summing up this review of research literature on the conflicts between humans and wildlife in the HKH, it has to be stated that while studies in this sphere have gathered pace, there are yet vital areas that need to be explored further—only then can we be better prepared to mitigate this menace.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Prashanti Sharma: Conceptualization (supporting); Data curation (lead); Formal analysis (lead); Methodology (lead); Writing‐original draft (lead); Writing‐review & editing (equal). Nakul Chettri: Conceptualization (lead); Data curation (supporting); Formal analysis (supporting); Investigation (lead); Methodology (supporting); Resources (lead); Writing‐original draft (supporting); Writing‐review & editing (supporting). Kesang Wangchuk : Conceptualization (supporting); Data curation (equal); Formal analysis (supporting); Investigation (lead); Methodology (equal); Writing‐original draft (supporting); Writing‐review & editing (supporting).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are thankful to the Director General of the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) for his encouragement and support. This study was partially supported by the core funds of ICIMOD, which were contributed by the governments of Afghanistan, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The views and interpretations in this article are those of the authors; they are not necessarily attributable to ICIMOD and do not imply the expression of any opinion by ICIMOD concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area of its authority or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or the endorsement of any product. We thank Shanuj Cheruvakodan for editorial inputs.

Sharma, P., Chettri, N., & Wangchuk, K. (2021). Human–wildlife conflict in the roof of the world: Understanding multidimensional perspectives through a systematic review . Ecology and Evolution , 11 , 11569–11586. 10.1002/ece3.7980 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

• Acharya, K. P. (2016). A walk to zero poaching for rhinos in Nepal (pp. 1–18). Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Acharya, K. P., Paudel, P. K., Jnawali, S. R., Neupane, P. R., & Koehl, M. (2017). Can forest fragmentation and configuration work as indicators of human–wildlife conflict? Evidences from human death and injury by wildlife attacks in Nepal . Ecological Indicators , 80 , 74–83. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.04.037 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Acharya, K. P., Paudel, P. K., Neupane, P. R., & Köhl, M. (2016). Human–wildlife conflicts in Nepal: Patterns of human fatalities and injuries caused by large mammals . PLoS One , 11 ( 9 ), e0161717. 10.1371/journal.pone.0161717 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Agarwal, M., Sain, K., Singh, D., & Goyal, S. P. (2016). Monitoring human–leopard conflict in altitudinal variations with landscape characteristics using GIS and remote sensing in Pauri Garhwal, India . International Journal of Science, Engineering and Technology , 4 ( 2 ), 402–408. [ Google Scholar ]
• Agarwala, M., Kumar, S., Treves, A., & Naughton‐Treves, L. (2010). Paying for wolves in Solapur, India and Wisconsin, USA: Comparing compensation rules and practice to understand the goals and politics of wolf conservation . Biological Conservation , 143 ( 12 ), 2945–2955. 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anand, S., Binoy, V. V., & Radhakrishna, S. (2018). The monkey is not always a God: Attitudinal differences toward crop‐raiding macaques and why it matters for conflict mitigation . Ambio , 47 ( 6 ), 711–720. 10.1007/s13280-017-1008-5 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, S. C., Elsen, P. R., Hughes, B. B., Tonietto, R. K., Bletz, M. C., Gill, D. A., Holgerson, M. A., Kuebbing, S. E., McDonough MacKenzie, C., Meek, M. H., & Veríssimo, D. (2021). Trends in ecology and conservation over eight decades . Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment , 19 ( 5 ), 274–282. 10.1002/fee.2320 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aryal, A., Brunton, D., Ji, W., Barraclough, R. K., & Raubenheimer, D. (2014). Human–carnivore conflict: Ecological and economical sustainability of predation on livestock by snow leopard and other carnivores in the Himalaya . Sustainability Science , 9 ( 3 ), 321–329. 10.1007/s11625-014-0246-8 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aryal, A., Panthi, S., Barraclough, R. K., Bencini, R., Adhikari, B., Ji, W., & Raubenheimer, D. (2015). Habitat selection and feeding ecology of dhole ( Cuon alpinus ) in the Himalayas . Journal of Mammalogy , 96 ( 1 ), 47–53. [ Google Scholar ]
• Balodi, K. N., & Anwar, M. (2018). 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 , 7 ( 1 ), 1–13. 10.9734/AJEE/2018/41957 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bargali, H. S., & Ahmed, T. (2018). Patterns of livestock depredation by tiger ( Panthera tigris ) and leopard ( Panthera pardus ) in and around Corbett Tiger Reserve, Uttarakhand, India . PLoS One , 13 ( 5 ), e0195612. 10.1371/journal.pone.0195612 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barua, M., Bhagwat, S. A., & Jadhav, S. (2013). The hidden dimensions of human–wildlife conflict: Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs . Biological Conservation , 157 , 309–316. 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.014 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bashir, T., Bhattacharya, T., Poudyal, K., Qureshi, Q., & Sathyakumar, S. (2018). Understanding patterns of distribution and space‐use by Ursus thibetanus in Khangchendzonga, India: Initiative towards conservation . Mammalian Biology , 92 ( 1 ), 11–20. 10.1016/j.mambio.2018.04.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Berger, L. R., & McGraw, W. S. (2007). Further evidence for eagle predation of, and feeding damage on, the Taung child . South African Journal of Science , 103 ( 11–12 ), 496–498. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhalla, P., Coghlan, A., & Bhattacharya, P. (2016). Homestays’ contribution to community‐based ecotourism in the Himalayan region of India . Tourism Recreation Research , 41 ( 2 ), 213–228. 10.1080/02508281.2016.1178474 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhattacharjee, A., & Parthasarathy, N. (2013). Coexisting with large carnivores: A case study from Western Duars, India . Human Dimensions of Wildlife , 18 ( 1 ), 20–31. 10.1080/10871209.2012.698403 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhattarai, B. P., & Kindlmann, P. (2012). Interactions between Bengal tiger ( Panthera tigris ) and leopard ( Panthera pardus ): Implications for their conservation . Biological Conservation , 21 ( 8 ), 2075–2094. 10.1007/s10531-012-0298-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter, N. H., & Linnell, J. D. (2016). Co‐adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores . Trends in Ecology & Evolution , 31 ( 8 ), 575–578. 10.1016/j.tree.2016.05.006 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter, N. H., Riley, S. J., Shortridge, A., Shrestha, B. K., & Liu, J. (2014). Spatial assessment of attitudes toward tigers in Nepal . Ambio , 43 ( 2 ), 125–137. 10.1007/s13280-013-0421-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chetri, M., Odden, M., Devineau, O., & Wegge, P. (2019). Patterns of livestock depredation by snow leopards and other large carnivores in the Central Himalayas, Nepal . Global Ecology and Conservation , 17 , e00536. 10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00536 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chettri, N., Shakya, B., Thapa, R., & Sharma, E. (2008). Status of a protected area system in the Hindu Kush‐Himalayas: An analysis of PA coverage . International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management , 4 ( 3 ), 164–178. 10.3843/Biodiv.4.3:4 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Choudhury, A. (2004). Human–elephant conflicts in Northeast India . Human Dimensions of Wildlife , 9 ( 4 ), 261–270. 10.1080/10871200490505693 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davies, A. L., & White, R. M. (2012). Collaboration in natural resource governance: Reconciling stakeholder expectations in deer management in Scotland . Journal of Environmental Management , 112 , 160–169. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.032 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeFries, R., Karanth, K. K., & Pareeth, S. (2010). Interactions between protected areas and their surroundings in human‐dominated tropical landscapes . Biological Conservation , 143 ( 12 ), 2870–2880. 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dhakal, B., & Thapa, B. (2019). Residents’ perceptions of human–elephant conflict: Case study in Bahundangi, Nepal . Environment, Development and Sustainability , 21 ( 1 ), 461–481. 10.1007/s10668-017-0047-1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dickman, A. J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: The importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict . Animal Conservation , 13 ( 5 ), 458–466. 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00368.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Din, J. U., Nawaz, M. A., Mehmood, T., Ali, H., Ali, A., Adli, D. S. H., & Norma‐Rashid, Y. (2019). A transboundary study of spatiotemporal patterns of livestock predation and prey preferences by snow leopard and wolf in the Pamir . Global Ecology and Conservation , 20 , e00719. 10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00719 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fink, A. (2019). Conducting research literature reviews: From the internet to paper . Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gordon, I. J. (2009). What is the future for wild, large herbivores in human‐modified agricultural landscapes? Wildlife Biology , 15 ( 1 ), 1–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gore, M. L., & Kahler, J. S. (2012). Gendered risk perceptions associated with human–wildlife conflict: Implications for participatory conservation . PLoS One , 7 ( 3 ), e32901. 10.1371/journal.pone.0032901 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies . Health Information & Libraries Journal , 26 ( 2 ), 91–108. 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gross, E. M., Lahkar, B. P., Subedi, N., Nyirenda, V. R., Lichtenfeld, L. L., & Jakoby, O. (2019). Does traditional and advanced guarding reduce crop losses due to wildlife? A comparative analysis from Africa and Asia . Journal for Nature Conservation , 50 , 125712. 10.1016/j.jnc.2019.125712 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gu, C., Zhao, P., Chen, Q., Li, S., Li, L., Liu, L., & Zhang, Y. (2020). Forest cover change and the effectiveness of Protected Areas in the Himalaya since 1998 . Sustainability , 12 ( 15 ), 6123. 10.3390/su12156123 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gupta, S. P., & Bhatt, V. P. (2009). Park people conflicts: Study of selected villages of Chamoli district in the vicinity of NDBR . JOHAR , 4 ( 2 ), 62. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hill, C. M. (2018). Crop foraging, crop losses, and crop raiding . Annual Review of Anthropology , 47 , 377–394. 10.1146/annurev-anthro-102317-050022 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holland, K., Larson, L. R., & Powell, R. B. (2018). Characterizing conflict between humans and big cats Panthera spp : A systematic review of research trends and management opportunities . PLoS One , 13 ( 9 ), e0203877. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huang, C., Li, X. Y., Shi, L. J., & Jiang, X. L. (2018). Patterns of human–wildlife conflict and compensation practices around Daxueshan Nature Reserve, China . Zoological Research , 39 ( 6 ), 406–412. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hussain, A., Rawat, G. S., Kumar, S. S., & Adhikari, B. S. (2018). People’s perception on human–wildlife conflict in a part of Kailash Sacred Landscape‐India and Strategies for Mitigation . Indian Forester , 144 ( 10 ), 996–999. [ Google Scholar ]
• ICIMOD , WCD , GBPNIHESD , & RECAST (2017). Kangchenjunga Landscape Conservation and Development Initiative Feasibility Assessment Report: Regional synthesis . ICIMOD Working Paper 2017/9. https://lib.icimod.org/record/32609 [ Google Scholar ]
• Inskip, C., & Zimmermann, A. (2009). Human‐felid conflict: A review of patterns and priorities worldwide . Oryx , 43 ( 1 ), 18–34. 10.1017/S003060530899030X [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jamtsho, Y., & Katel, O. (2019). Livestock depredation by snow leopard and Tibetan wolf: Implications for herders’ livelihoods in Wangchuck Centennial National Park, Bhutan . Pastoralism , 9 ( 1 ), 1. 10.1186/s13570-018-0136-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jasmine, B., Ghose, D., & Das, S. K. (2015). An attitude assessment of human‐elephant conflict in a critical wildlife corridor within the Terai Arc Landscape, India . Journal of Threatened Taxa , 7 ( 2 ), 6843–6852. 10.11609/JoTT.o3914.6843-52 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnsingh, A. J. T., Yonten, D., & Wangchuk, S. (2007). Livestock–dhole conflict in western Bhutan . Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society , 104 ( 2 ), 201–202. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kandel, P., Chettri, N., Chaudhary, S., Sharma, P., & Uddin, K. (2020). Ecosystem services research trends in the water tower of Asia: A bibliometric analysis from the Hindu Kush Himalaya . Ecological Indicators , 121 , 107152. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107152 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kandel, P., Gurung, J., Chettri, N., Ning, W., & Sharma, E. (2016). Biodiversity research trends and gap analysis from a transboundary landscape, Eastern Himalayas . Journal of Asia‐Pacific Biodiversity , 9 ( 1 ), 1–10. 10.1016/j.japb.2015.11.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karanth, K. K., Gupta, S., & Vanamamalai, A. (2018). Compensation payments, procedures and policies towards human–wildlife conflict management: Insights from India . Biological Conservation , 227 , 383–389. 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• König, H. J., Kiffner, C., Kramer‐Schadt, S., Fürst, C., Keuling, O., & Ford, A. T. (2020). Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world . Conservation Biology , 34 ( 4 ), 786–794. 10.1111/cobi.13513 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lamichhane, B. R. (2019). Living with the large carnivores: The interaction between humans, tigers and leopards in Chitwan National Park, Nepal . PhD Dissertation, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands, and University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium. [ Google Scholar ]
• Limbu, K. P., & Karki, T. B. (2003). Park–people conflict in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve . Our Nature , 1 ( 1 ), 15–18. 10.3126/on.v1i1.298 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lozano, J., Olszańska, A., Morales‐Reyes, Z., Castro, A. A., Malo, A. F., Moleón, M., Sánchez‐Zapata, J. A., Cortés‐Avizanda, A., von Wehrden, H., Dorresteijn, I., Kansky, R., Fischer, J., & Martín‐López, B. (2019). Human–carnivore relations: A systematic review . Biological Conservation , 237 , 480–492. 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.07.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Madden, F. (2004). Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: Global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict . Human Dimensions of Wildlife , 9 ( 4 ), 247–257. 10.1080/10871200490505675 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Manral, U., Sengupta, S., Hussain, S. A., Rana, S., & Badola, R. (2016). Human wildlife conflict in India: A review of economic implication of loss and preventive measures . Indian Forester , 142 ( 10 ), 928–940. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martínez‐Harms, M. J., & Balvanera, P. (2012). Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: A review . International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management , 8 ( 1–2 ), 17–25. 10.1080/21513732.2012.663792 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mengist, W., Soromessa, T., & Legese, G. (2020). Ecosystem services research in mountainous regions: A systematic literature review on current knowledge and research gaps . Science of the Total Environment , 702 , 134581. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134581 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mittermeier, R. A., Turner, W. R., Larsen, F. W., Brooks, T. M., & Gascon, C. (2011). Global biodiversity conservation: The critical role of hotspots. In Zachos F. E. & Habel J. C. (Eds.), Biodiversity hotspots (pp. 3–22). Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• MoFSC (2015). Strategy and action plan 2015–2025, Terai Arc Landscape, Nepal . Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. [ Google Scholar ]
• Monastersky, R. (2014). Biodiversity: Life – a status report . Nature News , 516 ( 7530 ), 158. 10.1038/516158a [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mongeon, P., & Paul‐Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis . Scientometrics , 106 ( 1 ), 213–228. 10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naha, D., Sathyakumar, S., & Rawat, G. S. (2018). Understanding drivers of human–leopard conflicts in the Indian Himalayan region: Spatio‐temporal patterns of conflicts and perception of local communities towards conserving large carnivores . PLoS One , 13 ( 10 ), e0204528. 10.1371/journal.pone.0204528 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naughton‐Treves, L., Grossberg, R., & Treves, A. (2003). Paying for tolerance: The impact of livestock depredation and compensation payments on rural citizens’ attitudes toward wolves . Conservation Biology , 17 ( 6 ), 1500–1511. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nyhus, P. J. (2016). Human–wildlife conflict and coexistence . Annual Review of Environment and Resources , 41 , 143–171. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perrotton, A., de Garine‐Wichatitsky, M., Valls‐Fox, H., & Le Page, C. (2017). My cattle and your park: Codesigning a role‐playing game with rural communities to promote multistakeholder dialogue at the edge of protected areas . Ecology and Society , 22 ( 1 ), 35. 10.5751/ES-08962-220135 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Persson, J., Rauset, G. R., & Chapron, G. (2015). Paying for an endangered predator leads to population recovery . Conservation Letters , 8 ( 5 ), 345–350. 10.1111/conl.12171 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peterson, M. N., Birckhead, J. L., Leong, K., Peterson, M. J., & Peterson, T. R. (2010). Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlife conflict . Conservation Letters , 3 ( 2 ), 74–82. 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00099.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pradhan, V. (2018). Developing strategies to mitigate human wildlife conflict in the Sikkim Himalayas, India . Report, ATREE, Gangtok, Sikkim, India. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rao, K. S., Maikhuri, R. K., Nautiyal, S., & Saxena, K. G. (2002). Crop damage and livestock depredation by wildlife: A case study from Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India . Journal of Environmental Management , 66 ( 3 ), 317–327. 10.1016/S0301-4797(02)90587-6 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rao, M., Htun, S., Zaw, T., & Myint, T. (2010). Hunting, livelihoods and declining wildlife in the Hponkanrazi Wildlife Sanctuary, North Myanmar . Environmental Management , 46 ( 2 ), 143–153. 10.1007/s00267-010-9519-x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rashid, W., Shi, J., Rahim, I. U., Sultan, H., Dong, S., & Ahmad, L. (2020). Research trends and management options in human–snow leopard conflict . Biological Conservation , 242 , 108413. 10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108413 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rastogi, A., Hickey, G. M., Badola, R., & Hussain, S. A. (2014). Understanding the local socio‐political processes affecting conservation management outcomes in Corbett Tiger Reserve, India . Environmental Management , 53 ( 5 ), 913–929. 10.1007/s00267-014-0248-4 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Reshamwala, H. S., Shrotriya, S., Bora, B., Lyngdoh, S., Dirzo, R., & Habib, B. (2018). Anthropogenic food subsidies change the pattern of red fox diet and occurrence across Trans‐Himalayas, India . Journal of Arid Environments , 150 , 15–20. 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2017.12.011 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rimal, S., Adhikari, H., & Tripathi, S. (2018). Habitat suitability and threat analysis of Greater One‐horned Rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia: Perissodactyla: Rhinocerotidae) in Rautahat District, Nepal . Journal of Threatened Taxa , 10 ( 8 ), 11999–12007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosen, T., Hussain, S., Mohammad, G., Jackson, R., Janecka, J. E., & Michel, S. (2012). Reconciling sustainable development of mountain communities with large carnivore conservation . Mountain Research and Development , 32 ( 3 ), 286–293. 10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-12-00008.1 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roy, M., & Sukumar, R. (2016). Survey of elephant movement paths/corridors across rail tracks in northern West Bengal . Final Report to International Elephant Foundation. [ Google Scholar ]
• SAARC Forestry Centre (2014). Human–wildlife conflict in the mountains of SAARC region – Compilation of successful management strategies and practices . [ Google Scholar ]
• Sapkota, S., Aryal, A., Baral, S. R., Hayward, M. W., & Raubenheimer, D. (2014). Economic analysis of electric fencing for mitigating human–wildlife conflict in Nepal . Journal of Resources and Ecology , 5 ( 3 ), 237–243. 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2014.03.006 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarker, A. H. M. R., & Røskaft, E. (2010). Human–wildlife conflicts and management options in Bangladesh, with special reference to Asian elephants ( Elephas maximus ) . International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management , 6 ( 3–4 ), 164–175. [ Google Scholar ]
• Seoraj‐Pillai, N., & Pillay, N. (2017). A meta‐analysis of human–wildlife conflict: South African and global perspectives . Sustainability , 9 ( 1 ), 34. 10.3390/su9010034 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharma, E., Molden, D., Rahman, A., Khatiwada, Y. R., Zhang, L., Singh, S. P., Yao, T., & Wester, P. (2019). Introduction to the Hindu Kush Himalaya assessment. In Philippus W., Arabinda M., Aditi M., & Arun B. S. (Eds.), The Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment: Mountains, climate change, sustainability and people (pp. 1–16). Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharma, P., Chettri, N.Uddin K., Wangchuk, K., Joshi, R., Tandin, T., Pandey, A., Gaira, K., Basnet, K., Wangdi, S., & Dorji, T. (2020). Mapping human‐wildlife conflict hotspots in a transboundary landscape in the Eastern Himalaya . Global Ecology and Conservation , 24 , e01284. 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01284 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharma, U. R., & Yonzon, P. (2005). People & protected areas in South Asia . IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sodhi, N. S., & Brook, B. W. (2006). Southeast Asian biodiversity in crisis . Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sondhi, S., Athreya, V., Sondhi, A., Prasad, A., Verma, A., & Verma, N. (2016). Human attacks by leopards in Uttarakhand, India: An assessment based on perceptions of affected people and stakeholders . A technical report submitted to the Uttarakhand Forest Department. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sunar, D., Chakraborty, R., Sharma, B. K., Ghose, P. S., Bhutia, P., & Pradhan, S. (2012). Status and distribution of Asiatic black bear and the status of human–bear conflict at Senchal Wildlife Sanctuary . Technical Report (unpublished). WWF‐India and West Bengal Forest Department, Kolkata, India. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thapa, T. B. (2014). Human caused mortality in the leopard ( Panthera pardus ) population of Nepal . Journal of Institute of Science and Technology , 19 ( 1 ), 155–150. 10.3126/jist.v19i1.13842 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thirgood, S., Woodroffe, R., & Rabinowitz, A. (2005). The impact of human–wildlife conflict on human lives and livelihoods . Conservation Biology Series‐Cambridge , 9 , 13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tobgay, S., Wangyel, S., Dorji, K., & Wangdi, T. (2019). Impacts of crop raiding by wildlife on communities in buffer zone of Sakteng Wildlife Sanctuary, Bhutan . International Journal of Scientific Research and Management , 7 ( 4 ), 129–135. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torres, D. F., Oliveira, E. S., & Alves, R. R. (2018). Conflicts between humans and terrestrial vertebrates: A global review . Tropical Conservation Science , 11 , 1940082918794084. 10.1177/1940082918794084 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Treves, A., Wallace, R. B., Naughton‐Treves, L., & Morales, A. (2006). Co‐managing human–wildlife conflicts: A review . Human Dimensions of Wildlife , 11 ( 6 ), 383–396. 10.1080/10871200600984265 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tulachan, P. M. (2001). Mountain agriculture in the Hindu Kush‐Himalaya . Mountain Research and Development , 21 ( 3 ), 260–267. [ Google Scholar ]
• Upadhyay, S. (2013). Wildlife damages, mitigation measures and livelihood issues around Chitwan National Park, Nepal (Master's thesis) . Norwegian University of Life Sciences Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric. (pp. 102+X)
• Uprety, Y., Chettri, N., Dhakal, M., Asselin, H., Chand, R., & Chaudhary, R. P. (2021). Illegal wildlife trade is threatening conservation in the transboundary landscape of Western Himalaya . Journal for Nature Conservation , 59 , 125952. 10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125952 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping . Scientometrics , 84 ( 2 ), 523–538. 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., van Raan, A. F., Klautz, R. J., & Peul, W. C. (2013). Citation analysis may severely underestimate the impact of clinical research as compared to basic research . PLoS One , 8 ( 4 ), e62395. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vicente‐Sáez, R., & Martínez‐Fuentes, C. (2018). Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition . Journal of Business Research , 88 , 428–436. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.12.043 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wester, P., Mishra, A., Mukherji, A., & Shrestha, A. B. (2019). The Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment: Mountains, climate change, sustainability and people (p. 627). Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• White, P. C., & Ward, A. I. (2011). Interdisciplinary approaches for the management of existing and emerging human–wildlife conflicts . Wildlife Research , 37 ( 8 ), 623–629. 10.1071/WR10191 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu, J., Badola, R., Chettri, N., Chaudhary, R. P., Zomer, R., Pokhrel, B., Hussain, S. A., Pradhan, S., & Pradhan, R. (2019). Sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Hindu Kush Himalayas. In Philippus W., Arabinda M., Aditi M., & Arun B. S. (Eds.), The Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment (pp. 127–165). Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Xu, Y., Yang, B., & Dou, L. (2015). Local villagers’ perceptions of wolves in Jiuzhaigou County, western China . PeerJ , 3 , e982. 10.7717/peerj.982 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yonzon, P. (2008). Elephants on the run . Habitat Himalaya Fact File No. 15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zimmerman, A., Baker, N., Inskip, C., Linnel, J. D. C., Marchini, S., Odden, J., Rasmussen, G., & Treves, A. (2010). Contemporary views of human–carnivore conflicts on wild rangelands. In Oxford U. K. (Ed.), Wild Rangelands: ConserNg Wildlife while Maintaining Livestock in Semi‐Arid Ecosystems (pp. 129–151). Wiley‐Blackwell. [ Google Scholar ]

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 14 September 2020

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

• Sefi Mekonen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7712-9211 1  

BMC Ecology volume  20 , Article number:  51 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

169k Accesses

89 Citations

29 Altmetric

Metrics details

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.

Introduction

Human–wildlife conflict (HWC) occurs when the needs and behavior of wildlife impact negatively on humans or when humans negatively affect the needs of wildlife. These conflicts may result when wildlife damage crops, threaten, kill or injure people and domestic animals [ 33 ]. These are as critical problems created by the growing rural population in and around wildlife habitats [ 34 ]. Human–wildlife conflict incidents are widespread but not evenly distribute because they are dependent on the proximity of wildlife. In addition, different species cause different types of damage at different times of the year. The damage caused has variable effects on the livelihood of households depending on their level of livelihood security at the time of the incident [ 27 ]. One major cause of human–wildlife conflict is increasing human population adjacent to wildlife habitats. As human population increases and the demand for resources grow, the frequency and intensity of such conflicts increases [ 29 ]. This can be manifested by increasing encroachment to wildlife habitats. As a result, the populations of those species which are unable to adapt to altered habitats may invade the marginal habitats or decline in number [ 26 , 29 ]. Human wildlife conflicts undermine human welfare, health, safety and have economic and social cost [ 31 ].

Because HWC is a reciprocal process, humans and animals are negatively affected by the conflict, and it is one of the most complex and urgent issues facing wildlife management and conservation [ 10 ], especially outside PAs [ 38 ]. Scholars are seeking ways to refocus policy-relevant conflict research on finding pathways toward human–wildlife coexistence [ 23 ] and coadaptation [ 2 ]. According to König et al. [ 18 ], literature on HWCs, interaction, and coexistence has grown exponentially from 2000 to 2019, and work on conflict outpaces work on interactions and coexistence threefold. This may be because scholarship on human–wildlife interactions has focused mainly on conflict (i.e., negative outcomes for people, wildlife, or both) [ 3 ] or because new ways of thinking about these interactions now include a paradigm of coexistence [ 18 ]. Coexistence is defined as a dynamic but sustainable state in which humans and wildlife co-adapt to living in shared landscapes, where human interactions with wildlife are governed by effective institutions that ensure long-term wildlife population persistence, social legitimacy, and tolerable levels of risk [ 2 , 18 ]. The focus on human–wildlife conflict has often been a constraint to wildlife conservation, as practitioners have centered their attention on reducing negative interactions, rather than on increasing positive relations between humans and wildlife. To work toward solutions that maximize conservation success, it is necessary to include positive interactions, coexistence, and attitudes of tolerance toward wildlife [ 11 ].

Human wildlife conflict is a well-known phenomenon throughout sub Saharan Africa [ 34 ]. Reducing human–wildlife conflict is also an urgent conservation priority and key to coexistence between humans and animals in this region [ 37 ]. There are many human wildlife conflicts in Ethiopian protected areas which need solutions, but there is no enough empirical study done on issues pertaining to human wildlife conflict. Local communities do not enough benefit from wildlife resources and alienated from wildlife related economic enterprises. Like other parks or protected areas in Ethiopia, Bale Mountains National Park (BMNP) is highly influenced by the human activities living in and around the Park. Due to this, local peoples around the park and the wildlife are being affected negatively as the result this interaction. From this perspective, it is imperative to assess the human–wildlife conflict that occurs with local communities living adjacent to BMNP. There was no detail investigation made to identify the cause of the conflict and its adverse consequences.

Identify potential ways to reduce or prevent conflicts for the better wellbeing of both people and wildlife is the main objective of conducting research on human–wildlife conflict [ 21 ]. A prerequisite for finding effective solutions is understanding the details, mechanisms, and nature of conflict [ 21 ]. Therefore, this particular study aims to investigate the nature, extent, roots and mitigations of human wildlife conflict in and around the park. Moreover, this study was serving as ideal or standard information for the coexistence between humans and wildlife. Local community, researchers and other organizations are benefited from the study by getting how to conserved or managed the wildlife in additional to ensure positive coexistence between people and wild animal in the interest of human and environmental wellbeing.

Materials and methods

Description of the study area.

The study area Bale Mountains National Park is located southeast of Ethiopia about 400 km by road from Addis Ababa, between 6 o 29′ and 7 o 10 o North and 39 o 28′ and 39 o 58 o East. It covers an area of 247,000 hectare of land with an altitudinal range from 1500 to 4377 m asl [ 8 ]. It was first proposed in the late 1960 s to protect Afroalpine habitat and populations of the rare, endemic and species of the mountain nyala ( Tragelaphus buxtoni ), the giant molerat ( Trachyoryctes macrocephalus ) and the Ethiopian wolf ( Canis simensis ) [ 16 ], [ 1 ]. Even if its establishment was for this Bale Mountains is one of the most important areas of the world for its number of threatened Ethiopian endemics in all taxa 26% of Ethiopia’s endemic species. Of the area’s recorded birds, 6% are Ethiopian endemics. In addition there are several rare and endemic amphibian species found only in Bale as well as 1321 species of flowering plants with 163 endemic (23 to Bale alone) to Ethiopia [ 16 ].

The Park, as part of the highlands of eastern Africa encompasses a variety of habitats that supports a diversity of wildlife species. The habitat types include grassland, woodland, heather moorland and Afro-alpine vegetation [ 14 , 15 , 24 ]. Bale Mountain National Park is undoubtedly one of the most unique areas on earth, with the largest piece of Afro-alpine habitats with the second largest moist tropical forest and the only cloud forest in Ethiopia [ 16 ]. And it is an Important Bird Area of immense importance comprising more than 256 species of birds with seven endemics from the afro tropical highland biome species which represents 80% of the species making the area the richest site for this biome assemblage [ 1 , 8 , 16 ].

Data collection methods

The data were collected through primary and secondary methods. Primary data was collected from household questionnaires, interview and field observation. Household questionnaires were implemented to gather the data related to assess HWC cause, the nature of conflict and management and mitigation strategies to reduce conflict in the area. The study was based on mainly park office and sample kebele household cross sectional survey using pre-test structure questioner organizing in logical order of presentation. Key informant interviews were conducted with selected informants who are depending on park resources. Interview was held with park scout, park manager and local community to explore the nature of HWC and human and wildlife coexistences. In focus group discussions, the researcher is just a facilitator and the respondents provide information. Focus groups therefore, provided an opportunity for the researcher to interact with the local community and gain relevant information about their knowledge, opinions, and attitudes regarding human–wildlife conflicts and to determine effective HWC management and control methods used by local people. Field observation was mainly used to confirm the respondent’s responses, so that accurate and reliable information would be collected during filed observation. The observation was carried out in three purposive selected kebeles (Dinsho Kebele 01, Goba and Rira kebele). To make the research more reliable and to obtain an objective data which is got from primary data was supported by the secondary one. Secondary data collection sources are data obtained from books, internet searches, libraries, journal, progress reports, Park office and articles.

Sampling size and sampling technique

It is obvious that Bale Mountains National Park is surrounded by five Districts such as: Adaba (west), Dinsho (north), Goba (northeast), Mana-Angetu (south) and Berbere (east). However, the extent of exposure of local people and their agricultural area to wildlife is not the same throughout the five Districts rather it greatly differs from one to another. Therefore, two Districts (Dinsho and Goba Woreda) were selected using systematic random sampling technique through careful identifications in which those which have high extent of exposure with the park boundaries. In addition, random sampling technique was employed to identify sample households. In this heads of households were randomly selected from sample kebeles/villages of the two Districts which were selected using systematic random sampling after the completion of preliminary survey which is helpful to identify specific villages which are highly affected as a result of the conflict with wildlife. 5% of the total households from each sample village were selected randomly.

The sampling size of the study was determined based on formula adapted from Israel (1962) as follows.

where; N = the total population; n = the required sample size; e = the precision level which is = (± 10%), where confidence interval is 90% at p = + 10 (maximum variability) which is = (± 10%) n = 1850/1+1850(0.1) 2  = 95.

Accordingly, from the total (1850) population of three villages, a total of 95 respondents were selected and the questionnaire was transferred purposefully. The respondents were selected purposively based on their ability, awareness, adjacent to an area and knowledge contributes to the overall research objectives.

Data analysis

The data was analyzed by using simple descriptive (qualitative) method and quantitative (numerical) method. The study was interpreting the data based on the survey questionnaire, interview and filed observation. The data was analyzed by using simple descriptive statistics such as mean percentage and the data was present on tables, charts, picture and percentage also further represented by using graphs and other diagram in order to analyses more information about our research study.

Nature and extent of human wildlife conflict

The nature and extent of human wildlife conflict in and around Bale Mountains National Park have profoundly impacted humans, wild animal and the environment in many ways through crop damage, habitat disturbance and destruction, livestock depredation, killing of wildlife and human and the like. As a result, local communities disliked wildlife inhabiting in and around their surroundings. This has a great negative impact in conservation of the wildlife.

Crop damage

The result showed that not all crops were equally affected by crop raiders (herbivore wild animals) in the studies area. Olive baboon ( Papio anubis ), warthog ( Phacochoerus aethiopicus ), common mole rat ( Tachyoryctus splendens ), porcupine ( Hystrix cristata ), grey duiker ( Sylvicapra grimmia ), mountain nyala ( Tragelaphus buxtoni ) and bohor reedbuck ( Redunca redunca ) were mentioned as important crop raiders. According to farmers, Olive baboon ( Papio anubis ) was the most commonly reported crop raiders which cause more damage and ranked first followed by warthog ( Phacochoerus aethiopicus ). They damage crops early in the morning and evening when people are absent near farmlands. While, respondents were putted porcupine ( Hystrix cristata ) are as third crop raiders followed by bohor reedbuck ( Redunca redunca ). Human and wildlife have been in conflict because farming crops generally offer a rich food source for wildlife as well as for people. Large wild herbivores compete for fallow resources with livestock and can act as reservoirs of livestock diseases. The respondents claimed that Wheat (30%) and barley (24%) was the most vulnerable crop to raiders’. Whereas respondents reported that potato, Maize, Teff and legume are damaged by wild animals on rank 18%, 14%, 10% and 4%, respectively (Fig.  1 ).

Rank of vulnerable crops in the order of destruction by crop raider

Habitat disturbance

Habitat disturbance is destruction of the home of the wild animals. Humans kill or chase wild animals by digging, cutting, sealing by stones and smoking their natural habitat. This method is a main cause to decrease or to extinct of wild animals. The major components of habitat disturbance in the study area were settlement in and around the national park, over grazing by livestock, frequent fire and bush encroachment, tree cutting for charcoal, sale and construction of huts. Tree cutting was mainly associated with new settlement, which resulted deterioration of the remaining vegetation cover of the area. This minimizes the feeding ground, nesting and mating site of the wild animals so you have to be happened conflict between human and wild animal.

Livestock depredation

According to the respondents a total of three (namely, leopard (50%), Common Jackal (28%) and spotted hyenas (22%)) common problematic wild animals were reported in terms of livestock depredation from the villages although their effect is differing from village to village (Fig.  2 ). Leopards were reported to attack cattle, donkeys, goats, sheep and domestic dog in the study area. Common jackals are attack sheep; goat and spotted hyena caused the most pronounced problems and the local communities’ loss their oxen, cows, donkeys, mules, domestic dog and horses. Carnivores are attacking domestic livestock due to declining number of herbivorous in the wild due to prolonged droughts and habitat degradation.

Major livestock depredation wild animal in the study area

Killings of wildlife

Because of lack of compensated for crop losses, and domestic animal killing or loss the local communities are more suffered by wild animals and then they straggled to kill wild animals. This study was showed that Crop-raiding undermines food security and intolerance of wildlife within neighboring human communities in the study area. The inability to mitigate crop-raiding and absence of composition for crop losses lead to killing of animals.

Root causes of human–wildlife conflicts

According to the respondents and field observation, the main root causes of human wildlife conflict in the study area were: agricultural expansion (30%), human settlement (24%), overgrazing by livestock (14%), deforestation (18%), illegal grass collection (10%) and poaching (4%) (Figs.  3 and 4 ).

Cause for Human wildlife conflict in and around the study area

Habitat Degradation, Agricultural Expansion and human settlement

Deforestation is another major cause of human wildlife conflict in the study area mainly caused by cutting of trees for expansion of farm land, fire wood collection and livestock grazing send fire for the purpose of charcoal production (Fig.  5 ). Over grazing also was another major cause of human wildlife conflict the in the study area. This cause was due to the local communities were farming and livestock production are the main activities.

Over grazing and tree logging by livestock

Minimizing and mitigations of human wildlife conflict

According to the respondents, different methods are used by farmers to defend crop raider from their crop include crop guarding (34%), live fencing (26%), and scarecrow (22%), chasing (14%), whereas 5% was used smoking to repeal the crop raiders from their crop mostly in the night time which was the lowest method (Table  1 ).

As below Fig.  6 showed, the local community used different controlling techniques to defend livestock predator animals, such as fencing (38%), chasing (30%), scarecrow (24%), guarding (8%), and smoking (0%) based on respondents rank. These traditional controlling techniques of the most effective methods are fencing and chasing, the second most effective methods are scarecrow and guarding (especially common jackal) and the least effective traditional controlling techniques are smoking.

Traditional controlling techniques of livestock predation animal

Wildlife damage to agricultural crops is a serious concern affecting much of the world today [ 30 ]. Primates are one of the most frequently cited crop pests [ 13 ], so primates and humans are always in potential conflict over crops. This conflict is particularly interesting in that it arises from a positive desire to contact monkeys and then people discover that the contact poses risks from bites, theft of non-provisioned food or more general health issues such as exposure to simian viruses [ 6 ]. The result was agreed with finding of [ 36 ] who reported that wheat (ripe and dried) was the most frequently eaten crop by crop raiding in West Africa. Study conducted in Rwandan Forest Fragment indicated that maize, potato, beans, cabbage, sweet potato and tomato were raided by wild animals [ 12 ].

A research conducted in and around the study area showed that Olive baboon, warthog, common mole rat and bohor reedbuck (Redunca redunca), were identified as destructive animals, mainly feeding commonly on wheat, barley, potato, maize, teff and legume. Similar finding with the current study was observed in Filinga Range of Gashaka Gumti National Park of Nigeria. Monkeys, Baboons, Birds and Rodents were listed among wild animals that attack crops including Maize, Cassava, Rice and Banana [ 7 ].

Hence, common jackal and leopards could easily penetrate the fences and drag out the sheep and goat and any other animals. So, most of the predation by leopard happened during Both Night and Day Time but common jackal happened in day time and Spotted Hyena during happened in the night time within the settlement. This result is the same as with [ 25 ] that reported Leopard, Spotted Hyena and Common jackal were the major predators for domestic animals in and around Semen Mountains National park of Ethiopia. They were responsible for loss of Sheep, Goats, Oxen, Cows, Donkeys and Mules. Eight problematic wild animals in terms of domestic animal loss were identified in Chebera Churchura National Park southwestern part of Ethiopia [ 5 ]. Among those hazardous wild animals three of them i.e. Leopard, Jackal, and hyena were same with the present finding.

Reduction in the availability of natural prey/food sources leads to wild animals seeking alternate sources. Alternately, new resources created by humans draw wildlife resulting in conflict [ 39 ]. Byproducts of human existence offer un-natural opportunity for wildlife in the form of food and sheltered interference and potentially destructive threat for both man and animals. Competition for food resources also occurs when humans attempt to harvest natural resources such as fish and grassland pasture. Another cause of conflict comes from conservation biased toward flagship or game species that often threatens other species of concern [ 20 ].

According to the respondent’s response (10%), the local people cut grass illegally to feed their cattle, sell in the market and for thatching houses. This might cause scarcity of grass for herbivores and disturb the natural behavior of wildlife in the Park. Like any other Park in Ethiopia, local people exploit the resource from BMNP as well. Forest exploitation inside the Park and traditional farming activities close to the Park might cause strong impacts on the wildlife. Wild animals are highly restricted in some parts of the Park because of human and livestock encroachment.

Therefore the researcher was concluded that Agricultural Expansion (30%) and human settlement (24%) are the major causes of human wildlife conflict in and around the study area (Figs.  3 , 4 , and 5 ), while poaching (4%) are the lowest cause of HWC. Recently there was agricultural practice and human settlement inside and outside the park. Similar sources for Human wildlife were reported from Tsavo Conservation Area, Kenya. Agricultural Expansion, human settlement, deforestation, illegal grass collection, poaching was reported as the main causes of Human wildlife conflicts [ 22 ]. Different causes for human wildlife conflict were reported from different parts of Africa. For instance, animal death, loss of human life, crop damage, and damage to property, injuries to people and wildlife, encroachment of forest areas for agriculture, developmental activities, and livestock grazing are some key reasons for increment of the conflict in countries such as Kenya, Namibia, Mozambique, Zambia and Nigeria [ 19 ].

Many traditional repelling techniques are fairly effective if formalized, but are labor intensive. But where an animal can be repelled adequately using conventional methods it seems in appropriate, and certainly not particularly cost effective to try to introduce more expensive techniques requiring greater technological input or backup [ 4 ]. Another approach that has been used successfully to manage Human wildlife conflict involves changing the perceptions of people experiencing the damage, thus, increasing their willingness to tolerate damage [ 35 ]. Agricultural producers already are receptive to this argument and appreciate the wildlife on their farms to enhance wildlife habitat and their tolerance for some wildlife damage. This tolerance can be enhanced by providing economic incentives [ 25 ].

There was percentage difference between respondents using the different traditional methods in which of the respondents were used to defend their crop from crop raiders. This result agrees with the finding of [ 17 ] who founds that guarding and live fencing away of animals was ranked first and second in protecting crop raiders from crops. According to [ 13 ], the most viable options to reduce crop loss were increasing vigilance by farmers. This has been shown to make a considerable difference in the amount of crops lost, increasing farmer tolerance for a pest species and lost crops and increasing the ability of farmers to repel crop raiders using existing local methods. This has a number of obvious benefits, if these methods do not make a considerable impact on crop loss, and larger impact interventions such as electric fencing, lethal control of pest animals or moving farmers from the conflict zone can be considered [ 35 ].

Selection of the different strategies depends on the type of species, behavior of species and size of species. These results were similar to reported from Kenya Nyeri district [ 28 ]. The most effective strategy of the local communities used in preventing crop damage was guarding (34%), which is time consuming [ 7 ]. Similarly, the communities in the present study reported that permanent Guarding by adults is the most effective strategy to control both crop and livestock from wildlife when asked the most effective deter strategy among practiced by the local people. Active guarding by famers and members of their families was found to be the sole mode of protection from crop raiding [ 12 ].

No single management strategy can prevent all crop raiding and the goal of management should not only to be reducing the levels of crop raiding but also to raise the tolerance level of crop raiding by lessening its impact to farmers [ 33 ]. No solution will work without site-specific knowledge of what is possible, practical, or acceptable in any particular area. Unfortunately, human–wildlife conflict situations are often complex so are unlikely to be resolved quickly and cannot be solved solely by technical means. Human wildlife conflict can be managed through a variety of approaches. Prevention strategies endeavor to avoid the conflict occurring in the first place and take action towards addressing its root causes [ 13 ]. The main difference between the options is the moment at which the measure is implemented. By definition, management techniques are only cost-effective if the cost of implementing the technique is less than the value of the damage, taking into account the fact that a short period of active management may have a continued effect, by instating longer-term protection of crops or herds [ 9 ]. The various management possibilities are presented according to the characteristics of conflict whether they relate to humans, production, animals and the environment, rather than according to their ability to prevent or mitigate damage [ 20 ].

According to Hill et al. [ 13 ], conflict resolution/management methods have the following possible goals: reducing the amount of crop losses to wildlife; improving local people’s attitudes and perceptions towards protected area and its wildlife; helping affected farmers to improve agricultural production; increasing the amount of crops being harvested locally. Through improved local yields and reducing levels of poaching. Those wise it is very important that farmers be involved in the process of developing new solutions from the beginning [ 35 ]. Not only does this foster a sense of commitment and involvement amongst them, but it is also vital that they be involved from the beginning. Because they understand how the situation affects them and what kinds of intervention are likely to be acceptable and feasible with in the local culture, providing there is adequate representation from the different types of stakeholder involved [ 32 ].

The present study showed that human wildlife conflict is apparent in the study area. The conflict becomes the main causes to the continued survival of wild animal species in the area. Not only causes for wild animals but also the conflict causes high impact in economic loss of the people in and around the study area. Therefore, human–wildlife conflicts are negative impacts on both human and wildlife as highlighted in this study. It is also a serious obstacle to wildlife conservationists. Based on these reasons, mitigation strategies are very essential to reduce the cause and impact of HWC. Accordingly, possible mitigate possibilities for peaceful co-existence between human and wildlife are presented as follows:- Create awareness and organize training program to the local communities, identifying clear border between the closure area and the land owned by the residents, rules and regulations of the park, translocate the problematic animal to another area, equal benefit sharing of the local communities, to reduce or minimize agricultural practice inside and outside the national park, reduce deforestation by formulate rules and regulation for performed local communities, relocate agricultural activity out of the national park range, zoning or change the location of crop fields, Reduction of human settlement encroachment into the national park range.

Conclusions

The result of the present study has clearly shown that there was a strong conflict between human and wildlife living in and around the study area. The cause of human wildlife conflict was human settlement, agricultural expansion, illegal grass collection, over grazing by livestock and deforestation in national park. As a result, local communities disliked wildlife inhabiting in and around their surroundings. This has a great negative impact in conservation of the wildlife. The main effects for the presence of strong human wildlife conflict in the study area include crop damage, livestock depredation, killing of wildlife and habitat disturbance. Therefore, determination of possible solutions to mitigate Human wildlife conflict in the study area is mandatory for peaceful coexistence of human and wildlife.

Based on the obtained results of the present study, the following points are recommended in the study area:

Farmers should cooperatively keep their farm against crop raiders to minimize crop loss by using most effective method in an area.

The park authority should provide compensation for wildlife induced damage in and around the park.

Palatable and nutritive crops should not be grown near the park edge.

The concerning body should work hard to increase the awareness of the local people about the importance of wildlife conservation.

The park authority should provide fence or other method that used to protect crops, peoples and livestock from threat.

Stakeholders should reduce human settlements around the forest, expansion of farmland and cattle grazing in and around the National Park.

To reduce the dependency of the local people in and around the national park, it is better to encourage the local people to plant trees for their various types of utilization.

Further investigation must be conducted to identify alternative crops that can be rejected by crop raiders in the area.

Availability of data and materials

The data used and analyzed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on a reasonable request, without disclosure of the interviewees.

Abbreviations

Institute of Biodiversity Conservation

Bale Mountains National Park

Human wildlife conflict

BirdLife International. Important bird areas of Africa and Associated Islands, priority areas for conservation. Cambridge: Pisces Publishers; 2001.

Google Scholar  

Carter NH, Linnell JDC. Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends Ecol Evol. 2016;31:575–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

Chapron G, López-Bao JV. The place of nature in conservation conflicts. Conserv Biol. 2020;34:795–802.

Conover M. Resolving human wildlife conflicts the science of wildlife damage management. New York: Lewis Publishers; 2002. p. 418.

Demeke D, Afework B. Conservation challenge: human-carnivore conflict in Chebera Churchura National Park, Ethiopia. Greener J Biol Sci. 2013;3(3):108–15.

Else JG. Non-human primates as pests. In: Box HO, editor. Primate responses to environmental change. London: Chapman and Hall; 1991.

Eniang EA, Ijeomah HM, Okeyoyin G, Uwatt AE. Assessment of Human–wildlife conflicts in filinga range of Gashaka Gumti National Park, Nigeria. PAT. 2011;7(1):15–35.

EWNHS. Important bird areas of Ethiopia: a first inventory. Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Wildlife and Natural History Society; 1996.

FAOUN (food and agricultural organizations of united nations) (2010). Managing conflict between people and lion, review and insights from the literature and field experience.

Frank B, Glikman JA, Marchini S. Human–wildlife interactions:turning conflict into coexistence. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019.

Book   Google Scholar  

Frank B. Human–wildlife conflicts and the need to include tolerance and coexistence. An introductory comment, society and natural resources. 2016;29(6):738–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1103388 .

Guinness SM, Taylor D. Farmers’ perceptions and actions to decrease crop raiding by forest-dwelling primates around a Rwandan forest fragment. Hum Dimens Wildl. 2014;19(2):179–90.

Hill C, Osborn F, Plumptre AJ. Conflict of interest between people and baboons, crop raiding in Uganda. Int J Primatol. 2000;21:2.

Hillman JC. Bale Mountains National Park management plan. Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization; 1986.

Hillman JC. Ethiopia: compendium of wildlife conservation, vol. 2. Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Organization; 1993.

IBC. Bale Mountain National Park Management Plan (2007–2017). Addis Ababa: Institute of Biodiversity Conservation; 2007.

Johansson T. The Spatial dimension of human–wildlife conflicts, discoveries of new animal geography. Helsinki: University of Helsinki; 2002.

König HJ, Kiffner C, Kramer-Schadt S, Fürst C, Keuling O, Ford AT. Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world. Special section: challenges of and solutions to human–wildlife conflicts in agricultural landscapes. Conserv Biol. 2020;34(4):786–94.

Ladan SI. Examining human wild life conflict in Africa. In: International conference on biological, civil and environmental engineering; 2014, p. 102–5.

Lamarque F, Anderson J, Fergusson R, Lagrange M, Osei Owusu Y, Bakker L. Human wildlife conflict in Africa cause, consequences and management strategies. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2009.

Linnell J, Thomassen J, Jones K. Wildlife–human interactions: from conflict to coexistence in sustainable landscapes. NINA Special Report 45. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Norway; 2011.

Makindi SM, Mutinda MN, Olekaikai NKW, Olelebo WL, Aboud AA. Human–wildlife conflicts: causes and mitigation measures in tsavo conservation area, Kenya. Int J Sci Res. 2014;3(6):1025–31.

Marchini S, Ferraz KMPMB, Zimmermann A, Guimarães-Luiz T, MoratoR Correa PLP, Macdonald DW. Planning for coexistence in a complex human-dominated world. In: Frank B, Glik-man JA, Marchini S, editors. Human–wildlife interactions: turning conflict into coexistence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019. p. 414–38.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Marino J. Spatial ecology of Ethiopian Wolf, Canis simensis. Ph.D. thesis. University of Oxford, London; 2003.

Messmer TA. Human–wildlife conflicts: emerging challenges and opportunities. Hum Wildl Confl. 2009;3(1):10–7.

Messmer TA. The emergence of human– wildlife conflict management: turning challenges into opportunities. Int Biol Deterior Biol Degrad. 2000;45(3–4):97–102.

Mulonga S, Suich H, Murphy C. The conflict continues: human–wildlife conflict and livelihoods in Caprivi. Namibia: Windhoek; 2003.

MUsyoKi C. Crop defense and coping strategies: wildlife raids in Mahiga ‘B’ village in nyeri distriCt, Kenya. Afr Study Monogr. 2014;35(1):19–40.

Newmark WD, Leonard NL, Sarko HI, Gemassa DM. Conservation attitude of local people living adjacent to five protected areas in Tanzania. Biol. Conserv. 1993;63:177–83.

O’Connell-Rodwell CE, Rodwell T, Rice M, Hart LA. Living with the modern conservation paradigm, can agricultural communities co-exist with elephants. A five year case study in East Caprivi, Namibia. Biol Conserv. 2000;93(3):381–91.

Ogada MO, Woodroffe R, Oguge NO, Frank LG. Limiting depredation by African carnivores: the role of livestock husbandry. Conserv Biol. 2003;17(6):1521–30.

Parkhurst JA. The center for human–wildlife conflict resolution at Virginia Tech A Model of future use. Blacksburg: Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Tech; 2006.

Sillero-Zubiri C, Switzer D. Crop raiding primates: searching for alternative, humane ways to resolve conflict with farmers in Africa. People and Wildlife Initiative. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit. Oxford: Oxford University; 2001.

Sukumar R. The Asian Elephant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989. p. 265.

Treves A. Balancing the needs of people and wildlife: when wildlife damage crops and prey on livestock. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison; 2007.

Warren Y. Crop-raiding Baboons (Papio Anubis) and defensive farmers: a West African Perspective. School of Human and Life Sciences, Whiteland College, Roehampton University, Holybourne Avenue, London SW154JD. West Afr J Appl Ecol. 2008; 14. http://www.peapleandwildlife.org.uk/crmanuals/CropraidingPrimatesP&WManual .

Wilson-Holt O, Steele P. Human–wildlife conflict and insurance. Can insurance reduce the costs of living with wildlife? IIED Discussion Paper. IIED, London; 2019. http://pubs.iied.org/16648IIED , ISBN 978-1-78431-666-2.

Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A. People and wildlife, conflict or co-existence?Cambridge University Press. Cambridge: United Kingdom; 2005.

Young J. Ethiopian protected areas A ‘‘Snapshot’’. A reference guide for future strategic planning, and project funding, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2012.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to offer my sincere thanks to Bale Mountains National Park office staff member, local communities and Scouts for giving me an opportunity to pursue this research.

No funding sources

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Biology, College of Natural and Computational Science, Debre Berhan University, Debre Berhan, Ethiopia

Sefi Mekonen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

I am contributing for this work is starting from designing study and data collection to finalizing the research. The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sefi Mekonen .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Permits for this research were issued by the Ethiopian Wildlife Conservation Authority (EWCA) and park management office.

Consent for publication

This manuscript does not contain any individual person’s data, and further consent for publication is not required/ applicable.

Competing interests

I declare that no competing interests, because the research is done by only me.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mekonen, S. Coexistence between human and wildlife: the nature, causes and mitigations of human wildlife conflict around Bale Mountains National Park, Southeast Ethiopia. BMC Ecol 20 , 51 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-020-00319-1

Download citation

Received : 07 May 2020

Accepted : 03 September 2020

Published : 14 September 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12898-020-00319-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Biodiversity
• Conservation
• Human–wildlife interactions
• Protected area

BMC Ecology

ISSN: 1472-6785

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 20 May 2021

A pan-African spatial assessment of human conflicts with lions and elephants

• Enrico Di Minin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5562-318X 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Rob Slotow   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9469-1508 3 , 4 ,
• Christoph Fink 1 , 2 ,
• Hans Bauer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5031-5842 5 &
• Craig Packer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3939-8162 3 , 6  

Nature Communications volume  12 , Article number:  2978 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

• Biogeography
• Conservation biology

African lions ( Panthera leo ) and African savanna ( Loxodonta africana ) and forest ( L. cyclotis ) elephants pose threats to people, crops, and livestock, and are themselves threatened with extinction. Here, we map these human-wildlife conflicts across Africa. Eighty-two percent of sites containing lions and elephants are adjacent to areas with considerable human pressure. Areas at severe risk of conflict (defined as high densities of humans, crops, and cattle) comprise 9% of the perimeter of these species’ ranges and are found in 18 countries hosting, respectively, ~ 74% and 41% of African lion and elephant populations. Although a variety of alternative conflict-mitigation strategies could be deployed, we focus on assessing the potential of high-quality mitigation fences. Our spatial and economic assessments suggest that investments in the construction and maintenance of strategically located mitigation fences would be a cost-effective strategy to support local communities, protect people from dangerous wildlife, and prevent further declines in lion and elephant populations.

Similar content being viewed by others

Landscape predictors of human–leopard conflicts within multi-use areas of the Himalayan region

Socio-political and ecological fragility of threatened, free-ranging African lion populations

The unequal burden of human-wildlife conflict

Introduction.

Current rates of species extinction are unprecedented 1 and are destined to increase without adequate conservation actions 2 . Large-bodied mammals have suffered significant population declines over the past century and are further threatened by continued habitat loss, unsustainable use, and human–wildlife conflict 3 . The transformation of natural habitat to agriculture and intensive livestock husbandry has not only contracted these species’ ranges and largely restricted their distribution to the confines of protected areas 4 , 5 , 6 , but the closer proximity of human activity to wildlife has also increased the dangers posed to people, livestock, and crops 7 . Human–wildlife conflict involves the tangible and/or perceived impacts of wildlife on people 8 , including human injury and death 9 , direct and indirect economic damage to crops, livestock, and property 10 , food insecurity 11 , and diminished psychological wellbeing 12 . Unmitigated conflict decreases local support for biodiversity conservation 13 and frequently escalates into retaliatory killing of wildlife 14 , 15 . Implementing effective human–wildlife conflict-mitigation strategies has, therefore, become a growing priority for engaging rural communities and preventing localized wildlife extinctions. Mitigation efforts can be broadly classified into tactics that directly or indirectly target wildlife (e.g., culling or translocating problem animals vs. noxious stimuli to deter crop-raiding elephants 16 , or improved livestock husbandry to reduce lion predation 17 ), whereas other approaches attempt to increase tolerance to economic losses inflicted by wildlife (e.g., compensation schemes 18 , performance–payment schemes, and increased benefits to local communities from wildlife-based tourism; see ref. 8 for a review), although the large-scale effectiveness of most of these efforts remains equivocal 8 , 19 , 20 .

Africa is one of the last global strongholds for the conservation of large carnivores and herbivores 5 , 7 . However, Africa’s human population is projected to grow from the current 1.2 billion people to nearly two billion by the end of the century 21 and Africa is also the centre of large-scale agricultural investments for the purposes of food and biofuel production 22 . Unsurprisingly, numerous parts of Africa have been identified as major hotspots of human pressure on biodiversity 23 , 24 and pressures will likely intensify further as a result of future pandemics, political instability, or armed conflicts that hinder wildlife-based tourism, reduce effective conservation funding, and undermine national economies 25 . The continent-wide conservation challenges of human–wildlife conflict are encapsulated by the iconic African lion and the African savanna and forest elephants (hereafter referred to as elephants), which have all experienced extensive range contractions 4 , 5 and suffered local extinctions and significant population declines throughout their ranges 26 , 27 , largely owing to (i) habitat loss 28 , (ii) unsustainable hunting 26 , 29 , (iii) retaliatory and preemptive killing to protect humans, livestock, and crops 8 , and (iv) extensive prey depletion (for lions) 30 .

Recent evidence suggests that African lion and elephant populations are persisting, or even increasing, in areas where conservation budgets are adequate and/or mitigation fences successfully prevent conflict with humans 19 , 27 , 31 , 32 . According to protected area managers, mitigation fences are essential along boundaries with the highest human, crop, and livestock densities, as alternative mitigation strategies are often ineffective 33 (but see ref. 20 on the lack of quantitative comparisons about the utility of the alternatives) and mitigation fences are currently found in at least ten African countries, despite the costs of attaining the necessary standards 19 , 33 . However, a number of conservationists have expressed opposition to fencing on the grounds that large-scale barriers have often disrupted wildlife movements and decreased landscape connectivity in the past, and that these impacts will be likely to intensify as species respond to climate change 34 . However, these concerns were largely inspired by the widespread deployment of veterinary fences in southern Africa, where barriers were erected to prevent disease transmission from wildlife to livestock with little regard for their ecological impacts on migratory wildlife species 35 . Thus, the ongoing debate on the costs and benefits of fencing for both people and wildlife should turn its focus to identifying boundaries where fencing can be a financially sustainable strategy for preventing human–wildlife conflict, while minimizing any negative conservation impacts 36 .

Here we identify the areas that are most at risk for conflicts and estimate the associated return on investment of building and maintaining mitigation fences. Our analysis combines the most up-to-date information on the distribution of lions and elephants with spatial information on human population density, cropland, and cattle density, as these are considered to be the major drivers of human–wildlife conflict in Africa 4 , 8 . Conflict decreases with distance from protected areas 37 , 38 ; thus, we identify areas on the perimeter of the ranges of lions and elephants that are within 10 km of the highest densities of humans, cattle, and crops. To avoid interrupting ecological processes such as migrations and/or causing unintended consequences to other biodiversity (e.g., habitat fragmentation), we extended the species ranges to include adjacent protected areas that currently lack lions and elephants, but were once part of their historical distribution (Supplementary Fig.  1 ). We identify a set of socio-economic and political variables that affect lion and elephant populations in each area (Supplementary Table  1 ), consider whether proposed fence lines would affect other migratory mammals, and estimate the associated equivalent annual annuity (EAA; i.e., the constant annual cash flow potentially generated by fencing over its lifespan with the net present value (NPV) being calculated on an annualized basis 39 ), to determine the return on investment of building and subsequently maintaining the necessary mitigation fences at standards that can successfully restrict lions and elephants, and reduce cattle loss, crop damage, and human injury or death. It is noteworthy that our protocol identifies high human-occupancy areas that already block wildlife movements and otherwise disrupt large-scale ecosystem processes 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , so the erection of mitigation fences would mostly act to separate humans from dangerous wildlife, but we nevertheless examine whether such barriers would inflict substantial further ecological impacts. Also note that the economic analyses presented here refer to high-standard fences built along the perimeter of conservation areas that effectively restrict lions and elephants. Given that the associated construction costs for fencing are the highest of any mitigation strategy currently in use or being field tested, our analysis embeds these expenses into an economic framework and asks where such expenditures would be cost-effective. Supplementary Fig.  2 provides a flowchart of the analysis; full details are provided in the ‘Methods’. We find that 82% of all sites containing lions and elephants are adjacent to areas with considerable human pressure. Areas at severe risk of conflict (adjacent to high densities of humans + crops + cattle) comprise 9% of the perimeter of these species’ ranges. These worst affected areas are found in a total of 18 countries that respectively host ~74% and 41% of African lion and elephant populations. Although a variety of conflict-mitigation strategies could be deployed to address this issue, we show how mitigation fences would provide considerable return on investment via reduced cattle loss and crop damage, especially in Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Kenya. Attention should be paid to prevent further habitat fragmentation for migratory species traversing the worst affected areas.

Based on survey estimates, there are ~25,125 (±549) lions and 415,428 (±20,112) elephants left in Africa (Fig.  1 , Supplementary Fig.  3 , and Supplementary Table  2 ). Human population density is the most important factor predicting population numbers of both lions and elephants (Supplementary Fig.  4 and Supplementary Table  3 ): these species are most abundant at localities where human population density is lowest. At a national scale, lion populations are higher in countries with higher conservation expenditures and elephant numbers are higher in countries with higher gross domestic product per capita (Supplementary Fig.  4 and Supplementary Table  3 ).

Lion ranges are in orange, whereas elephant ranges are in turquoise. Areas hatched in orange and turquoise represent overlapping species ranges. Each animal icon is equivalent to 1000 individuals. Values in parenthesis refer to 95% confidence intervals. Silhouette for lion is in the public domain and available from phylopic.org and silhouette for elephant is free for personal and commercial purpose from www.flaticon.com .

Overall, 82% of all sites (i.e., protected and other conservation areas) containing lions and elephants in Africa are adjacent to areas with substantial human pressures (Fig.  2 ). About 60% of the perimeter of these ranges is adjacent to areas with high densities of human population, crops, or cattle (Table  1 ). Nine percent of the perimeter (totalling about 10,000–12,000 km) is at severe risk of conflict because of the co-occurrence of all three human pressures and these areas are distributed across 18 different countries (Fig.  2 and Table  1 ). These 18 countries are also among the most important for lion and elephant conservation, hosting ~74% and 41% of the entire lion and elephant populations, respectively. Another 10% of the perimeter, distributed across 26 countries, is at high risk of conflict, as they contain areas facing high human population density plus either high crop density for elephants or high cattle density for lions (Fig.  2 ). Countries with severe and high risks of conflict host 95% of Africa’s lions and 66% of Africa’s elephants.

A Areas at risk of conflict across all of Africa. Extended range of elephants and lions are in dark grey. Definitions of severe, high, moderate, and low risk of conflict are given in the legend to Table  1 . B Areas at risk of conflict in East Africa. C Human population density, D cattle density, and E proportion of cropland maps. See handling of uncertainty over spatial mapping in Supplementary Figs.  5 and 6 .

Sensitivity analyses confirmed the same countries with areas at severe risk regardless of the buffer distances used in the spatial analyses (Supplementary Fig.  5 and Supplementary Table  4 ), and the locations of severe- and high-risk areas of conflict are robust to randomly varying the distances between the species-range perimeter and the human pressure maps (Supplementary Fig.  6 and Supplementary Table  5 ). It is noteworthy that the presence of lions and elephants is more certain in the areas identified as being at severe risk of conflict (Supplementary Fig.  7 ). In addition, mitigation fences in the severe conflict areas would not increase habitat fragmentation for most of the associated migratory mammals (with the exception of a slight increase of fragmentation for Grévy’s zebra Equus grevyi and Thomson’s gazelle Eudorcas thomsonii ) (see Supplementary Table  6 ). Furthermore, it is worth noting that most countries with severe and high risk of conflict are also likely to experience the highest human population growth by 2100 (Supplementary Table  7 ).

Although the construction and maintenance costs of mitigation fences at such a large scale might seem prohibitively expensive, elephants and lions inflict considerable damages to crops and livestock in many parts of Africa 8 , 19 , 44 , 45 . Installing and maintaining mitigation fences would likely provide a net return on investment in all 18 countries with areas at severe risk of conflict with the exception of South Sudan (Fig.  3 ), with Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Kenya being the countries where investments in mitigation fences around such areas would be most cost-effective in terms of reducing cattle loss and crop damage (Fig.  3 and Supplementary Fig.  8 ). In contrast, installing and maintaining mitigation fences in high conflict-risk areas would seldom generate sufficient return on investment and, therefore, other mitigation strategies would be preferred (Supplementary Fig.  9 ). When considering per capita benefits, installing and maintaining mitigation fences around severe conflict areas could potentially provide the highest return on investment for local people living in Benin, South Africa, and Zambia (Supplementary Table  8 ).

Whiskers represent range from minimum to maximum, box indicates 25 and 75 percentile, and horizontal line represents median. Plotted dots represent 100 EAA values calculated by varying all economic model parameters randomly across ±10% of the values of each parameter. Dots outside the whisker boundaries are outliers. Calculations do not consider the additional benefit of reducing costs of human injury or death.

Our results show that lions are at greater risk of conflict with humans than are elephants. Without adequately funded conservation actions, there are likely to be serious future risks of population declines or local extinctions that will affect 74% of the entire lion population. Elephants, on the other hand, still occur in relatively high numbers in low human-occupancy areas 46 . However, Africa’s projected human population growth will almost certainly spread the severe conflict risks to include areas currently classified as only high risk, and population declines or local extinctions of lions and elephants will ultimately affect national economies in countries that depend heavily upon revenue generated from wildlife-based tourism and sustainable utilization 47 , 48 .

Our results also highlight that, in countries with areas at severe risk of conflict, mitigation fences are an economically sustainable strategy that can potentially be used to help reduce human–wildlife conflict at large scales. Building such fences in severe-risk conflict areas could provide an economically viable action to reduce crop damage and livestock losses; reductions in crop damage and cattle loss could, in turn, enhance tolerance for lions and elephants 8 . By contrast, our results suggest that the return on investment from expensive fencing strategies might not repay themselves in countries with lower levels of human–wildlife conflict. In these cases, alternative strategies, e.g., those that rely on human-dimension approaches to enhance co-existence 8 between humans and wildlife, would potentially be a more cost-efficient solution to mitigating conflict, assuming they can be both effective and sustainable in perpetuity. It is noteworthy, though, that our analysis only considers the direct economic benefits of fencing but does not take into consideration benefits from preventing human deaths or injuries, or mitigating less tangible psychological effects, fears and anxieties that cannot easily be monetized 49 , all of which would be reduced by fencing even in moderately affected areas. On the other hand, our analysis neglects the economic costs imposed on local people by mitigation fences (e.g., restrictions on access to protected areas), although these could be minimized through permit systems and strategically placed access points.

Although large-scale agriculture and high-density human settlements often disrupt animal movements as effectively as mitigation fences 41 , 42 , 43 , attention should clearly be paid to risks of more completely interrupting ecological processes such as mammalian migrations (see ref. 50 ). Our results highlight the potential for Grévy’s zebra and Thomson’s gazelle to be affected by building mitigation fences in the severe-risk areas without safeguards to prevent blockage of migration corridors. Indeed, fine-scale studies of animal movements from collared animals should ideally be employed to prevent placing fences in areas that would obstruct such migrations 51 . Future studies should also assess how mitigation fences would affect other taxonomic groups, such as invertebrates and plants, and ecological processes (e.g., seed dispersal) 34 , 52 , 53 , and investigate the measures that could reduce any local impacts.

Interestingly, several areas of lion and elephant habitat in South Africa are under relatively low risk of conflict with humans compared to other parts of Africa. Thus, the country that first utilized fencing for conservation has the potential to re-open some of its wildlife areas to restore large-scale ecosystem processes, continuing a pattern started in 1993 when fences along the western boundary of Kruger National Park were dropped to annex 1800 km 2 of wildlife habitat in the associated private nature reserves. Furthermore, extensive mammalian migrations could potentially be restored by removing veterinary fences in Botswana and Namibia, which were erected in the 1970s to reduce disease transmission from wildlife to livestock (e.g., in the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area). We emphasize that any decision to erect a mitigation fence should be premised on reducing human–wildlife conflict rather than arbitrarily restraining natural movements of animals across extensive landscapes; existing fences should also be interrogated for their purpose and function, as well as their unintended consequences on biodiversity conservation and sustainable development.

As with any large-scale spatial analysis, data quality should be taken into consideration. First, our species-range maps represent coarse-resolution distributional boundaries rather than fine-resolution edges of suitable habitat. However, we were partly able to address this issue by using population sizes of lions and elephants within each area. Second, the financial costs of conflict mitigation are likely to vary geographically based on physical and socio-economic factors. We used the most up-to-date fencing costs wherever possible throughout sub-Saharan Africa 33 , but this information is not available in countries where mitigation fences do not yet exist. Our calculation of the EAA of fencing utilized a variety of country-specific information of market prices, crop yields, etc., but our approach assumes that the financial benefits will be returned to local stakeholders and not to the donors/agencies who would invest in fence construction in the first place. Third, our results should only be viewed as a continent-wide assessment rather than as a precise blueprint for implementing local-scale mitigations. The latter would require on-the-ground validation and adaptation to local circumstances, especially where species ranges extend beyond protected area boundaries and into community land; local-level consultations would be essential for promoting acceptance and support for these strategies rather than risking additional disputes between wildlife managers and local communities (Supplementary Fig.  7 ).

We consider this study as foundational for informing future work that could holistically integrate human dimensions of human–wildlife conflict by inspiring collaborations with local communities to explore their willingness to accept or reject hard strategies such as mitigation fences 8 , 54 . The intention of a mitigation strategy such as fencing should not be to completely exclude people from access to parks but should be negotiated by collective agreements. For example, access gates could facilitate access of local communities to water and other natural resources, as well as for various cultural purposes 55 . Areas with effective land-sharing and pre-existing community benefits from wildlife 56 , 57 could use potential fence lines as metaphorical tools for discussion and negotiations among stakeholders. A central goal of conflict mitigation is to prevent lion and elephant attacks 37 ; reducing these threats would not only enhance human wellbeing in terms of lives saved but also improve mental health (sensu 12 ). For example, conflict with elephants in Botswana raised concerns in local people as to food security, safety, and mobility 58 . Additional costs, such as time expenditures on crop protection or livestock guarding, and risks of infectious diseases 12 could also be reduced.

In conclusion, we stress the importance of immediate action to minimize current and future human–wildlife conflict in Africa. Areas of intensive human pressure already produce hard boundaries around remaining areas of natural habitat, thus reliance on strategies such as mitigation fencing would merely reflect the reality of conserving large, dangerous wildlife species in human-dominated landscapes. Effective conflict mitigation could potentially motivate improved conservation of elephants and lions, while retaining the socio-economic benefits that flow from intact wildlife systems that still host substantial numbers of lions and elephants. The need for substantial investments has never been more urgent, as the coronavirus disease 2019 crisis has drastically reduced the benefits of wildlife-based tourism in some regions 25 , 59 , likely increasing costs of living with lions and elephants, and exacerbating conflict with humans. Our pan-African spatial assessment of human–wildlife conflict provides an important starting point for informing future research and conservation planning at finer geographical scales.

After preprocessing the data, methods consisted of spatial analyses to map areas at risk of conflict; statistical analyses to identify the most important factors affecting lion and elephant population numbers; economic analyses to estimate the EAA of building and maintaining mitigation fences in areas under severe and high risk of conflict, and fragmentation analyses to assess the impact of fences on migratory mammal species. We describe each step in detail below (see Supplementary Fig.  2 for a flowchart of the analysis). All spatial data were converted to vectors for analysis to reduce commission errors (when a species is mistakenly thought to be present) when converting the species-range maps from vector to raster. Data preprocessing was carried out using the open source database PostgreSQL 11.4 ( https://www.postgresql.org/about/ ) with the GIS extensions of PostGIS 2.5 ( https://postgis.net/ ); conflict mapping and range fragmentation analyses used PostgreSQL 11.4 and PostGIS 2.5, and Python v. 3.7.0 60 ; statistical and economic analyses used R v. 3.6.0 61 ; sensitivity analyses used PostgreSQL 11.4 and PostGIS 2.5, and Python v. 3.7.0 60 and R v. 3.6.0 61 .

Preprocessing

Human pressures.

Human pressure layers were independently generated from this study. We used Gridded Population of the World Version 4 (GPWv4) as a layer for human population density 62 . GPWv4 is a minimally modelled data set consisting of estimates of human population (number of persons per raster grid cell) based on non-spatial population data (i.e., tabular counts of population listed by administrative area) and spatially explicit administrative boundary data. Population input data are collected at the most detailed spatial resolution available from the results of the 2010 round of Population and Housing Censuses. The input data are then extrapolated to 2020 using calculated growth rates to produce future population estimates. A proportional allocation gridding algorithm, utilizing ~13.5 million national and subnational administrative units, assigned population counts to 30 arcsecond (~1 km at the equator) grid cells. The population density rasters were created by dividing the population count raster for a given target year by the land-area raster.

We used the most recent version of the Gridded Livestock of the World database 63 , reflecting the compiled and harmonized subnational livestock distribution data for 2010, to extract information on cattle density. The data set provides global population densities of cattle, buffaloes, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens, and ducks in each land pixel at a spatial resolution of 0.083333 decimal degrees (~10 km at the equator). Detailed livestock census statistics are mined from agricultural yearbooks or through direct contacts with ministries or statistical bureaus. The census statistics are usually found in the form of numbers per administrative unit that must be linked to corresponding geographic information system boundaries. Densities are estimated in each census polygon by dividing the number of animals from the census by the surface area of the administrative unit polygon (estimated in an Albert equal-area projection), corrected by a mask excluding unsuitable areas. Livestock densities were then extracted from the subnational census data and were used as the dependent variable in Random Forest models to estimate a density value in each pixel, based on raster predictor variables.

We used spatially detailed crop maps available from the Copernicus Global Land Cover map at ~0.001° (~100 m) resolution 64 . The land-cover map is a discrete map with ten continuous cover fractions (nine base land-cover classes and seasonal water) to provide spatial information about land for a diversity of applications, including biodiversity conservation. Cropland (as percentage of 100 m pixel that is covered by cropland) refers to cultivated and managed agriculture, but does not include perennial woody crops that are classified under the appropriate forest or shrub land-cover type 64 . Cropland also refers to both irrigated and rainfed agriculture. The land-cover map was generated by compiling the 5-daily PROBA-V multi-spectral image data with a Ground Sampling Distance of ~0.001° as the primary earth observation data and PROBA-V UTM daily multi-spectral image data with a Ground Sampling Distance of ~0.003° (~300 m) as the secondary earth observation data. Next, the 5-daily PROBA-V 100 m and daily 300 m datasets were fused using a Kalman filtering approach. The global overall accuracy of the product for the base year 2015 was calculated through an independent pre-validation and reached 80%.

Species-range maps

Updated range maps showing current distribution for lions and elephants were provided by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Cat and African Elephant Specialist Groups 65 . In addition to the range maps, the specialist groups provided information on the number of African lions (2018) and elephants (2016) within sites where they are still extant. We also obtained species-range maps for all terrestrial mammal species in orders Cetartiodactyla, Perissodactyla, Primates, and Carnivora occurring in Africa from the IUCN Red List portal ( www.iucnredlist.org/ ). Mammal species in these orders include migratory mammal species (e.g., the common wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus ), which might be negatively affected by mitigation fences, e.g., by potentially blocking migratory routes.

Protected areas

The data on protected areas were based on the May 2019 release of the World Database on Protected Areas 66 (retrieved from http://www.protectedplanet.net ). To prevent overestimation of the area coverage of protected areas caused by overlapping designations, we merged polygons into a single layer. We only included in the analysis IUCN categories Ia (Strict Nature Reserve), Ib (Wilderness Area), II (National Park), III (Natural Monument or Feature), and IV (Habitat/Species Management Area), because we wanted to prevent fences from excluding people from protected areas that had been modified by the interaction of nature and people over time (e.g., V, Protected Landscape/Seascape).

Mapping potential risk of conflict

A database on the spatial distribution of conflict locations between humans and lions and elephants is not available across Africa. We therefore mapped the most prominent factors known to affect conflict: human population density (for both lion and elephant), crop raiding (elephants), and cattle killing (lions) 8 . Furthermore, spatial modelling of range contractions in carnivores showed that contractions were significantly more likely in regions with high rural human population density, cattle density, and/or cropland 4 . Therefore, we only retained areas where human, cattle, and crop densities were in the first decile (in our case, the first decile is the decile with the highest human population, crop, and cattle densities) by PostgreSQL/PostGIS. Using only the highest decile likely resulted in a conservative map of spatial conflict.

We further classified areas at the highest potential conflict into low, moderate, high, or severe risk of conflict. Specifically, areas at severe risk of conflict are those where the highest human population, crop, and cattle densities all overlap; areas at high risk of conflict are those with overlaps between the highest densities of human population and either crops or cattle; areas at moderate risk of conflict are the areas where the highest crop and cattle densities overlap; and areas at low risk of conflict are those with only one human pressure, i.e., the highest human population, or crop, or cattle density. The remainder was considered as being at no risk of conflict, as it did not meet any of the above criteria, but note the conservative nature of our analysis (see above).

The lion and elephant range maps and the protected area layer were intersected to select all protected areas that contain parts of lion and elephant range and/or were adjacent to the species-range maps. The identified protected areas were then merged with the species-range maps to create a new extended range layer (see for an example in Supplementary Fig.  1 ). These extended range maps were used (i) to identify potential areas where lions and elephants could be restored, and (ii) to avoid interrupting ecological processes (e.g., migrations) and/or causing unintended consequences (e.g., fragment populations) to other biodiversity in neighbouring protected areas.

We then identified areas at risk of conflict by intersecting the extended range map layer for lions and elephants with the classified conflict map. In all cases, the intersections were carried out so that the classified conflict areas were either adjacent to, or within a distance of 10 km from, the edge of the extended range map layer. We set this distance to consider the wide-ranging behaviour of both lions and elephants, to account for the fact that conflict decreases at greater distances from protected area boundaries 37 , 38 , and to account for the fact that future human pressures will likely increase before conservation actions take place 2 .

We assessed how robust our results were to commission (where human pressure is mistakenly assumed to exist) and omission (where human pressure is mistakenly assumed to be absent) errors in the human pressure maps by carrying out a sensitivity analysis that randomly varied the distances between the extended range maps and the human pressure maps. We first used Latin hypercube sampling, which is a form of sampling used to reduce the number of runs necessary for a Monte Carlo simulation to achieve a reasonably accurate random distribution 67 , to randomly vary 100 times the distance values between the extended range and human pressure maps. Specifically, we divided the low, moderate, high, and severe conflict lines into 100 m segments, calculated the minimum distance for each segment to human pressure within a 10, 20, and 30 km buffer distance from the edge of the extended range map layer, and then randomly varied that distance 100 times across ±10% of the value. We then averaged the resulting 100 randomly created distance values for each segment and identified which segments fell outside of the analyzed buffer distances of 10, 20, and 30 km. We tested for 20 and 30 km buffer distances, as we wanted to assess the variability of the fencing distance to different buffer sizes. We also estimated the certainty of lion and elephant presence by identifying segments of the perimeter of the range maps of lion and elephant that overlapped with protected areas. We did this as we had information on certain presence of both species from within protected areas, as opposed to areas extending outside of protected areas.

Statistical analyses

We used an information theoretic approach 68 and Bayesian information criterion to calculate statistical models. We used generalized linear mixed models with a negative‐binomial error distribution to account for over-dispersed count data and a log‐link function to examine factors affecting lion ( n  = 77) and elephant ( n  = 191) population sizes in Africa. Generalized linear mixed models were fitted with both random and fixed effects, to capture the data structure. Country was included as a random intercept to represent the hierarchical structure of the data. All variables listed in Supplementary Table  8 were fitted as fixed effects, i.e., with constant regression coefficients across countries. The site-specific variables were calculated only for sites where lions and elephants are currently present and not for the extended ranges. For transboundary sites that stretch across countries, we used the value for Gross Domestic Product, Conservation expenditure, and the Ibrahim Index of African Governance, for the country making the largest area contribution to the site. We compared and ranked models using the Bayesian information criterion 68 . To avoid multicollinearity among variables, we only selected variables with the strongest effect on population numbers that correlated at r  < 0.7. Therefore, only one member of each pair that had a correlation >0.7 was selected as an input into the modelling process. We assessed each model’s relative probability, using Bayesian information criterion weights and the structural goodness-of-fit from the percentage of deviance explained by the model. We determined the magnitude and direction of the coefficients for the independent variables with multi-model averaging implemented in the R package glmulti 69 . The relative importance of each predictor variable was measured as the sum of the weights over the six top‐ranked models with Bayesian information criterion values closer to that of the best model containing the parameter of interest. Finally, we used a 10-fold cross-validation (a bootstrap resampling procedure using 1000 iterations) to assess the predictive ability of the top-ranked model.

Range fragmentation analyses

We assessed how the proposed mitigation fences affected species-range connectivity by calculating the perimeter length-to-area ratio for mammal species in orders Cetartiodactyla, Perissodactyla, Primates, and Carnivora, whose ranges were identified as intersecting with areas at severe risk of conflict. Minimizing the perimeter length-to-area ratio is an important method of optimizing protected area design, resulting in compact reserves with high connectivity that can enhance persistence of the species. The smaller the ratio, the greater the clumping and connectivity of the species ranges. Specifically, we calculated the ratios of perimeter length to area for the ranges of 20 migratory mammalian species (i) under current conditions without fences and (ii) under future conditions where the identified mitigation fences would pass through their ranges. In the latter case, we used a 20 m buffer around the identified fences to account for further habitat clearance due to maintaining clearances around the fences for management purposes.

Economic analyses

We used EAA to estimate the return on investment of building and maintaining mitigation fences to reduce cattle loss and crop damage. EAA calculates the constant annual cash flow generated by a project over its lifespan if it were an annuity and the annuity can then be compared to other projects of similar or different lifespan. Therefore, the measure potentially provides an important means for funders/donors to compare different investment opportunities. EAA is calculated by dividing the NPV of a project by the present value of annuity factor 39 . We started by calculating NPV in countries with areas at severe and high risk of conflict as:

where \({R}_{i}\) is net cash flow, \(d\) is the discount rate specific to each country (Supplementary Table  9 ), n is the number of time periods, \(i\) is the cash flow period, and \(Z\) is the initial investment of building the fences. NPV was calculated over a 10-year investment period. \({R}_{i}\) was calculated as:

where \(B\) is the economic benefit derived from mitigation fences and \(C\) is the cost of maintaining mitigation fences. The economic benefits of mitigation fences for countries with severe risk of conflict refer to the potential reduction in cattle loss (for lions) and crop damage (for elephants) derived from building fences:

where \(L\) represents the economic benefits of reducing cattle loss and \(E\) measures the economic benefits of reducing crop damage. For countries with high risk of conflict, the benefit ( \(B\) ) is derived from one or the other, i.e., \(B\)  =  \(L\) or \(B\)  =  \(E\) .

where \(v\) is the number of cattle that are not lost because of the presence of fences, \(w\) is the average weight in kg of adult cattle in that country, and \(P\) is the price of meat per kg paid to producers in that country in 2017 (data can be downloaded from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/PP ). \(v\) was calculated as the percentage of total cattle present in the 10 km buffer adjacent to severe and high conflict areas, which could potentially be killed, based on published estimates across Africa 45 . Estimates range from 0.8 to 2.6% of cattle losses, and we decided to use a conservative 1% loss in the analysis (see below for how we accounted for uncertainty in model parameters). \(w\) was based on the average weight of an adult cow with estimates available at a regional level (west Africa: 262 kg; central Africa: 281 kg; east Africa: 283 kg; and southern Africa: 339 kg) 70 .

where \(d\) is the percentage of crop area damaged by elephants; data are taken from published estimates (ranging from 0.2 to 4% and we used a conservative 1% in the analysis) 44 ; \(A\) is the total area in km 2 available as crops in the 10 km buffer adjacent to the areas at severe and high risk of conflict; \(y\) is the yield (ton/km 2 ) for the crop known to be targeted by elephants (cassava, maize, millet, banana, sorghum, groundnuts) 44 , which covered the largest area size in that country in 2017 (data calculated from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/PP ); and \(P\) is the price per ton paid to producers for that crop in that country in 2017 (data can be downloaded from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/PP ). Although there might be several crops available within the buffer, this information is currently not available at the continental scale. Therefore, we decided to use the most common cultivated crop known to be targeted by elephants in each country.

The cost of maintaining mitigation fences ( \(C\) ) was calculated as:

where f is the fence length in that country and \(c\) is the cost for maintaining the fence. We obtained cost estimates of building ( Z ) and maintaining \((c)\) the fences from Pekor et al. 33 . We used the median estimated current cost of USD 9522 per km for building fences and the median stated annual budget cost of USD 487 per km for adequate fence inspection and maintenance. This is the most up-to-date information validated through peer review on the costs (converted to 2017 USD) across Africa 33 . Cost estimates varied across surveyed conservation areas because of fence height and materials but included relevant costs of electrification and predator-proof structures 33 . The data were collected from 29 partially fenced (<90% of perimeter fenced) and 34 fully fenced (≥90% of perimeter fenced) protected areas, including, e.g., Kruger National Park in South Africa, across sub-Saharan Africa 33 .

Finally, we calculated EAA for each country as:

We used Latin hypercube sampling to vary all model parameters mentioned above randomly from within 100 partitions across ±10% of the values of each parameter and assess the uncertainty associated with model estimates on EAA. The partitioning across ±10% of the values of each parameter was deemed suitable to account for uncertainty over model parameters that were lacking estimates of variance. The resulting 100 EAA values for each country are shown in Fig.  3 and Supplementary Figs.  8 and 9 .

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the  Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

Information on the distribution and population sizes of lion and elephant are available from the IUCN Cat and African Elephant Specialist Groups. The study used openly available datasets of Gridded Population of the World Version 4, Gridded Livestock of the World database, and crop maps available from the Copernicus Global Land Cover map with references provided in the ‘Methods’ section. Range maps for all terrestrial mammal species used in the fragmentation analyses are available from the IUCN Red List portal ( www.iucnredlist.org/ ). The data on protected areas were available from the World Database on Protected Areas ( http://www.protectedplanet.net ). Data for the economic analyses are openly available from sources such as FAO and links are provided in the ‘Methods’ section. Our conflict-risk maps are available to download from https://etsin.fairdata.fi/dataset/d0ac647a-4d73-4117-89de-9d194215f948 .

Code availability

Code used for creating the conflict-risk maps is available at https://gitlab.com/helics-lab/spatial-analysis-human-wildlife-conflict .

Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 1327 , eaax3100 (2019).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Tilman, D. et al. Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 546 , 73–81 (2017).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Hoffmann, M. & Wirsing, A. J. Extinction risk is most acute for the world’ s largest and smallest vertebrates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114 , 10678–10683 (2017).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wolf, C. & Ripple, W. J. Range contractions of the world’s large carnivores. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4 , 170052 (2017).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ripple, W. J. et al. Collapse of the world’s largest herbivores. Sci. Adv. 1 , e1400103 (2015).

Pacifici, M., Di Marco, M. & Watson, J. E. M. Protected areas are now the last strongholds for many imperiled mammal species. Conserv. Lett . 13 , e12748 (2020).

Article   Google Scholar  

Ripple, W. J. et al. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 343 , 1241484 (2014).

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Nyhus, P. J. Human – wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41 , 143–171 (2016).

Packer, C., Ikanda, D., Kissui, B. & Kushnir, H. Lion attacks on humans in Tanzania. Nature 436 , 927–928 (2005).

Mackenzie, C. A. & Ahabyona, P. Elephants in the garden: financial and social costs of crop raiding. Ecol. Econ. 75 , 72–82 (2012).

Kaswamila, A., Russell, S. & Mcgibbon, M. Impacts of wildlife on household food security and income in Northeastern Tanzania. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 12 , 391–404 (2007).

Barua, M., Bhagwat, S. A. & Jadhav, S. The hidden dimensions of human-wildlife conflict: health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biol. Conserv. 157 , 309–316 (2013).

Madden, F. Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 9 , 247–257 (2004).

Ikanda, D. & Packer, C. Ritual vs. retaliatory killing of African lions in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area, Tanzania. Endanger. Species Res. 6 , 67–74 (2008).

Mateo-Tomás, P., Olea, P. P., Sánchez-Barbudo, I. S. & Mateo, R. Alleviating human-wildlife conflicts: identifying the causes and mapping the risk of illegal poisoning of wild fauna. J. Appl. Ecol. 49 , 376–385 (2012).

King, L. E., Lawrence, A., Douglas-Hamilton, I. & Vollrath, F. Beehive fence deters crop-raiding elephants. Afr. J. Ecol. 47 , 131–137 (2009).

Ogada, M. O., Woodroffe, R., Oguge, N. O. & Frank, L. G. Limiting depredation by African carnivores: the role of livestock husbandry. Conserv. Biol. 17 , 1521–1530 (2003).

Ravenelle, J. & Nyhus, P. J. Global patterns and trends in human–wildlife conflict compensation. Conserv. Biol. 31 , 1247–1256 (2017).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hoare, R. Lessons from 20 Years of human-elephant conflict mitigation in Africa. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 20 , 289–295 (2015).

Van Eeden, L. M. et al. Carnivore conservation needs evidence-based livestock protection. PLoS Biol. 16 , e2005577 (2018).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Bradshaw, C. J. A. & Brook, B. W. Human population reduction is not a quick fix for environmental problems. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111 , 16610–16615 (2014).

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rulli, M. C., Saviori, A. & D’Odorico, P. Global land and water grabbing. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110 , 892–897 (2012).

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Di Minin, E. et al. Global priorities for national carnivore conservation under land use change. Sci. Rep . 6 , 23814 (2016).

Di Minin, E. et al. Identifying global centers of unsustainable commercial harvesting of species. Sci. Adv. 5 , eaau2879 (2019).

Lindsey, P. et al. Conserving Africa’s wildlife and wildlands through the COVID-19 crisis and beyond. Nat. Ecol. Evol . 4 , 1300–1310 (2020).

Wittemyer, G. et al. Illegal killing for ivory drives global decline in African elephants. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111 , 13117–13121 (2014).

Bauer, H. et al. Lion ( Panthera leo ) populations are declining rapidly across Africa, except in intensively managed areas. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112 , 14894–14899 (2015).

Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M. & Watson, J. E. M. The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536 , 145–146 (2016).

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Di Minin, E. et al. Consequences of recreational hunting for biodiversity conservation and livelihoods. One Earth 4 , 238–253 (2021).

Lindsey, P. et al. Illegal Hunting and the Bush-Meat Trade in Savanna Africa (FAO, 2015).

Packer, C. et al. Conserving large carnivores: dollars and fence. Ecol. Lett. 16 , 635–641 (2013).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lindsey, P. A., Miller, J. R. B., Petracca, L. S., Coad, L. & Dickman, A. J. More than $ 1 billion needed annually to secure Africa’ s protected areas with lions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , E10788–E10796 (2018).

Pekor, A. et al. Fencing Africa’s protected areas: costs, benefits, and management issues. Biol. Conserv. 229 , 67–75 (2019).

Woodroffe, R., Hedges, S. & Durant, S. M. To fence or not to fence. Science 344 , 46–48 (2014).

Gadd, M. in Fencing for Conservation: Restriction of Evolutionary Potential Or a Riposte to Threatening Processes? 153–186, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0902-1 (Springer, 2012).

Durant, S. M. et al. Developing fencing policies for dryland ecosystems. J. Appl. Ecol. 52 , 544–551 (2015).

Kushnir, H. et al. Using landscape characteristics to predict risk of lion attacks on humans in south-eastern Tanzania. Afr. J. Ecol. 52 , 524–532 (2014).

Hariohay, K. M., Munuo, W. A. & Roskaft, E. Human – elephant interactions in areas surrounding the Rungwa, Kizigo, and Muhesi Game Reserves, central Tanzania. Oryx . 54 , 612–620 (2020).

Jones, T. W. & Smith, J. D. An historical perspective of net present value and equivalent annual cost. Account Hist. J. 9 , 103–110 (1982).

Tucker, M. A. et al. Moving in the Anthropocene: global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements. Science 469 , 466–469 (2018).

Harris, G., Thirgood, S., Hopcraft, J. G. C., Cromsigt, J. P. G. M. & Berger, J. Global decline in aggregated migrations of large terrestrial mammals. Endanger Species Res. 7 , 55–76 (2009).

Doherty, T. S., Hays, G. C. & Driscoll, D. A. Human disturbance causes widespread disruption of animal movement. Nat. Ecol. Evol . 5 , 513–519 (2021).

Veldhuis, M. P. et al. Cross-boundary human impacts compromise the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem. Science 363 , 1424–1428 (2019).

Osei-Owusu, Y. Human-Wildlife Conflict. Elephants (FAO, 2018).

Chardonnet, P. et al. Managing the Conflicts Between People and Lion. Review and Insights from the Literature and Field Experience (FAO, 2010).

Chapron, G. et al. Recovery of large carnivores in Europe’s modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346 , 1517–1519 (2014).

Di Minin, E., Leader-Williams, N. & Bradshaw, C. J. A. Banning trophy hunting will exacerbate biodiversity loss. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31 , 99–102 (2016).

Balmford, A. et al. Walk on the wild side: estimating the global magnitude of visits to protected areas. PLoS Biol. 13 , e1002074 (2015).

Thondhlana, G. et al. Non-material costs of wildlife conservation to local people and their implications for conservation interventions. Biol. Conserv. 246 , 108578 (2020).

McInturff, A., Xu, W., Wilkinson, C. E., Dejid, N. & Brashares, J. S. Fence ecology: frameworks for understanding the ecological effects of fences. Bioscience 70 , 971–985 (2020).

Google Scholar  

Joly, K. et al. Longest terrestrial migrations and movements around the world. Sci. Rep. 9 , 15333 (2019).

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Hayward, M. W. & Kerley, G. I. H. Fencing for conservation: restriction of evolutionary potential or a riposte to threatening processes? Biol. Conserv. 142 , 1–13 (2009).

Pfeifer, M. et al. In defense of fences. Science 345 , 2014–2016 (2014).

Redpath, S. M., Bhatia, S. & Young, J. Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human – wildlife conflict. Oryx 49 , 222–225 (2015).

Hoole, A. & Berkes, F. Breaking down fences: recoupling social-ecological systems for biodiversity conservation in Namibia. Geoforum 41 , 304–317 (2010).

Dolrenry, S., Hazzah, L. & Frank, L. Corridors of tolerance through human-dominated landscapes facilitate dispersal and connectivity between populations of African lions Panthera leo . Oryx . 54 , 847–850 (2020).

Hazzah, L. et al. Efficacy of two lion conservation programs in Maasailand, Kenya. Conserv. Biol. 28 , 851–860 (2014).

Mayberry, A. L., Hovorka, A. J. & Evans, K. E. Well-being impacts of human-elephant conflict in Khumaga, Botswana: exploring visible and hidden dimensions. Conserv. Soc. 15 , 280–291 (2017).

Bauer, H. et al. Consider divergent regional perspectives to enhance wildlife conservation across Africa. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5 , 149–152 (2020).

Python Software Foundation. Python Language Reference (Python Software Foundation, 2019).

R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Core Team, 2017).

Doxsey-Whitfield, E. et al. Taking advantage of the improved availability of census data: a first look at the gridded population of the world, version 4. Pap. Appl. Geogr. 1 , 226–234 (2015).

Gilbert, M. et al. Data Descriptor: global distribution data for cattle, buffaloes, horses, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens and ducks in 2010. Sci. Data 5 , 180227 (2018).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Buchhorn, M., Smets, B., Bertels, L., Lesiv, M. & Tsendbazar, N.-E. Copernicus Global Land Service: Land Cover 100m: epoch 2015: Globe. Dataset of the Global Component of the Copernicus Land Monitoring Service (2019).

IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2020-1 (IUCN, 2020).

UNEP-WCMC. User Manual for the World Database on Protected Areas and World Database on Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures: 1.6 , www.protectedplanet.net (UNEP-WCMC, 2019).

Helton, J. C. & Davis, F. J. Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 81 , 23–69 (2003).

Burnham, K. P. & Anderson, D. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information‐Theoretic Approach 2nd edn (Springer, 2002).

Calcagno, V. & de Mazancourt, C. Glmulti: an R Package for easy automated model selection with (generalized) linear models. J. Stat. Softw. 34 , 1–29 (2010).

Otte, M. J. & Chilonda, P. Cattle and Small Ruminant Production Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa (FAO, 2002).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the IUCN Cat and African Elephant Specialist Groups for kindly providing information on distribution and population sizes of lion and elephant. E.D.M. and C.F. thank the European Research Council (ERC) for funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement #802933).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Helsinki Lab of Interdisciplinary Conservation Science, Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Enrico Di Minin & Christoph Fink

Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

Enrico Di Minin, Rob Slotow & Craig Packer

Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, UK

Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, The Recanati‐Kaplan Centre, University of Oxford, Tubney, UK

Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA

Craig Packer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

E.D.M., R.S. and C.P. conceived the study. E.D.M. and C.F. compiled the datasets, carried out data preprocessing, analyzed the data, and prepared figures and tables. E.D.M. led the writing of the original draft with contributions from R.S. and C.P. E.D.M., R.S., C.F., H.B. and C.P. contributed to writing, reviewing, and editing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enrico Di Minin .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Communications thanks Peter Arcese and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information, reporting summary, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Di Minin, E., Slotow, R., Fink, C. et al. A pan-African spatial assessment of human conflicts with lions and elephants. Nat Commun 12 , 2978 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23283-w

Download citation

Received : 07 April 2020

Accepted : 13 April 2021

Published : 20 May 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23283-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Social effectiveness and human-wildlife conflict: linking the ecological effectiveness and social acceptability of livestock protection tools.

• 1 Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States
• 2 National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States

Human-wildlife interactions are embedded within socio-ecological systems (SES), in which animal behavior and human decision-making reciprocally interact. While a growing body of research addresses specific social and ecological elements of human-wildlife interactions, including conflicts, integrating these approaches is essential for identifying practical and effective solutions. Carnivore predation on livestock can threaten human livelihoods, weaken relationships among stakeholders, and precipitate carnivore declines. As carnivores have received greater protection in recent decades, researchers and managers have sought non-lethal tools to reduce predation and promote coexistence between livestock producers and carnivores. For these tools to be successful, they must effectively deter carnivores, and they must also be adopted by producers. Relatively few studies examine the practical and context-specific effectiveness of non-lethal tools, and even fewer simultaneously consider their social acceptability among producers. To address this gap, we suggest that a tool's ecological effectiveness and social acceptability be analyzed concurrently to determine its social effectiveness . We thus paired an experimental study of a carnivore predation deterrent called Foxlights ® with qualitative interviews of livestock producers in Northern California. We placed camera traps in sheep pastures to measure the response of coyotes ( Canis latrans ) to experimentally deployed Foxlights and interviewed livestock producers before and after the experiment. Our experiment revealed weak evidence for reducing coyote activity with Foxlights, but interviews revealed that the potential adoption of tools had as much to do with their social acceptability and implementation feasibility as with evidence-based measurements of tool effectiveness. Interviewees viewed Foxlights as potentially effective components of husbandry systems, despite the data suggesting otherwise, demonstrating that scientific reductionism may lag behind producer practices of systems-thinking and that isolated demonstrations of a tool's ecological effectiveness do not drive tool adoption. Future empirical tests of non-lethal tools should better consider producers' perspectives and acknowledge that data-based tests of ecological effectiveness alone have a limited place in producer decision-making. Iteratively working with producers can build trust in scientific outputs through the research process itself.

Introduction

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) can drive wildlife declines and threaten human livelihoods. Large carnivores are particularly susceptible to declines due to conflict because their large ranges, carnivorous diets, and adaptability have put them into frequent contact with people ( Ripple et al., 2014 ; Wolf and Ripple, 2017 ). The loss of these species can in turn transform ecosystems and trigger collapses ( Estes et al., 2011 ). HWC and the coupled human-natural systems in which conflicts occur are driven by a dynamic array of interconnected social and ecological elements, in what is referred to as socio-ecological systems or SES ( Berkes and Folke, 2003 ; Ostrom, 2009 ; Lischka et al., 2018 ). For example, while the behavioral and spatial dynamics of carnivores and their livestock prey may be understood through an ecological lens ( Wilkinson et al., 2020 ), the arena in which these species encounter one another is shaped by past and current land and livestock management practices that are selected through separate and complex social, political and economic processes. Conflict poses considerable challenges for those who bear the costs associated with carnivore conservation ( Muhly and Musiani, 2009 ) and is deeply embedded within the value systems and identities of people who have personal and family histories in agricultural production ( Widman and Elofsson, 2018 ). The traditional roles that conflict management has played in agricultural contexts have been profoundly meaningful, and the symbolic threat of carnivores can be as important as economic hardship in dictating the terms of conflict ( Skogen et al., 2019 ). Thus, integrating the disparate elements of HWC and the feedbacks that link them requires transcending the barriers that have traditionally divided social and bio-physical sciences ( Dickman, 2010 ; Redpath et al., 2012 ).

There has been a push for applied research on tools to mitigate conflict, but much of this research misses the socio-ecological nature of the problem. For example, livestock-carnivore conflict is one of the most pervasive forms of HWC ( Inskip and Zimmermann, 2009 ; Lute et al., 2018 ) and management strategies in North America have long relied on lethal strategies aiming to reduce carnivore numbers or eradicate them completely ( Reynolds and Tapper, 1996 ; Berger, 2006 ; Barnes, 2015 ). These strategies have recently become less viable for a variety of social reasons ( Berger, 2006 ; McManus et al., 2015 ; Slagle et al., 2017 ; Lute et al., 2018 ) and ecological reasons ( Bergstrom, 2017 ; Lennox et al., 2018 ; Moreira-Arce et al., 2018 ). As many carnivore populations in the United States are recovering, wildlife managers and livestock producers require new strategies to protect both livestock and carnivores.

Non-lethal livestock protection has become a central focus of a growing body of research dedicated to carnivore conservation. Research suggests that non-lethal strategies may protect livestock as well as or better than lethal strategies, and there has been an effort to understand their effectiveness by ecological metrics ( Miller et al., 2016 ; Treves et al., 2016 ; Eklund et al., 2017 ; Moreira-Arce et al., 2018 ; van Eeden et al., 2018 ). Perhaps more importantly, many livestock producers believe that non-lethal strategies are only slightly effective at best and seldom long-lasting ( Scasta et al., 2017 ), which has prompted researchers to call for new empirical studies to convince stakeholders of the value of non-lethal approaches. But these calls often assume that the adoption of tools by stakeholders is singularly guided by their access to conclusive science.

Social acceptability is an important dimension of these non-lethal conflict mitigation tools, as the effectiveness of a tool matters little if producers do not use it. While it is possible that empirical demonstrations of effectiveness may lead to greater adoption of non-lethal strategies ( Baker et al., 2008 ), producers' decisions are not usually informed by academic research ( Knapp and Fernandez-Gimenez, 2009 ) and scientific evidence is often contested or dismissed when social conflict is intense ( Woodroffe and Redpath, 2015 ). Despite the growing scientific understanding of the ecological effectiveness of livestock protection tools, it is unclear whether and how this expanding body of literature influences which tools producers use, as the limits of a tool's applications are also driven by attitudes, values, context, and social networks ( Wilmer and Fernández-Giménez, 2015 ; Pooley et al., 2016 ; Lozano et al., 2019 ). Broadening the definition of effectiveness to necessarily include the willingness of stakeholders to adopt tools will require a better understanding of how and why livestock producers make husbandry decisions, how knowledge is transferred and evaluated, and what social and ecological elements inform the social acceptability of a tool. Areas where attitudes and scientific data diverge indicate targets for stakeholder engagement and collaboration.

To investigate how the ecological effectiveness and social acceptability of a non-lethal tool interact to inform an integrated metric of social effectiveness , we paired an experiment testing the ecological effectiveness of a predation deterrent (Foxlights ® Bexley North, Australia) with livestock producer interviews in Northern California. We conducted qualitative interviews both before and after sharing the scientific results of the non-lethal tool's ecological effectiveness because this can be a powerful way to examine how science is integrated into a producer's decision-making process ( Drury et al., 2011 ; Wutich et al., 2019 ; Martin, 2020 ). Foxlights are predation deterrents that flash randomly timed and colored lights in all directions from sundown to sunup to mimic lights that are associated with human presence, and are designed to be used based on line-of-sight. We chose Foxlights because of their reported ecological effectiveness ( Ohrens et al., 2019a ; Naha et al., 2020 ) and growing popularity. We evaluated the effects of Foxlights on coyote ( Canis latrans ) activity in a sheep production operation in Northern California, as coyotes pose the most significant predation risk in this geographical context ( USDA, 2015 ).

We then sought to reciprocally combine our ecological examination of Foxlights with our qualitative approach to estimating social acceptability to produce an integrated socio-ecological understanding of tool adoption. In addition to testing whether Foxlights reduced local coyote activity, we aimed to better understand how producers make decisions, the role empirical science plays in that process, and what other socio-ecological factors serve as opportunities and barriers to tool adoption. We also examined whether our iterative integration of stakeholder knowledge improved receptivity to empirical findings and improved the trustworthiness of both the research and researchers. This situation assessment serves multiple goals, as it can be used to inform the monitoring and evaluation component of a planning cycle, provide a new and transdisciplinary approach to tool evaluation, and reveal how stakeholders may respond to tool recommendations. In the following sections, we will draw from various theories in the field to explain how ecological effectiveness and social acceptability can be used to define social effectiveness , describe our qualitative and empirical methods, present the results of the interviews and the Foxlights study, and then summarize how the empirical study and the interviewees' perspectives demonstrate the value of a systems-oriented approach to tool evaluation that accounts for social effectiveness.

Theoretical Foundations of Social Effectiveness

Multiple theoretical perspectives guided our research. We primarily used a socio-ecological systems (SES) approach to evaluate a given tool's ability to mitigate conflict and promote coexistence, acknowledging that human and animal behaviors are informed by both social and ecological dynamics and feedbacks. Thus, we viewed producer-carnivore conflict as an interaction of humans and animals, whose respective attributes and behaviors have co-developed across overlapping spatial and temporal scales. We used the definition presented by Carter and Linnell (2016) to understand coexistence as a “dynamic but sustainable state” that involves adjusting human interactions with wildlife to ensure co-adaptation, suggesting that coexistence with wildlife requires more intention than merely existing in the same place at the same time. Just as Lischka et al. (2018) accounted for the bidirectional impacts of social and ecological processes on black bear conflict with homeowners, we too acknowledged the individual agency of both producers and coyotes as well as wide-ranging external influences on their behavior. For example, coyote presence in Northern California is impacted by ecosystem characteristics, such as topography and prey abundance, as well as by societal drivers that include tolerance for coyotes ( Bruskotter and Wilson, 2014 ) and patterns of human development. This SES approach thus highlights the need to understand both the social and ecological factors that contribute to conflict and, most importantly, conflict-mitigation.

We propose the term social effectiveness that incorporates both ecological effectiveness and social acceptability. An examination of a tool's social effectiveness will fill multiple lacunae in the field of HWC. Currently, not enough is known about which tools are ecologically effective, even less is known about tools' social acceptability, and the field is lacking work that addresses both of these questions simultaneously ( Hartel et al., 2019 ). In our study, we defined ecological effectiveness as the ability of Foxlights to deter coyotes from pastures. We defined social acceptability following Shindler and Brunson (2004) as an ever-evolving process that helps determine the adoption of any particular policy, program, or tool. Social acceptability is not an active area of research within HWC, but several theories suggest its potential importance to this field and point to the need for empirical research on the topic. These theories include hazard acceptance models, human dimensions of wildlife, taskscapes, and diffusion theory, among others. Key components of social acceptability identified both in our research and others include social trust, values and attitudes, context and systems, information transfer, and the research process itself. Here we define these key components as they relate to our study.

Social Trust

Social trust is a major, if not the major, component of social acceptability. Given that HWC does not always involve human conflicts with wildlife but can also entail conflicts between humans over wildlife conservation issues ( Redpath et al., 2015 ; Slagle and Bruskotter, 2019 ), it follows that social trust among stakeholders can override all factors when it comes to determining the social acceptability of a proposed solution ( Shindler and Brunson, 2004 ). Social trust is defined as a decision-making heuristic that involves conferring some responsibility to an outside entity for things out of one's control, and can be used to examine perceptions of risk and acceptance of new technology ( Siegrist, 2000 ; Siegrist et al., 2000 ). It is an adaptive process that takes time, requires multiple opportunities for interaction, and is linked with knowledge, honesty, and care ( Peters et al., 1997 ). Social trust is a primary component of the hazard-acceptance model, a psychological model that claims that tolerance for large carnivores is informed by an array of factors including social trust, affect for species, risk perceptions, and tradeoffs ( Bruskotter and Wilson, 2014 ; Slagle and Bruskotter, 2019 ). In their definition of social acceptability, Shindler and Brunson (2004) identify many of the elements of the hazard acceptance model without naming the term. Given the role of social trust in determining individuals' willingness to rely on external decision-makers, it follows that trust for the researchers studying a particular tool could lead to lower perceived risk in adopting the tool. To build social trust, Bruskotter and Wilson (2014) recommend highlighting shared fundamental values and goals, and Shindler and Brunson (2004) emphasize the importance of cumulative interactions over time. Social trust is especially pertinent to our study, as the social acceptability of a tool is ultimately individually determined (though informed by broader cultural and ecological contexts), and we forged trust with the individual producers over the course of iterative interviews.

Attitudes and Values

Social acceptability is also conditioned by attitudes and values. Here we draw from theories in the field of human dimensions of wildlife (HDW). In particular, we build on research that considers the roles of attitudes and values in informing why humans behave the way they do with regard to wildlife, what human behaviors lead to conflicts, and how human behavior might be influenced to minimize conflict ( Manfredo et al., 1995 ; Decker et al., 2012 ; Dietsch et al., 2019 ; Hiroyasu et al., 2019 ). Attitudes are favorable or unfavorable dispositions toward an action. For example, a positive attitude toward carnivores may explain behaviors like reluctance to employ lethal means of carnivore control. Attitudes are in turn guided by values, which are fundamental, consistent belief systems that transcend specific situations. For example, one's positive attitude toward carnivores may be based on values of mutualism, which is a belief system associated with egalitarian views of wildlife and a conviction that human activity should be limited for the sake of wildlife protection ( Manfredo et al., 2017 ). Attitudes and values are unique to individuals and inform their identities, but values also exist along a continuum and can reflect broader shifts among groups of people. An example is the Western post-WWII movement toward mutualist values from more traditional domination values, which are linked to a belief that wildlife exist for human use. This value shift has resulted in a recent backlash among those with traditional wildlife values, often out of a desire to protect cultural heritage. Manfredo et al. (2017) revealed through a 19-state survey that in states like California that tend toward mutualist values, the potential for social conflict over wildlife issues with people who have domination values was much higher. It follows that carnivores can become emblematic of greater change as their presence becomes further mired within contested values.

In considering social acceptability, we therefore also draw from theories that describe the symbolic roles carnivores play in determining attitudes and values. In particular, our research builds on the theory of “taskscapes,” which involves looking at how a landscape is understood by the histories and identities connected to the work and play people undertake in it ( Ingold, 2000 ; Skogen et al., 2019 ). People are generally more concerned by taskscape changes, or changes to how a landscape is used, than by physical landscape changes. Carnivores can become symbols of greater taskscape change if the changes that bring carnivores are perceived as being imposed by threatening external forces, meaning that anti-carnivore attitudes can develop independently of material costs. On the other hand, positive attitudes toward the changes that bring carnivores may foster tolerance as long as material damage is not extensive. Approaches like non-lethal tools aim to concurrently help producers achieve livelihood goals and promote carnivore conservation. Thus, the attitudes producers hold toward these tools may be linked to their attitudes toward carnivores and all that carnivores symbolize within a taskscape.

Context and Systems

Social acceptability can be specific to a given context, as a solution or tool that is appropriate in one system may not be appropriate in another ( Shindler and Brunson, 2004 ). For example, the heterogeneity of ranch characteristics and ecoregions in combination with individual producer attributes may mean that no single solution can satisfy the diverse needs of varied ranch operations ( Roche et al., 2015 ). A systems approach can thus help account for the complexity of a producer's decision-making process by acknowledging that social acceptability does not exist in a vacuum; it is instead in relation to what the alternative solutions are perceived to be within a given context. For example, producers operating on privately-leased land often have a different set of alternatives than those on publicly-leased land. Brunson (1996) defined social acceptability as a “condition that results from a judgmental process by which individuals (1) compare the perceived reality with its known alternatives, and (2) decide whether the real condition is superior, or sufficiently similar, to the most favorable alternative condition.” Alternatives are difficult to articulate simply, although this is often what is done when alternatives are presented to producers. For example, non-lethal methods and lethal methods are often presented as alternatives to each other, even though they can be employed simultaneously. This renders social acceptability a dynamic and potentially “wicked” process that changes with available alternatives ( Rittel and Webber, 1973 ; Whyte and Thompson, 2012 ; Mertens, 2015 ). What may have been acceptable in the past can become unacceptable in the future. This dynamism further underscores the need for an iterative process of stakeholder outreach in order to continue to assess social acceptability as both context and systems evolve.

Information Transfer and Research Process

The way that information is transferred as well as the research process itself also informs social acceptability. Studies have found that producers primarily get their information via word-of-mouth, especially from neighbors and other producers, as opposed to technical sources ( Rowan et al., 1994 ; Kachergis et al., 2013 ; Roche et al., 2015 ). For example, diffusion theory presents producers as rational actors who utilize social networks to make decisions. This theory supports the finding that the adoption of new technologies generally begins with opinion leaders, who are producers that are well-connected within knowledge networks ( Lubell et al., 2013 ). These opinion leaders then pass on new technologies to others in their networks, or new technologies are passed down through ranch family generations. A tool's social acceptability can thus be influenced by the way a producer learns about the tool and who they learn this information from. Furthermore, the way in which people are incorporated into a decision-making process can influence their attitudes and judgements ( Shindler and Brunson, 2004 ). Thus, transdisciplinary approaches that emphasize producer involvement may contribute to the social acceptability of research findings, and such approaches have been called for by previous researchers ( Hartel et al., 2019 ). Disciplinary or interdisciplinary approaches on their own are not always flexible enough to be able to address real-world problems because they do not incorporate non-academic actors. Conversely, transdisciplinary approaches aim to identify solutions via a process of cocreation by incorporating differing values and perspectives that better reflect the de facto decision-making process. These collaborative efforts enable researchers to span multiple social networks and coproduce knowledge with livestock producers who can contribute their own diverse epistemic backgrounds.

Ecological Effectiveness

We based our metrics of ecological effectiveness on several reviews that systemically evaluated experiments on lethal and nonlethal livestock protection methods ( Miller et al., 2016 ; Treves et al., 2016 ; Eklund et al., 2017 ; van Eeden et al., 2018 ). These reviews sought to determine which interventions work best, and generally defined ecological effectiveness as the change in livestock loss or carnivore presence in pastures before and after techniques were applied or between control and treatment groups. None of the reviews were able to make any definitive claims and determine “what works” due to a lack of robust studies. Given that the field of HWC lacks a consistent standard for evidence of ecological effectiveness, the authors of these reviews have called for future examinations of ecological effectiveness to satisfy a “gold standard” of scientific rigor that pays special attention to controls, randomization, and replication.

To achieve the gold standard for scientific inference, evaluations of a tool's ecological effectiveness should aim to avoid bias by randomly assigning control and treatment groups and consistently implementing interventions across all groups. An evidence-based, case-control study should thus ideally involve a comparison between a randomly selected treatment livestock herd that is exposed to an intervention and a control livestock herd that is not exposed. While the reviews acknowledge that a tool's effectiveness is context dependent and subject to complex ecological and social confounds, they nevertheless urge ecological evaluations to use measurements of effectiveness that are as controlled and unbiased as possible. All reviews therefore excluded correlational studies or looked at them only as a supplement to their analysis. van Eeden et al. (2018) also acknowledged that input from multiple stakeholders, including scientists and livestock producers, are needed to guide the empirical tests of tools and contribute to the research process.

Like these studies, we too defined ecological effectiveness as a change in carnivore behavior (i.e., detections) within an experimental framework. The relationship between detections and predation is complex. In another study of Foxlight effectiveness, Naha et al. (2020) found that Foxlights led to a significant decline in livestock predation but no difference in leopard visitation between experimental and control sites. Thus, deterrents may diminish a carnivore's willingness to expend the energy and assume the risk associated with predation without altering visitation rates ( Wilkinson et al., 2020 ). Nevertheless, it is important to look at detections in addition to predation events because the harassment and stress associated with mere carnivore presence can affect the health of livestock herds ( Ramler et al., 2014 ).

Taken together, ecological effectiveness and social acceptability contribute to the social effectiveness of a given tool and determine adoption. When analyzing Foxlights, we acknowledged that the social effectiveness of a tool varies across individuals, systems, and timescales. We use this study as an example of how taking these considerations into account can improve future evaluations of tools like Foxlights.

We organized this methods section to reflect the approaches we took to analyze both social acceptability and ecological effectiveness. We first discuss one, then the other. We took our pre-understanding into account before beginning this process and recognized that our analysis of the data would mirror our individual backgrounds and contextual knowledge. Our group of coauthors have a uniquely interdisciplinary background steeped in social and ecological science, and we have conducted research at the study site (HREC) in some form since 2014. This granted us familiarity with the California rangeland system and with the local dynamics of conflict throughout interviews. We were always transparent about our backgrounds with producers and made it clear that our goal was to thoroughly integrate producers into the research process.

Producer Attitudes

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 sheep and cattle producers in Northern California before and after completing our empirical evaluation of Foxlights (see section Predation Deterrent Experiment). Given our qualitative approach, our interviewee pool was small and the results were not intended to have universal applicability or be generalized statistically. These livestock producers operated in Mendocino, Alameda, Sonoma, San Mateo, and Contra Costa counties (all of which are geographically, climatically, and culturally similar), while the Foxlight experiment took place at the Hopland Research and Extension Center (HREC) in Mendocino County. This region has a history of sheep production, with a decline in recent decades. Many producers attribute the decline to an increase in coyote predation ( Larson et al., 2016 ), while other sources attribute it to broader economic change ( Berger, 2006 ).

We began by interviewing HREC producers who managed the sheep flocks that were involved in the Foxlight experiment. These producers had a professional stake in HREC's sheep management and some input on the sheep program but no direct stake in the finances of the program. Other interviewees were then identified via a network sampling technique, which involved contacting future interviewees from recommendations of past interviewees ( Noy, 2008 ). The only requirements were that the interviewees identified as livestock producers and were willing to be interviewed. Of the 11 interviewees, three were employed at HREC, three operated on privately leased lands, three on publicly leased lands, and two on a mixture of public and private leases. Livestock herd size ranged from one producer who was responsible for 70 sheep to another producer who ran 600 mother cows. All 11 producers had experienced livestock loss to coyotes, ranging from one producer who stated that they lose 25% of their calf crop to coyotes every year to another producer who only had one experience with coyote predation.

Each interview lasted from 30 min to 2 h. We started with a set of predetermined open-ended questions ( Supplementary Material ) and posed additional questions as the conversations evolved. Interviews covered tool use, information sources, identity and landscape change, definitions of coexistence, affect toward carnivores, and the material and emotional costs associated with livestock loss. All interviews were recorded with permission from the interviewees and transcribed for analyses. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the University of California, Berkeley Committee for Protection of Human Subjects (CPHS Protocol Number: 2019-02-11801).

After the Foxlight experiment analyses were completed, we contacted the 11 previously interviewed producers to investigate whether empirical findings would change their attitudes toward Foxlights. This second round of interviews involved briefing interviewees on the study results without firm claims on the conclusions. We began by explaining the research and our desire to use a SES approach to evaluate a livestock protection tool that incorporated producer perspectives. We then presented the Foxlight experiment methods and results with special attention to the lack of a strong signal in the data. We made it clear that our study was not able to make any definitive claims about how Foxlight presence interacted with predation due to limited data. Interviewees asked clarifying questions throughout the presentation and sometimes proffered their own interpretation of the empirical results. To ensure continuity, the same authors who conducted the interviews also transcribed and analyzed interview transcripts.

Interview Analyses

We employed a qualitative content analysis method known as manifest analysis ( Elo and Kyngäs, 2008 ; Bengtsson, 2016 ; Carlson, 2018 ; Okumah et al., 2020 ; Pimid et al., 2020 ) to examine interview transcripts. This method emphasizes staying close to the original data and is unique because it has both quantitative and qualitative methodology.

Each transcript was analyzed through hand coding ( Figure 1 ). The first stage was decontextualization , where we began with a precursory reading of the transcripts, followed by a second readthrough where certain quotes were selected and color-coded by theme ( Bengtsson, 2016 ). Examples of themes included “definitions of coexistence” or “opinions toward science. “Selected quotes were paraphrased into meaning units by cutting crutch words or redundant phrases while staying true to the text. After this, meaning units were assigned codes that we created throughout the analysis process. We used inductive content analysis to create codes based on abstraction from the specific to the more general while remaining as text-driven as possible ( Elo and Kyngäs, 2008 ; Graneheim et al., 2017 ). We relied on open coding , a unique component of inductive content analysis, to detect patterns and freely generate categories as we read and re-read transcripts. This allowed us to imbue the original text with agency but also meant that codes evolved as the study progressed. To avoid obscuring the meaning of these codes, the coding process was repeated until codes stopped evolving, which often involved collapsing similar but more specifically worded codes into broader and more generalizable versions.

Figure 1 . Method of analysis for interview transcripts. This figure demonstrates how we created meaning units, derived codes from meaning units, and then quantified codes to be presented in tables.

After assigning codes, we began the “compilation stage,” where we combined a quantitative and qualitative approach to detect patterns and extract meaning from the text. We counted the number of times a given code appeared across all interviews and presented the final number in the tables. Even though a single code could be present multiple times within a single transcript, codes were only counted once per interview. Then we progressed to the writing process, where we used manifest analysis to gather meaning from the text, which is what is presented in the results. Manifest analysis involves describing what the informants say, as opposed to trying to find hidden meanings or subtext. Thus, we referred to the original text as much as possible. Together, these quantitative and qualitative approaches helped us conceptualize social effectiveness by allowing us to assess how the various elements of social acceptability interacted with the demonstrated ecological effectiveness of Foxlights.

Predation Deterrent Experiment

The Foxlight experiment took place at the Hopland Research and Extension Center (HREC) in Mendocino County. HREC is a 5,358-acre sheep production and education facility in the Mayacamas Mountains. University of California acquired the study site, a former sheep ranch, in 1951, and has been managing sheep on the site ever since. Native carnivores at the site include coyotes, black bears ( Ursus americanus ), mountain lions ( Puma concolor ), and bobcats ( Lynx rufus ). Coyote predation is the main issue for sheep at HREC ( Scrivner et al., 1985 ; Neale et al., 1998 ; McInturff et al., 2020 ), with ewe and lamb loss ranging from 1 to 3% a year since 2015. Sheep at HREC are generally moved between fenced pastures every 2 to 6 weeks. Sheep flocks are most vulnerable to predation during lambing season, which occurred twice during this study from November to March. At the start of the study, the operation supported 450–500 ewes over 32 pastures, but was reduced to 135 ewes in June 2019 due to budget and staffing constraints.

Study Design

We tested the behavioral response of coyotes to Foxlights from October 2018 to January 2020 using an experimental design. We compared coyote detections between treatment sites, or camera traps in areas that were in the line-of-sight of a Foxlight (henceforth active Foxlight sites), and control sites, or camera traps set in areas without Foxlights (henceforth inactive Foxlights sites). We selected six pastures based on the recommendations of HREC producers, prioritizing areas that were commonly occupied by sheep flocks and/or reportedly frequented by coyotes. Five of the six pastures were used for sheep grazing at some point during this study. Each pasture contained paired camera trap sites (an active Foxlight site and inactive Foxlight site), yielding 12 total camera trap sites ( Figure 2 ). Camera traps were placed near coyote sign (i.e., game trails, dig holes, fence brakes) to maximize detections ( Way and Eatough, 2006 ; DeVault et al., 2008 ). Camera traps (Bushnell Trophy Cam) were programmed to take bursts of two pictures at 10 s intervals when triggered and set with a normal sensor level.

Figure 2 . Map of HREC with two paired camera trap sites per pasture. Each pasture's Foxlight was alternated between two sites every 5 weeks, and a camera trap was placed at each site to continuously monitor coyote activity throughout the phase. Each phase was composed of two 5 week periods (such that within a given phase, each camera trap site had 5 weeks with a Foxlight, and 5 weeks without a Foxlight). In the figure, “viewshed” represents the areas of the pasture that were in the line-of-sight of the Foxlight when it was active. It was not possible to view a Foxlight in one site from any other. Image produced on Carto.

Throughout the study, one Foxlight was always operational in each of the six pastures. We ensured that Foxlights were not visible from any other camera trap site, even when deployed in the same pasture. Foxlights were placed in prominent areas, such as atop of a knoll, in the center of narrow pastures, or atop of fences in larger pastures, and within 100 m from the camera trap. Within each pasture, we moved the Foxlight between the active and inactive site every 5 weeks. We defined a study “phase” as a 10-week period during which each Foxlight was active for 5 weeks and inactive for 5 weeks at a given camera trap site. There were a total of 4.5 phases during our study. Due to camera trap malfunctions, some cameras had incomplete phases whereas other cameras had longer phases. We corrected for these differences in our analysis.

Analytical Methods

We used Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMMs) to analyze the effects of Foxlights on coyote activity patterns. We determined the number of coyote camera trap detections during each 5 week active or inactive Foxlight period and used this measure as the dependent variable in all models. We counted camera trap photos that occurred within 15 min of another as one independent detection, as inspection of the raw data suggested that this interval captured unique coyote groups while minimizing pseudo replication (following Šver et al., 2016 ; Dorning and Harris, 2019 ).

We used a negative binomial model to account for overdispersion of the count data and included the number of operational days in each active and inactive Foxlight period as an offset in the models to account for differences in sampling effort across camera phases. The covariates we considered to influence coyote activity were Foxlight status (binary variable), sheep presence as a potential coyote attractant (binary variable), phase in order to measure habituation (1–4), and ruggedness at a resolution of 2,500 m 2 around each individual camera trap because it was assumed to have an impact on Foxlight visibility. To ensure that correlated covariates were not confounding the results of our analyses, we tested all covariates in the top model for collinearity and confirmed that variance inflation factors (VIF) < 4 (this was the case for all models). We scaled ruggedness prior to modeling (mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1). We included camera as a random effect in all models, which controls for habitat variables. We selected the best model based on AIC ( Burnham and Anderson, 2002 ).

We also examined whether Foxlights affected coyote diel activity patterns. To account for the circularity of the data and for seasonal differences in sunset and sunrise time, we scaled all times to radians so that π/2 corresponded to sunrise and 3π/2 to sunset. We used kernel density estimation to model diel activity patterns for coyotes during periods with and without Foxlights ( Ridout and Linkie, 2009 ). We used Watson's two-sample test of homogeneity to test for differences in daily activity patterns in areas with and without Foxlights, using the circular package in R ( Agostinelli and Lund, 2017 ).

Results are organized based on social acceptability (sections Producer Attitudes Toward Foxlights Prior to Seeing Results and How Producers Make Livestock Management Decisions), ecological effectiveness (section Effect of Foxlights on Coyote Activity), and social effectiveness (sections How Producers Interpreted the Results and Attitudes Toward Science and Our Methods).

Producer Attitudes Toward Foxlights Prior to Seeing Results

Ten of the eleven interviewees utilized non-lethal deterrents or strategies. These strategies included, in order from most frequently to least frequently cited: guardian animals, human presence, electric fencing, Foxlights, night penning, strategic pasture selection, tighter calving/lambing season, E-collars, solar motion lights, fladry, and radios.

Most interviewees were either willing to use Foxlights or already used them ( Table 1 ). One of these interviewees stated, “Yeah, I would [adopt Foxlights]. I would do it if somebody gives me a new idea on how to deter predators from sheep. I would use it in a second and then watch probably for a season to see if it was working and then if it worked out, keep doing it. If it didn't, I would look for something else.” In contrast, interviewees that were unwilling to try Foxlights either had concerns about the feasibility of deploying deterrents on public land, had too few issues with predation to warrant investing in deterrents, or did not believe in the effectiveness of non-lethal deterrents. To this latter end, one interviewee stated, “I know a lot people don't like to hear this, particularly in the academia world, but the only effective way to control, particularly the coyotes, is lethally. I'm familiar with the system [Foxlights] that you mentioned, but they're just not feasible.”

Table 1 . Producer attitudes toward Foxlights prior to seeing results of the experiment.

How Producers Make Livestock Management Decisions

According to both rounds of interviews, interviewees relied on multiple outlets and factors to make ranch management decisions ( Table 2 ), with word-of-mouth serving as the most prominent information source. Tool adoption, as one interviewee described it, “depends on who recommends that tool.” Producers who identified word-of-mouth as an influence on their decision-making described various kinds of relationships, listed here from order of most frequently to least frequently cited: other producers, neighbors, landowners, suppliers, friends, and researchers. When producers did get information from researchers, the researchers often either worked for their land management agency or had worked with a producer they personally knew. Producers did not commonly rely on academic research papers to make decisions, as one interviewee stated, “I'm certainly not combing through research journals as a producer.” Five producers also mentioned that their access to tools, including lethal strategies, was limited by the sites or conditions of where and with whom they worked.

Table 2 . How producers make livestock management decisions.

Interviewees cited social pressure and personal preference as influencing tool selection. For example, one interviewee stated that social pressure “can go both ways. There's social pressure to adopt non-lethal and there's social pressure from the other side to adopt lethal. Because any coyote I take out isn't predating my neighbors. So when you have a core group of say four or five ranches that are all bordering each other, they're going to put pressure, you know, I'm doing my part to get rid of the coyotes, what are you doing? But definitely there's more pressure to do the non-lethal stuff than there is anything else.” Another interviewee stated, “I would say, lethal control aside, I don't think there is any public pressure on one tool vs. another. It's like, if something worked for you use it. If it doesn't work for you, don't use it. You know, try it out, let me know how it works.”

Several interviewees discussed their approach to deciding between non-lethal and lethal strategies for managing conflict, displaying varying thresholds of tolerance for livestock loss or carnivore behaviors before implementing lethal strategies. For example, one interviewee stated, “I find [coyotes] really interesting and exciting, but there's this threshold that's crossed if they're inflicting damage to my animals.” Examples of unacceptable livestock loss included: more than 1% of cattle a year (depending on how many preventative measures were in place), more than 2% of ewes, more than one or two ewes, losing multiple animals in a short period of time, or if all livestock losses occurred within one herd. Unacceptable behaviors included: when carnivores were particularly wasteful (i.e., mass predation events or if carnivores only ate a small part of an animal), when carnivores “packed up” into large numbers, when carnivores demonstrated habituated behavior (i.e., lack of fear of humans), when carnivores predated healthy animals as opposed to weaker ones, or when carnivores entered atypical areas.

Effect of Foxlights on Coyote Activity

Our experimental evaluation of Foxlights at the Hopland Research and Extension Center (HREC) recorded a total of 305 coyote detections over 4,915 camera trap-nights. The mean number of coyote detections per active Foxlight period at a given camera (5 weeks) was 2.1 (SD +/−3.15; Figure 3 ). For inactive Foxlight periods, the mean was 2.45 (SD +/−3.1; Figure 3 ).

Figure 3 . Relative coyote activity by Foxlight status. Relative coyote activity represents the number of coyote detections in a given 5 week period.

None of the models of coyote activity that we tested improved upon the null model ( Table 3 ), though four models were within 2 delta AIC of the null model and one model had the same AIC as the null model (Model 1). Therefore, they may all be considered top models. Model 1, which included Foxlight status (coefficient estimate = −0.12, SD = 0.22), ruggedness (estimate = −0.61, SD = 0.26), and an interaction between the two (estimate = 0.25, SD = 0.26), suggested that ruggedness reduced the impact of Foxlights on coyote activity. Model 4, which only included Foxlight status as a predictor, suggested that coyote activity decreased when Foxlights were active (Model 4, estimate = −0.20, SD = 0.22). Other top models suggested that coyote activity increased when sheep were present (Model 2, Model 5), and generally decreased with phase (Model 3, Model 5). There was no evidence to suggest that an interaction between Foxlight status and sheep (Model 6) or Foxlight status and phase (Model 7) influenced coyote detections.

Table 3 . Model selection for coyote detections across Foxlight phases.

There was no difference in diel activity patterns of coyotes at sites with active Foxlights than at sites without active Foxlights ( Figure 4 , Watson's U 2 = 0.098, p > 0.10).

Figure 4 . Relative coyote activity by time of day. The lines represent the density of 24-h coyote diel activity across all periods with active Foxlights and inactive Foxlights.

Coyotes predated 14 sheep during the span of the study on the nearly 5,400 acres of HREC property. Of these 14 deaths, 6 occurred in pastures that were in our study area, and none occurred in the line-of-sight of an active Foxlight.

How Producers Interpreted the Results

Nine of the original eleven interviewees agreed to a second interview ( Table 4 ). After being briefed on results of the Foxlight field study, eight of the nine interviewees either stated that Foxlights were effective or that Foxlights had the potential to be effective. For example, one interviewee stated, “It seems like Foxlights are not as effective as we would like them to be. But most of us know that this is not the only tool and anything that helps even a little bit is probably worth trying.” Another interviewee stated that, “There's a good chance that with more precise, timely usage that [Foxlights] would be more effective. My feeling is that I'd probably be better at using them than they were used. So [your study] leads me to err on the side of using them, which I ultimately think what applied science is about.” Interviewees that were already willing to adopt Foxlights or were already using Foxlights in the first round of interviews retained their stance on the ecological effectiveness of Foxlights after viewing our results. However, two of the three interviewees that had been unwilling to adopt Foxlights stated that Foxlights had the potential to be ecologically effective after viewing the results. The third interviewee retained their stance that Foxlights are ecologically ineffective.

Table 4 . How producers interpreted the results.

When asked what our study may have overlooked, eight of the nine interviewees emphasized taking the natural histories of coyotes into account, timing the use of deterrents with seasonal changes in their activity and behavior, and identifying what other landscape variables may or may not push coyotes to undertake the risks associated with sheep predation (e.g., two interviewees postulated that if lethal take had recently fractured coyote social dynamics, coyotes on the site may have been less risk averse). Recommendations included looking at how coyotes change their behaviors based on: time of year, drought conditions, prey populations, pupping, the activities of neighboring livestock operations, and calving/lambing season. Interviewees emphasized holism, system dynamics, and context. For example, one interviewee stated, “Because of the system dynamics, even if only one out of ten coyotes is afraid of a Foxlight, that means I get one more lamb a year, maybe, and I've paid for my Foxlight, right?” Another interviewee stated, “On a flat field with no terrain to speak of, maybe [Foxlights] would work. But I'm not unconvinced to buy one. I would still try it. Context in general [is my biggest consideration]. There are so many other variables that you can't control for in research and especially in rangelands. All of [the other factors] are things that still make me want to try a Foxlight.” A third interviewee stated that Foxlights are “not that effective. In the context that they were tested in. I still feel like they would be effective in a different context, but it makes sense to me why it wouldn't have been that effective in the broad acreage.”

Five of the nine interviewees stated there is value in analyzing multiple deterrents at once. For example, one interviewee stated that they would “love to see a chart that's like—what are the most effective tools in combination.” Another interviewee stated that if the goal is to “try to prevent coyote predation of sheep and it doesn't matter what tools you use, then you would maybe do a study on a combination of tools [to see] what works best.” Other interviewees warned against too much complexity. To this end, one interviewee stated that “sometimes holism and complexity can be an excuse to arrive at a point where you kind of give up on actual decision-making.”

Attitudes Toward Science and Our Methods

Interviewees expressed opinions toward science in the context of rangeland management throughout the course of the two interviews ( Table 5 ). Half of the interviewees stated that science can be biased, three stated that personally trusting or knowing the researchers is what makes science significant to them, and only one interviewee stated that producers are the intended audience of livestock-carnivore conflict research. Otherwise, interviewees tended to identify “other researchers,” “policymakers,” or “customers” as the target audience of research. Five interviewees stated that they trusted the validity of this study after viewing the empirical results, citing its lack of bias, its systems-oriented approach to methods and analysis, its inconclusive results, its accessible explanation of the results in “layman's terms,” and its incorporation of producer perspectives. For example, one interviewee stated, “There are types of research that seem really aware where you interview producers, like this is great that you're interviewing producers and I think that really feels valuable to me [because it] makes it seem like this is actually applicable.” As a demonstration of perceptions of bias, another interviewee stated, “I judge research by the people that do it, and there are very few people I trust doing livestock research. [This study represents] a group I got to know and I trust them. They had no personal agenda involved, and that's key.” As for perceptions of exclusion, another interviewee stated, “Like as a producer, [we] would look at [scientific papers] and say, this is specifically written so I cannot understand it. You know, to make it exclusionary or whatever. So maybe that's why producers wouldn't read that. Not because they're not interested, but because it's just too academic in a different perspective, almost in a different language. I think if a lot of these results were put out in a more usable, friendly format to people, they would for sure pay attention.”

Table 5 . Attitudes toward science and our methods.

Our research demonstrated that an integrated assessment of social effectiveness that combines ecological effectiveness and social acceptability adds critical new dimensions to our understanding of the broader capabilities and adoption of non-lethal livestock protection tools.

Our empirical results provided weak evidence that Foxlights affect coyote activity, but most livestock producers we interviewed still believed that Foxlights had the potential to be effective in conjunction with other strategies. Thus, the field of HWC would benefit from broadening established definitions of ecological effectiveness to include critical but often overlooked components of social acceptability, knowledge transfer, and dynamic socio-ecological systems. Researchers need to be aware that the social acceptability of a tool as well as systems-oriented approaches to tool evaluation are particularly relevant to stakeholder goals and perspectives when communicating science, and they should not expect the ecological success or failure of a given tool to be persuasive to a producer that is accustomed to working with complex systems in their husbandry. While our small sample size (11 interviewees) limits the universal applicability of our findings, the process by which we attained our results sheds light on how iterative collaboration can foster trust for research and promote goodwill between stakeholders. Our research also serves as a model for how a transdisciplinary approach can help future studies incorporate both social acceptability and ecological effectiveness into their methods of analysis.

The Value of a SES Approach to Tool Evaluation

Prior to learning the results of the Foxlight experiment, producers generally had an attitude of “anything helps.” After we showed them the weak empirical results of the Foxlight experiment, interviewees in the second round of interviews still tended to believe that Foxlights had the potential to be effective. They acknowledged that deterrent effectiveness can be influenced by context ( Eklund et al., 2017 ) and recognized that deterrents often work in association with each other to create an overall impact. It was clear that interviewees did not expect Foxlights to replace their preexisting strategies or even expect Foxlights to always work, likely because they recognized how environmental variability can impact an individual tool's ecological effectiveness. It is also possible that interviewees were more willing to think of Foxlights as effective because no sheep loss to coyotes occurred while in the line-of-sight of Foxlights over the course of the experiment, even though we clarified during interviews that low sheep mortality throughout the study period limited our ability to examine the effects of Foxlights on sheep predation. When asked about the results of our experiment, interviewees tended to focus on brainstorming new ways use the tool effectively instead of concentrating on the deficiencies of Foxlights. In other words, our empirical analysis did not give them reason to dismiss Foxlights as ineffective, but rather it gave them reason to lean into finding ways to make it more effective. Thus, empirical examples of effectiveness may not be what drives producer attitudes toward tools like Foxlights.

When it came to suggestions for different approaches to studying tools like Foxlights, interviewees tended to recommend approaches that reflected SES principles. They emphasized the importance of incorporating environmental variability, coyote ecology, and other management strategies into empirical evaluations of tools. The producers that we interviewed specifically identified that the established definition of ecological effectiveness that we presented them—the ability of Foxlights to deter coyotes from pastures—was inconsistent with their experience and way of thinking. An experimental method of isolating and testing a tool individually was not realistic to the interviewees' practice. Instead, they thought of tools as part of a complex and dynamic system that demanded an adaptive toolkit. This means that scientific reductionism does not always align with livestock producers' systems-oriented approaches to husbandry. We instead recommend systems-oriented evaluations of non-lethal tools, such as testing tools in combination as well as adjusting research variables to incorporate what producers identify as important. Analyzing multiple tools at once may enable producers to cycle through tools throughout the year, thus only applying tools when they can be most effective and avoiding habituation. Two interviewees also speculated that using Foxlights in combination with other tools and strategies would further allow coyotes to expect the association between risk and light through a process of “sensitization” ( Blumstein, 2016 ; Gaynor et al., 2020 ).

Whether using multiple tools to sensitize carnivores or prevent habituation, few studies have examined multiple tools at once, but those that have offer promising results ( Espuno et al., 2004 ; Lance et al., 2010 ; Garrote et al., 2015 ; Manoa and Mwuara, 2016 ; Miller et al., 2016 ; Moreira-Arce et al., 2018 ). For example, the Wood River Wolf Project used a range of non-lethal strategies and deterrents, including Foxlights, to lower sheep predation at sites in Idaho by 90% ( Stone et al., 2017 ). The project operated on the assumption that no single deterrent can effectively reduce conflict, and the results revealed that tools must be consistently rotated, adapted to an ever-changing context, and analyzed holistically ( Martin, 2020 ). Producers at HREC were actively employing other strategies throughout our study, something that potentially served as a confounding factor in this experiment, and our results would have benefitted from analyzing Foxlights in combination with other techniques (see Supplementary Materials for further discussion on the empirical results).

Research variables in future evaluations of non-lethal tools should better incorporate both the environmental and social factors that producers identify as important. Our study supports previous research that has found misalignment between producer perspectives on effectiveness and empirical analyses ( Lance et al., 2010 ; Teague et al., 2013 ; Ohrens et al., 2019b ). Management efforts should focus on bridging these domains of scientific and producer knowledge to inform decision-making. For example, another study involving HREC producers and their perceptions of risk demonstrated how the integration of producer perspectives into empirical assessments was essential to understanding coyote activity and deterrent use across a livestock operation ( McInturff et al., 2020 ). We suggest that researchers select response variables that are informed by the interests of the stakeholders, not just what researchers can, or choose to, measure.

The Role of Social Effectiveness in Producer Decision Making

Our finding that ecological effectiveness alone is not enough to alter producers' attitudes builds off the work of Brunson (1992) , who revealed how an overreliance on technical information can be detrimental to social acceptability for multiple reasons that our findings support, including: stakeholders are often already educated on the technical aspects of a subject, scientific jargon can alienate producers, overreliance on one “right answer” can fail to account for environmental heterogeneity, and that science cannot resolve differences of opinions that correspond with belief systems. Furthermore, livestock producers make decisions through holistic considerations of production dynamics by relying on both technical and cultural knowledge transfer. For example, a producer may learn about system dynamics from older generations of ranchers, their own experience of their land, and from scientific sources. Most importantly, producers intentionally engage with diverse knowledge sources when it comes to understanding the socio-ecological systems they operate within ( Wilmer and Fernández-Giménez, 2015 ). The fact that scientific demonstrations of a tool's ecological effectiveness serve as only one source of information among many for producers underscores the need to incorporate social acceptability into tool evaluations.

Several elements that contribute to social acceptability were brought up in interviews. Interviewees emphasized that the messenger of scientific findings is important because there must be trust in who recommends a tool (Section Social Trust). In our study site, as for much of the American West, social trust between agricultural producers and scientists is low ( Bonnie et al., 2020 ). Over half of the interviewees held negative attitudes toward science, which perhaps explains why other producers often serve as their most reputable source of information. But after working with us through multiple rounds of interviews, producers began coming to us for more information and discussion, demonstrating that research itself can build social trust if stakeholder perspectives are meaningfully included in the process. For example, all three of interviewees that worked at HREC expressed their suspicion of bias in science. Yet all three were among the interviewees who stated that they trusted the validity of our research, perhaps because they either played a role in the design of the experiment's methods, witnessed the research onsite, or like the other interviewees, participated in iterative interviews. When working with producers, researchers need to acknowledge their own positionality and account for the various ways they may be perceived. Investing in truly participatory science with stakeholders at multiple checkpoints throughout an experiment will both foster trust and address the perception that science or conservation can be biased or exclusionary ( Hazzah et al., 2019 ). These findings underscore the value of stakeholder collaboration in informing social trust and social acceptability.

The role of attitudes, values, and systems in informing social acceptability also manifested in interviews. Interviewees elaborated on their personal values and identities, and how their attitudes toward lethal or non-lethal control often influenced their decision on whether to adopt certain methods (Section Attitudes and Values). They tended to express positive or negative attitudes toward the recent value shift in the American West. For example, when asked if the way rangelands are being managed is changing, one interviewee stated, “Over the course of time in California, people's emotions have taken over common sense. They let emotions drive their votes, and their votes have taken away all the effective means to control these predators. And that's the biggest frustration you have when you live in California.” Alternatively, a different interviewee on the same subject stated, “[The change] is a very emotional issue for a lot of these old guys. This is a human problem. It comes down to a sense of entitlement that this landscape should never challenge us and we should not have to coexist.” Furthermore, the relevance of contexts and systems in informing social acceptability was certainly demonstrated within the interviews, as interviewees emphasized again and again the importance of systems-oriented examinations of HWC that account for available alternatives and environmental variability (Section Context and Systems).

Interviewees also described how they incorporated various ways of knowing into their decision-making process and relied on social networks (Section Information Transfer and Research Process). Our network sampling technique for contacting new interviewees may have even enabled us to access this knowledge network throughout our research process. As one interviewee stated, “There are people on the leading edge who are reaching out to other places and publications and are choosing [tools] they want to try. And then maybe there's enough of those people that it becomes a critical mass and then they push back on the mainstream [means of control]. It's pretty fascinating how knowledge transfers and how ideas spread.” It is possible that some of our interviewees were opinion leaders on the “leading edge” of new technologies ( Lubell et al., 2013 ), especially those that answered the question of “Why did you agree to be interviewed?” with statements that expressed their desire to either learn about new potential solutions or contribute to the progression rangeland science. We also found that social pressure from other producers played an important role in information transfer, although pressure only seemed to act on either lethal or non-lethal strategies but not between individual tools. Most interviewees emphasized that the public does not support lethal strategies, which is consistent with other studies ( Naughton-Treves et al., 2003 ; Wolf et al., 2017 ; Diaz et al., 2020 ). Sometimes this pressure made interviewees inclined to select non-lethal tools, as one interviewee stated, “I think we're going to lose more and more of the lethal tools. And so it's really important to develop other tools that can work.” In other cases, pressure had the opposite effect, as another interviewee stated, “I feel like if you give into the gimmick [and use non-lethal tools], then it's kind of a slippery slope and you're kind of giving up your option of really doing what really should happen.” And finally, not only is there implicit evidence to suggest that our integrative research process that was built around producer participation contributed to the social acceptability of this tool, but producers explicitly stated that our transdisciplinary methods increased the credibility of this project (Section Information Transfer and Research Process).

Our findings also revealed how HWC mitigation has both economic and psychological dimensions within a given “taskscape,” which is a social construction of a landscape that accounts for the lives, work, and practices that imbue the material landscape with meaning (Section Attitudes and Values). It is difficult, and perhaps impossible, to address one of these dimensions without acknowledging the other. For example, when asked how much they liked coyotes, one interviewee said, “I would [rate] coyotes zero. I've just seen so much gore and violence that it ceases to even be about money. It's about suffering.” Livestock losses are also often unevenly distributed in space and time, obscuring the full impact. Uncertainty, and especially chronic uncertainty, has costs of its own. To exemplify this point, another interviewee said, “I'm always in a state of paranoia about that. And that's just the life of the shepherd. I hear any coyotes and I'm just like outside in my pajamas with my flip flops, trying to figure out where the sounds are coming from.” While a loss of 1–3% of sheep crop to predation at our study site is a fairly standard industry loss, HREC producers explained that every predation event is a direct income loss of anywhere from $150–$500 per animal for producers, affects their job performances, and carries an emotional toll. These findings speak to the larger point illustrated by our research—ecological or economic data aren't the only forces driving attitudes when it comes to making decisions surrounding livestock loss and predation prevention. Strictly ecological or economic interpretations of the effectiveness of livestock protection tools will miss vital human dimensions, especially regarding social acceptability.

Recommendations

We recommend that researchers adopt the same systems-oriented approaches already used by producers to both test tools and communicate findings. This may involve analyzing deterrents in concert, accounting for broader environmental factors, and incorporating research variables that influence social acceptability. Researchers should continue to test tools, but also work closely with producers to solicit feedback. Establishing lending libraries of tools and partnering with producers to collect data will allow researchers to learn from their knowledge and insight, build trust, provide exposure to tools, and lower the barriers that enable access to certain tools. In the same way that app developers use business techniques to let users trial apps and “break” them in the real world, scientists could implement a similar, iterative approach with non-lethal tools, especially given that producers quite reasonably want to experiment with tools for themselves before forming opinions ( Hazzah et al., 2019 ). We also recommend that our integrated and participatory approach be considered not just by other researchers, but also by land managers as part of their planning cycle. Land management agencies can use this iterative process to recognize a problem, identify potential solutions from stakeholder opinion and scientific literature, and then work toward a practical solution that is scientifically robust and culturally palatable. Establishing checkpoints with stakeholders along the way will allow managers to determine which solutions have social effectiveness, both in terms of solving the problem and aligning with stakeholder values. Work like this is already underway: the Wolf Advisory Group (WAG) within the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife guides efforts to reduce conflict between wolves and livestock by inviting stakeholders from diverse backgrounds to participate within an inclusive decision-making framework ( Wiles et al., 2011 ). Such approaches can guide tool adoption and promote sound practices, ultimately supporting conservation as well as livestock production goals. Examining systems-oriented approaches, account for social acceptability, and enabling practitioners test things for themselves may have much higher yields for the future of coexistence than endless science on particular tools.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article has been made available by the authors in the Supplementary Material . Additional data will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, upon request.

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by University of California, Berkeley Committee for Protection of Human Subjects (CPHS) and Office for Protection of Human Subjects (OPHS). The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Ethical review and approval was not required for the animal study because no animals were captured or handled, and the Foxlight experiment was non-invasive. Written informed consent was obtained from the owners for the participation of their animals in this study.

Author Contributions

LV, AM, and KG contributed to the conception and design of the empirical study. LV, AM, KG, VY, and JB contributed to the conception and design of the qualitative interviews. KG, AM, and LV performed the statistical analysis. LV organized the database, conducted and analyzed interviews, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. KG, AM, and LV performed the statistical analysis. AM, KG, VY, and JB wrote sections of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.

This research was supported by the UC Hopland Research and Extension Center, which provided the equipment used in this study. KG was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, and the Schmidt Science Fellows program, in partnership with the Rhodes Trust. Publication was supported by the UC Santa Barbara Library Open Access Publishing Fund.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We thank all interviewees for their participation in the study. We also thank the staff at the Hopland Research and Extension Center, especially Kim Rodrigues, Alison Smith, Jim Lewers, and John Bailey, for their participation and support.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2021.682210/full#supplementary-material

Agostinelli, C., and Lund, U. (2017). R Package 'Circular': Circular Statistics (Version 0.4-93) . Avalilable online at: https://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/circular/ (accessed June 1, 2021).

Baker, P. J., Boitani, L., Harris, S., Saunders, G., and White, P. C. L. (2008). Terrestrial carnivores and human food production: impact and management. Mamm. Rev. 38, 123–166. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2907.2008.00122.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Barnes, M. (2015). Livestock Management for Coexistence with Large Carnivores, Healthy Land and Productive Ranches. People and Carnivores . Bozeman, MT. Avalilable online at: https://wolfwatcher.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Livestock-Manangement-for-Coexistence-with-Large-Carnivores-Healthy-Land-Productive-Ranches.pdf (accessed July 20, 2021).

Google Scholar

Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. Nurs. Plus Open 2, 8–14. doi: 10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001

Berger, K. M. (2006). Carnivore-Livestock conflicts: effects of subsidized predator control and economic correlates on the sheep industry. Conserv. Biol. 20, 751–761. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00336.x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bergstrom, B. J. (2017). Carnivore conservation: shifting the paradigm from control to coexistence. J. Mammal. 98, 1–6. doi: 10.1093/jmammal/gyw185

Berkes, F., and Folke, C (Eds). (2003). Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Blumstein, D. T. (2016). Habituation and sensitization: new thoughts about old ideas. Anim. Behav. 120, 255–262. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2016.05.012

Bonnie, R., Diamond, E. P., and Rowe, E. (2020). Understanding Rural Attitudes Toward the Environment and Conservation in America . Durham, NC: Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions; Duke University.

Brunson, M. W. (1992). Professional bias, public perspectives, and communication pitfalls for natural resource managers. Rangelands 14, 292–295.

Brunson, M. W. (1996). A definition of “social acceptability” in ecosystem management. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service General Technical Report PNW , Portland, OR, 7–16.

Bruskotter, J. T., and Wilson, R. S. (2014). Determining where the wild things will be: using psychological theory to find tolerance for large carnivores. Conserv. Lett. 7, 158–165. doi: 10.1111/conl.12072

Burnham, K. P., and Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. Model selection and Multimodel inference, 2nd Edn . New York, NY: Springer.

Carlson, S. C. (2018). Poaching as a Sociological Phenomenon: Constructed Crossroads and Conflicts Among the People and Pachyderms of Sub-Saharan Africa . (Doctoral dissertation), Athens, OH: Ohio University.

Carter, N. H., and Linnell, J. D. C. (2016). Co-Adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 575–578. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2016.05.006

Decker, D. J., Riley, S. J., and Siemer, W. F (Eds). (2012). Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management, 2nd Edn . Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

DeVault, T. L., Kubel, J. E., Glista, D. J., and Rhodes, O. E. Jr. (2008). Mammalian hazards at small airports in Indiana: impact of perimeter fencing. Hum. Wildlife Conflicts 2, 240–247. Available online at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/hwi/45

Diaz, M. V., Simonetti, J. A., and Zorondo-Rodriguez, F. (2020). Social acceptability of management actions for addressing difference conflict scenarios between humans and wildlife in Patagonia. Hum. Dimen. Wildlife 25, 1–16. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2020.1678079

Dickman, A. J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict. Anim. Conserv. 13, 458–466. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00368.x

Dietsch, A. M., Manfredo, M. J., Sullivan, L., Bruskotter, J. T., and Teel, T. L. (2019). “A multilevel, systems view of values can inform a move towards human-wildlife coexistence,” in Human Wildlife Interactions: Turning Conflict into Coexistence , eds B. Frank, J. A. Glikman, and S. Marchini (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 20–44. doi: 10.1017/9781108235730.005

Dorning, J., and Harris, S. (2019). The challenges of recognising individuals with few distinguishing features: Identifying red foxes vulpes vulpes from camera-trap photos. PLoS ONE 14:e0216531. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216531

Drury, R., Homewood, K., and Randall, S. (2011). Less is more: the potential of qualitative approaches in conservation research. Anim. Conserv. 14, 18–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00375.x

Eklund, A., López-Bao, J. V., Tourani, M., Chapron, G., and Frank, J. (2017). Limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce livestock predation by large carnivores. Sci. Rep. 7:2097. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-02323-w

Elo, S., and Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. J. Adv. Nurs. 62, 107–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

Espuno, N., Lequette, B., Poulle, M. L., Migot, P., and Lebreton, J. D. (2004). Heterogenous response to preventive sheep husbandry during wolf recolonization of the French alps. Wildlife Soc. 32, 1195–1208. doi: 10.2193/0091-7648(2004)032[1195:HRTPSH]2.0.CO;2

Estes, J. A., Terborgh, J., Brashares, J. S., Power, M. E., Berger, J., Bond, W. J., et al. (2011). Trophic downgrading of planet earth. Science 333, 301–306. doi: 10.1126/science.1205106

Garrote, G., Lopez, G., Ruiz, M., de Lillo, S., Bueno, J. F., and Simon, M. A. (2015). Effectiveness of electric fences as a means to prevent Iberian lynx ( Lynx pardinus ) predation on lambs. J. Mammal. 26, 61–62. doi: 10.4404/hystrix-26.1-10957

Gaynor, K. M., Cherry, M. J., Gilbert, S. L., Kohl, M. T., Larson, C. L., Newsome, T. M., et al. (2020). An applied ecology of fear framework: linking theory to conservation practice. Anim. Conserv . 24, 308–321. doi: 10.1111/acv.12629

Graneheim, U. H., Lindgren, B. M., and Lundman, B. (2017). Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: a discussion paper. Nurse Educ. Today 56, 29–34. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.002

Hartel, T., Scheele, B., Tamim Vanak, A., Rozylowicz, L., Linnell, J. D. C., and Ritchie, E. G. (2019). Mainstreaming human and large carnivore coexistence through institutional collaboration. Conserv. Biol. 33, 1256–1265. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13334

Hazzah, L., Chandra, S., and Dolrenry, S. (2019). “Leaping forward: the need for innovation in wildlife conservation,” in Human Wildlife Interactions: Turning Conflict into Coexistence , eds B. Frank, J.A. Glikman, and S. Marchini (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 85–106. doi: 10.1017/9781108235730.020

Hiroyasu, E. H. T., Miljanich, C. P., and Anderson, S. E. (2019). Drivers of support: The case of species reintroductions with an ill-informed public. Hum. Dimens. Wildlife 24, 401–417. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2019.1622055

Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill . New York, NY: Routledge.

Inskip, C., and Zimmermann, A. (2009). Human-felid conflict: a review of patterns and priorities worldwide. Oryx 43:18. doi: 10.1017/S003060530899030X

Kachergis, E., Derner, J., Roche, L., Tate, K., Lubell, M., Mealor, R., et al. (2013). Characterizing wyoming ranching operations: natural resource goals, management practices and information sources. Nat. Resourc. 4, 45–54. doi: 10.4236/nr.2013.41005

Knapp, C. N. K., and Fernandez-Gimenez, M. E. (2009). Knowledge in practice: documenting rancher local knowledge in northwest colorado. Rangeland Ecol. Manage . 62, 500–509. doi: 10.2111/08-175.1

Lance, N. J., Breck, S. W., Sime, C., Callahan, P., and Shivik, J. A. (2010). Biological, technical, and social aspects of applying electrified fladry for livestock protection from wolves ( Canis lupus ). Wildlife Res. 37, 708–714. doi: 10.1071/WR10022

Larson, S., McGranahan, D. A., and Timm, R. M. (2016). The marin county livestock protection program: 15 years in review. Proc. Verteb. Pest Conf. 27:8. doi: 10.5070/V427110695

Lennox, R. J., Gallagher, A. J., Ritchie, E. G., and Cooke, S. J. (2018). Evaluating the efficacy of predator removal in a conflict-prone world. Biol. Conserv. 224, 277–289. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.05.003

Lischka, S. A., Teel, T. L., Johnson, H. E., Reed, S. E., Breck, S., Don Carlos, A., et al. (2018). A conceptual model for the integration of social and ecological information to understand human-wildlife interactions. Biol. Conserv. 225, 80–87. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.06.020

Lozano, J., Olszańska, A., Morales-Reyes, Z., Castro, A. A., Malo, A. F., Moleón, M., et al. (2019). Human-carnivore relations: a systematic review. Biol. Conserv. 237, 480–492. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.07.002

Lubell, M. N., Cutts, B. B., Roche, L. M., Hamilton, M., Derner, J. D., Kachergis, E., et al. (2013). Conservation program participation and adaptive rangelands decision-making. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 66, 609–620. doi: 10.2111/REM-D-13-00025.1

Lute, M. L., Carter, N. H., Lopez-Bao, J. V., and Linnell, J. D. C. (2018). Conservation professionals agree on challenges to coexisting with large carnivores but not on solutions. Biol. Conserv. 218, 223–232. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.035

Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., Sullivan, L., and Dietsch, A. M. (2017). Values, trust, and cultural backlash in conservation governance: the case of wildlife management in the United States. Biol. Conserv. 214, 303–311. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.07.032

Manfredo, M. J., Vaske, J. J., and Decker, D. J. (1995). “Human dimensions of wildlife management: basic concepts,” in Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence Through Management and Research , eds R. L. Knight and K. J Gutzwiller (Covelo, CA: Island Press), 33–50.

Manoa, D. O., and Mwuara, F. (2016). Predator-proof bomas as a tool in mitigating human-predator conflict in loitokitok sub-county, Amboseli Region of Kenya. Nat. Resourc. 7, 28–39. doi: 10.4236/nr.2016.71003

Martin, J. V. (2020). Peace in the valley? Qualitative insights on collaborative coexistence from the wood river wolf project. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3:e197. doi: 10.1111/csp2.197

McInturff, A., Miller, J. R. B., Gaynor, K. M., and Brashares, J. S. (2020). Patterns of coyote predation on sheep in California: a socio-ecological approach to mapping risk of livestock-predator conflict. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3:e175. doi: 10.1111/csp2.175

McManus, J. S., Dickman, A. J., Gaynor, D., Smuts, B. H., and Macdonald, D. W. (2015). Dead or alive? Comparing costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal human–wildlife conflict mitigation on livestock farms. Oryx 49, 687–695. doi: 10.1017/S0030605313001610

Mertens, D. M. (2015). Mixed methods and wicked problems. J. Mix. Methods Res. 9, 1–6. doi: 10.1177/1558689814562944

Miller, J. R. B., Stoner, K. J., Cejtin, M. R., Meyer, T. K., Middleton, A. D., and Schmitz, O. J. (2016). Effectiveness of contemporary techniques for reducing livestock depredations by large carnivores. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 40, 806–815. doi: 10.1002/wsb.720

Moreira-Arce, D., Ugarte, C. S., Zorondo-Rodriguez, F., and Simonetti, J. A. (2018). Management tools to reduce carnivore-livestock conflicts: current gap and future challenges. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 71, 389–394. doi: 10.1016/j.rama.2018.02.005

Muhly, T. B., and Musiani, M. (2009). Livestock depredation by wolves and the ranching economy in the Northwestern US. Ecol. Econ. 68, 2439–2450. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.008

Naha, D., Chaudhary, P., Sonker, G., and Sathyakumar, S. (2020). Effectiveness of non-lethal predator deterrents to reduce livestock losses to leopard attacks within a multiple-use landscape of the Himalayan region. PeerJ 8:e9544. doi: 10.7717/peerj.9544

Naughton-Treves, L., Grossberg, R., and Treves, A. (2003). Paying for tolerance: rural citizens' attitudes toward wolf depredation and compensation. Conserv. Biol. 17, 294–312. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00060.x

Neale, J. C. C., Sacks, B. N., Jaeger, M. M., and McCullough, D. R. (1998). A comparison of bobcat and coyote predation on lambs in north-coastal California. J Wildlife Manage 55, 32–37. doi: 10.2307/3802346

Noy, C. (2008). Sampling knowledge: the hermeneutics of snowball sampling in qualitative research. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 11, 327–344. doi: 10.1080/13645570701401305

Ohrens, O., Bonacic, C., and Treves, A. (2019a). Non-lethal defense against predators: Flashing lights deter puma attacks in Chile. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 32–38. doi: 10.1002/fee.1952

Ohrens, O., Santiago-Ávila, F. J., and Treves, A. (2019b). “The twin challenges of preventing real and perceived threats to human interests.” in Human Wildlife Interactions: Turning Conflict into Coexistence , eds B. Frank, J. A. Glikman, and S. Marchini (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 242–246. doi: 10.1017/9781108235730.015

Okumah, M., Yeboah, A. S., and Amponsah, O. (2020). Stakeholders' willingness and motivations to support sustainable water resources management: insights from a Ghanaian study. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2:e170. doi: 10.1111/csp2.170

Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325, 419–422. doi: 10.1126/science.1172133

Peters, R. G., Covello, V. T., and McCallum, D. B. (1997). The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: an empirical study. Risk Anal. 17, 43–54. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00842.x

Pimid, M., Abdul Latip, N., Marzuki, A., Umzarulazijo, M., and Thevan Krishnan, K. (2020). Stakeholder management of conservation in lower kinabatangan sabah. Plan. Malay. 18, 71–81. doi: 10.21837/pm.v18i13.776

Pooley, S. P., Barua, M., Beinart, W., Dickman, A., Holmes, G., Lorimer, J., et al. (2016). An interdisciplinary review of current and future approaches to improving human-predator relations. Conserv. Biol. 31, 513–523. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12859

Ramler, J., Hebblewhite, M., Kellenberg, D., and Sime, C. (2014). Crying wolf? A spatial analysis of wolf location and depredations on calf weight. Am. J. Am. Econ. 96, 631–656. doi: 10.1093/ajae/aat100

Redpath, S. M., Bhatia, S., and Young, J. (2015). Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx 49, 222–225. doi: 10.1017/S0030605314000799

Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., et al. (2012). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 100–109. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021

Reynolds, J. C., and Tapper, S. C. (1996). Control of mammalian predators in game management and conservation. Mamm. Rev. 26, 127–155. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2907.1996.tb00150.x

Ridout, M. S., and Linkie, M. (2009). Estimating overlap of daily activity patterns from camera trap data. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 14, 322–337. doi: 10.1198/jabes.2009.08038

Ripple, W. J., Estes, J. A., Beschta, R. L., Wilmers, C. C., Ritchie, E. G., Ritche, E. H., et al. (2014). Status and ecological effects of the world's largest carnivores. Science 343:1241484. doi: 10.1126/science.1241484

Rittel, H. W. J., and Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 4, 155–169. doi: 10.1007/BF01405730

Roche, L. M., Schohr, T. K., Derner, J. D., Lubell, M. N., Cutts, B. B., Kachergis, E., et al. (2015). Sustaining working rangelands: insights from rancher decision making. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 68, 383–389. doi: 10.1016/j.rama.2015.07.006

Rowan, R. C., Ladewig, H. W., and White, L. D. (1994). Perceptions vs. recommendations: A rangeland decision-making dilemma. J. Range Manage. 47, 344–348. doi: 10.2307/4002327

Scasta, J. D., Stam, B., and Windh, J. L. (2017). Rancher-reported efficacy of lethal and non-lethal livestock predation mitigation strategies for a suite of carnivores. Sci. Rep. 7:14105. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-14462-1

Scrivner, J. H., Howard, W. E., Murphy, A. H., and Hays, J. R. (1985). Sheep losses to predators on a California Range, 1973-1983. J. Range Manage. 38, 418–421. doi: 10.2307/3899712

Shindler, B., and Brunson, M. W. (2004). “social acceptability in forest and range management,” in Society and Natural Resources: A Summary of Knowledge , eds M. Manfredo, J. Vaske, B. Bruyere, D. Field, and P. Brown. (Jefferson, MO: Modern Litho Press), 1–17.

Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal. 20, 195–204. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.202020

Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., and Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Anal. 20, 353–362. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.203034

Skogen, K., Ghosal, S., Skuland, S., and Krishnan, S. (2019). “Predators in human landscapes,” in Human-Wildlife Interactions: Turning Conflict into Coexistence , eds B. Frank, J.A. Glikman, and S. Marchini (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 129–149. doi: 10.1017/9781108235730.010

Slagle, K., and Bruskotter, J. T. (2019). “Tolerance for wildlife: a psychological perspective,” in Human-Wildlife Interactions: Turning Conflict into Coexistence , eds B. Frank, J.A. Glikman, and S. Marchini (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 85–106. doi: 10.1017/9781108235730.008

Slagle, K., Bruskotter, J. T., Singh, A. S., and Schmidt, R. H. (2017). Attitudes toward predator control in the United States: 1995 and 2014. J. Mammal. 98, 7–16. doi: 10.1093/jmammal/gyw144

Stone, S. A., Breck, S. W., Timberlake, J., Haswell, P. M., Najera, F., Bean, B. S., et al. (2017). Adaptive use of nonlethal strategies for minimizing wolf-sheep conflict in Idaho. J. Mammal. 98, 33–44. doi: 10.1093/jmammal/gyw188

Šver, L., Bielen, A., Krizan, J., and Guzvica, G. (2016). Camera traps on wildlife crossing structures as a tool in gray wolf ( Canis lupus ) management – five-years monitoring of wolf abundance trends in croatia. PLoS ONE 11:e0156748. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156748

Teague, R., Provenza, F., Kreuter, U., Steffens, T., and Barnes, M. (2013). Multi-paddock grazing on rangelands: why the perceptual dichotomy between research results and rancher experience? J. Environ. Manage. 128, 699–717. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.064

Treves, A., Krofel, M., and McManus, J. (2016). Predator control should not be a shot in the dark. Front. Ecol. Environ . 14, 380–388. doi: 10.1002/fee.1312

USDA (2015). Sheep and Lamb Predator and Nonpredator Death Loss in the United States. Fort Collins, CO: USDA–APHIS–VS–CEAH–NAHMS, 1–52.

van Eeden, L. M., Exlund, A., Miller, J. R. B., Lopez-Bao, J. V., Chapron, G., Cejtin, M. R., et al. (2018). Carnivore conservation needs evidence-based livestock protection. PLoS Biol. 16:e2005577. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2005577

Way, J. G., and Eatough, D. L. (2006). Use of “micro”-corridors by eastern coyotes, canis latrans, in a heavily urbanized area: implications for ecosystem management. Can. Field Nat. 120, 457–465. doi: 10.22621/cfn.v120i4.358

Whyte, K. P., and Thompson, P. B. (2012). Ideas for how to take wicked problems seriously. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 25, 441–445. doi: 10.1007/s10806-011-9348-9

Widman, M., and Elofsson, K. (2018). Costs of livestock depredation by large carnivores in Sweden 2001 to 2013. Ecol. Econ. 143, 188–198. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.008

Wiles, G. J., Allen, H. L., and Hayes, G. E. (2011). Wolf Conservation and Management Plan for Washington. Olympia, WA: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Wilkinson, C. E., McInturff, A., Miller, J. R. B., Yovovich, V., Gaynor, K. M., Calhoun, K., et al. (2020). An ecological framework for contextualizing carnivore–livestock conflict. Conserv. Biol. 34, 854–867. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13469

Wilmer, H., and Fernández-Giménez, M. E. (2015). Rethinking rancher decision-making: a grounded theory of ranching approaches to drought and succession management. Rangeland J. 37, 517–528. doi: 10.1071/RJ15017

Wolf, C., and Ripple, W. J. (2017). Range contractions of the world's large carnivores. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4:e170052. doi: 10.1098/rsos.170052

Wolf, K. M., Baldwin, R. A., and Barry, S. (2017). Compatibility of livestock grazing and recreation use on coastal California public lands: importance, interactions, and management solutions. Rangeland Ecol. Manage. 70, 192–201. doi: 10.1016/j.rama.2016.08.008

Woodroffe, R., and Redpath, S. M. (2015). When the hunter becomes the hunted. Science 348:1312–1314. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa8465

Wutich, A., Beresford, M., Bausch, J. C., Eaton, W., Brasier, K. J., Williams, C. F., et al. (2019). Identifying stakeholder groups in natural resource management: comparing quantitative and qualitative social network approaches. Soc. Nat. Resour. 33, 941–948. doi: 10.1080/08941920.2019.1707922

Keywords: human-wildlife conflict, human-wildlife interactions, conservation planning, monitoring and evaluation, human dimensions of wildlife, conservation social science, non-lethal control, socio-ecological system

Citation: Volski L, McInturff A, Gaynor KM, Yovovich V and Brashares JS (2021) Social Effectiveness and Human-Wildlife Conflict: Linking the Ecological Effectiveness and Social Acceptability of Livestock Protection Tools. Front. Conserv. Sci. 2:682210. doi: 10.3389/fcosc.2021.682210

Received: 18 March 2021; Accepted: 23 July 2021; Published: 20 August 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Volski, McInturff, Gaynor, Yovovich and Brashares. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Lara Volski, lavolski@berkeley.edu ; Kaitlyn M. Gaynor, gaynor@nceas.ucsb.edu ; Alex McInturff, amcinturff@gmail.com

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Understanding the prospects of human-wildlife coexistence: a conceptual framework

• Review Paper
• Published: 27 August 2024

Cite this article

• Avantika Thapa 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Tanoy Mukherjee 4 ,
• Aditya Pradhan 1 , 3 &
• Joydev Chattopadhyay 4  

Human-wildlife interactions can range from reverence to extreme conflict. Conservationists have come to the realization that humans and wildlife have always coexisted together in shared landscapes across the globe. Thus, understanding and acting upon the prospects of human-wildlife coexistence (HWCo) is now a crucial component of biodiversity conservation to sustain it. HWCo is a state where humans and wildlife share spaces by exposing each other to tolerable levels of risks and disadvantages. HWCo transpires as a result of interplay between a number of perceived and behavioral factors, some of which are interdependent on one another. Through this framework, we find ways to identify these factors, which can then be used to evaluate HWCo and understand the drivers of HWCo. Therefore, the current article focuses on changing this paradigm in HWCo research. We suggest three continuums involving three crucial factors viz., space-use by wildlife, daily activity pattern of wildlife, and human attitude towards wildlife, be used to obtain a cumulative value signifying HWCo for a particular species/taxon in a shared landscape. We propose that these factors be measured simultaneously on a predefined scale, which will allow it to become relative, and will further allow cross-site comparisons. This preliminary framework is expected to enable scientists and researchers to visualize the complexity and dynamicity embedded within human-wildlife interactions through modeling. The evaluation on a continuum is especially effective when positive or negative interactions between humans and wildlife are not obvious.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A practical guide to understanding the context of human-wildlife coexistence

Human–nature relationships: An introduction to social–ecological practice theory for human–wildlife interactions

Living with wildlife: a review of advances in social-ecological analysis across landscapes

Abel T, Stepp JR (2003) A new ecosystem ecology for anthropology. Conserv Ecol, 7 (3)

Abidin ZAZ, Jacobs M (2019) Relationships between valence towards wildlife and wildlife value orientations. J Nat Conserv 49:63–68

Article   Google Scholar  

Abrahms B, Carter NH, Clark-Wolf TJ, Gaynor KM, Johansson E, McInturff A, West L (2023) Climate change as a global amplifier of human–wildlife conflict. Nat Clim Change 13(3):224–234

Addison PF, Rumpff L, Bau SS, Carey JM, Chee YE, Jarrad FC, Burgman MA (2013) Practical solutions for making models indispensable in conservation decision-making. Divers Distrib 19(5–6):490–502

Aditya V, Ganesh T (2022) Insights into human-wildlife coexistence through temporal activity pattern overlaps in a neglected tropical forest in India. Biotropica 54(6):1390–1399

Agarwal B (2019) The gender and environment debate: lessons from India. In: Population and environment (pp. 87–124). Routledge

Agarwala M, Kumar S, Treves A, Naughton-Treves L (2010) Paying for wolves in Solapur, India and Wisconsin, USA: comparing compensation rules and practice to understand the goals and politics of wolf conservation. Biol Conserv 143(12):2945–2955

Agyeman YB, Baidoo S (2019) Farmers perceptions of the effectiveness of strategies for managing wildlife crop depredation in Ghana. Int J Biodivers Conserv 11(6):165–174

Alacs EA, Georges A, FitzSimmons NN, Robertson J (2010) DNA detective: a review of molecular approaches to wildlife forensics. Forensic Sci Med Pathol 6:180–194

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ardiantiono S, Johnson PJ, Lubis MI, Amama F, Sukatmoko, … Zimmermann A (2021) Towards coexistence: Can people’s attitudes explain their willingness to live with Sumatran elephants in Indonesia? Conserv Sci Pract, 3(10), e520

Armstrong DP, Castro I, Griffiths R (2007) Using adaptive management to determine requirements of re-introduced populations: the case of the New Zealand hihi. J Appl Ecol 44(5):953–962

Arregui AG (2023) Reversible pigs: an infraspecies ethnography of wild boars in Barcelona. Am Ethnologist 50(1):115–128

Aryal A, Brunton D, Raubenheimer D (2013) Impact of climate change on human-wildlife-ecosystem interactions in the Trans-Himalaya region of Nepal. Theoret Appl Climatol 115:517–529

Aryal A, Brunton D, Ji W, Barraclough RK, Raubenheimer D (2014) Human–Carnivore conflict: ecological and economical sustainability of predation on livestock by snow leopard and other carnivores in the Himalaya. Sustain Sci 9:321–329

Attias N, Oliveira-Santos LGR, Fagan WF, Mourão G (2018) Effects of air temperature on habitat selection and activity patterns of two tropical imperfect homeotherms. Anim Behav 140:129–140

Aylward CM, Barthman-Thompson L, Bean WT, Kelt DA, Sacks BN, Statham MJ (2023) Patch size and connectivity predict remnant habitat occupancy by an endangered wetland specialist, the salt marsh harvest mouse. Landscape Ecol, 1–15

Badola R, Hussain SA (2003) Conflict in paradise. Mt Res Dev 23(3):234–237

Balasubramaniam KN, Bliss-Moreau E, Beisner BA, Marty PR, Kaburu SS, McCowan B (2021) Addressing the challenges of research on human-wildlife interactions using the concept of coupled Natural & Human systems. Biol Conserv 257:109095

Bandyopadhyay S, Shyamsundar P, Baccini A (2011) Forests, biomass use and poverty in Malawi. Ecol Econ 70(12):2461–2471

Barrett CB, Arcese P (1995) Are integrated conservation-development projects (ICDPs) sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in sub-saharan Africa. World Dev 23(7):1073–1084

Barua M, Bhagwat SA, Jadhav S (2013) The hidden dimensions of human–wildlife conflict: Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biol Conserv 157:309–316

Bateman PW, Fleming PA (2017) Are negative effects of tourist activities on wildlife over-reported? A review of assessment methods and empirical results. Biol Conserv 211:10–19

Bauer H (2003) Local perceptions of Waza national park, northern Cameroon. Environ Conserv 30(2):175–181

Baumann M, Kamp J, Pötzschner F, Bleyhl B, Dara A, Hankerson B, et al. (2020) Declining human pressure and opportunities for rewilding in the steppes of Eurasia. Diversity Distrib 26(9):1058–1070

Bautista C, Revilla E, Naves J, Albrecht J, Fernández N, Olszańska A, Selva N (2019) Large Carnivore damage in Europe: analysis of compensation and prevention programs. Biol Conserv 235:308–316

Beier P, McCullough DR (1990) Factors influencing white-tailed deer activity patterns and habitat use. Wildl Monogr, 3–51

Belaire JA, Westphal LM, Whelan CJ, Minor ES (2015) Urban residents’ perceptions of birds in the neighborhood: Biodiversity, cultural ecosystem services, and disservices. Condor: Ornithological Appl 117(2):192–202

Bencin H, Kioko J, Kiffner C (2016) Local people’s perceptions of wildlife species in two distinct landscapes of Northern Tanzania. J Nat Conserv 34:82–92

Best I, Pei KJC (2020) Factors influencing local attitudes towards the conservation of leopard cats Prionailurus bengalensis in rural Taiwan. Oryx 54(6):866–872

Bhatia S (2021) More than just no conflict: examining the two sides of the coexistence coin. Front Conserv Sci 2:688307

Bhatt R, Gill MJ, Hamilton H, Han X, Linden E, Young BE (2020) Uneven use of biodiversity indicators in 5th National reports to the convention on Biological Diversity. Environ Conserv 47(1):15–21

Blair AG, Meredith TC (2018) Community perception of the real impacts of human–wildlife conflict in Laikipia, Kenya: capturing the relative significance of high-frequency, low-severity events. Oryx 52(3):497–507

Bohner G, Dickel N (2011) Attitudes and attitude change. Ann Rev Psychol 62:391–417

Bothma JDP (2012) Extensive wildlife production on private land in South Africa. Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation. Routledge, pp 165–180

Bowman JL, Leopold BD, Vilella FJ, Gill DA, Jacobson HA (2001) Attitudes of landowners toward American black bears compared between areas of high and low bear populations. Ursus, 153–160

Broekhuis F, Kaelo M, Sakat DK, Elliot NB (2020) Human–wildlife coexistence: attitudes and behavioural intentions towards predators in the Maasai Mara, Kenya. Oryx 54(3):366–374

Bruskotter JT, Fulton DC (2012) Will hunters steward wolves? A comment on Treves and Martin. Soc Nat Resour 25(1):97–102

Buijs A, Jacobs M (2021) Avoiding negativity bias: towards a positive psychology of human–wildlife relationships. Ambio 50(2):281–288

Bunnefeld N, Edwards CT, Atickem A, Hailu F, MILNER‐GULLAND EJ (2013) Incentivizing monitoring and compliance in trophy hunting. Conserv Biol 27(6):1344–1354

Burger LW Jr, Evans KO, McConnell MD, Burger LM (2019) Private lands conservation: a vision for the future. Wildl Soc Bull 43(3):398–407

Caron A, Miguel E, Gomo C, Makaya P, Pfukenyi DM, Foggin C, de Garine-Wichatitsky M (2013) Relationship between burden of infection in ungulate populations and wildlife/livestock interfaces. Epidemiol Infect 141(7):1522–1535

Carter NH, Linnell JD (2016) Co-adaptation is key to coexisting with large carnivores. Trends Ecol Evol 31(8):575–578

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Carter NH, Shrestha BK, Karki JB, Pradhan NMB, Liu J (2012) Coexistence between wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 109 (38), 15360–15365

Carter NH, Riley SJ, Shortridge A, Shrestha BK, Liu J (2014) Spatial assessment of attitudes toward tigers in Nepal. Ambio 43:125–137

Carver S (2019) Rewilding through land abandonment. Rewilding, 99–122

Castillo-Huitrón NM, Naranjo EJ, Santos-Fita D, Estrada-Lugo E (2020) The importance of human emotions for wildlife conservation. Front Psychol 11:1277

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

CBD (2021) First draft of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (CBD/WG2020/3/3). Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020/wg2020-03/documents

Chapron G, López-Bao JV (2016) Coexistence with large carnivores informed by community ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 31(8):578–580

Chhetri PB, Barrow EG, Muhweezi A (eds) (2003) Securing Protected Area Integrity and Rural People’s Livelihoods: Lessons from twelve years of the Kibale and Semliki conservation and development project (No. 11). IUCN

Choki K, Dhendup P, Tenzin J, Dorji D, Tenzin K, Wangmo T, Penjor U (2023) Conservation potential of non-protected area for sympatric carnivores in Bhutan. Global Ecol Conserv 42:e02392

Chowdhury AN, Brahma A, Mondal R, Biswas MK (2016) Stigma of tiger attack: study of tiger-widows from Sundarban Delta, India. Indian J Psychiatry 58(1):12

Ciuti S, Northrup JM, Muhly TB, Simi S, Musiani M, Pitt JA, Boyce MS (2012) Effects of humans on behaviour of wildlife exceed those of natural predators in a landscape of fear. PLoS ONE 7(11):e50611

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Ciuzio E, Hohman WL, Martin B, Smith MD, Stephens S, Strong AM, Vercauteren T (2013) Opportunities and challenges to implementing bird conservation on private lands. Wildl Soc Bull 37(2):267–277

Clinchy M, Sheriff MJ, Zanette LY (2013) Predator-induced stress and the ecology of fear. Funct Ecol 27(1):56–65

Colding J, Barthel S (2019) Exploring the social-ecological systems discourse 20 years later. Ecol Soc, 24 (1)

Cox DT, Gaston KJ (2016) Urban bird feeding: connecting people with nature. PLoS ONE, 11(7), e0158717

Creager AN, Jordan WC (eds) (2002) The animal-human boundary: historical perspectives, vol 2. Harvard University Press

Creel S, Christianson D (2008) Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. Trends Ecol Evol 23(4):194–201

Crosmary WG, Valeix M, Fritz H, Madzikanda H, Côté SD (2012) African ungulates and their drinking problems: hunting and predation risks constrain access to water. Anim Behav 83(1):145–153

Cross P, St. John FA, Khan S, Petroczi A (2013) Innovative techniques for estimating illegal activities in a human-wildlife-management conflict. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e53681

Crowder L, Heppell S (2011) The decline and rise of a sea turtle: how Kemp’s ridleys are recovering in the Gulf of Mexico. Solutions 2(1):67–73

Google Scholar  

Cunningham AA, Daszak P, Wood JL (2017) One health, emerging infectious diseases and wildlife: two decades of progress? Philosophical Trans Royal Soc B: Biol Sci 372(1725):20160167

Curtin S (2009) Wildlife tourism: the intangible, psychological benefits of human–wildlife encounters. Curr Issues Tourism 12(5–6):451–474

Curtin S (2010) What makes for memorable wildlife encounters? Revelations from ‘serious’ wildlife tourists. J Ecotourism 9(2):149–168

Davidson J, Dankelman I (1994) Women and environment in the Third World: Alliance for the future. Earthscan

Decker DJ, Riley SJ, Siemer WF (eds) (2012) Human dimensions of wildlife management. JHU

Díaz-Ruiz F, Caro J, Delibes‐Mateos M, Arroyo B, Ferreras P (2016) Drivers of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) daily activity: prey availability, human disturbance or habitat structure? J Zool 298(2):128–138

Dickman AJ (2010) Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Anim Conserv 13(5):458–466

Dickman AJ, Macdonald EA, Macdonald DW (2011) A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human–carnivore coexistence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 108 (34), 13937–13944

Dickman AJ, Hazzah L, Carbone C, Durant SM (2014) Carnivores, culture and ‘contagious conflict’: multiple factors influence perceived problems with carnivores in Tanzania’s Ruaha landscape. Biol Conserv 178:19–27

Distefano E (2005) Human-Wildlife Conflict worldwide: collection of case studies, analysis of management strategies and good practices. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Initiative (SARDI), Rome, Italy. Available from: FAO Corporate Document repository http://www.fao.org/documents

Dratwa J (ed) (2014) Ethics of security and surveillance technologies. Book Ethics of security and surveillance technologies. EGE Opinion Report

Du Toit JT (2002) Wildlife harvesting guidelines for community-based wildlife management: a southern African perspective. Biodivers Conserv 11:1403–1416

Engel G, O’Hara TM, Cardona-Marek T, Heidrich J, Chalise MK, Kyes R, Jones‐Engel L (2010) Synanthropic primates in Asia: potential sentinels for environmental toxins. Am J Phys Anthropol 142(3):453–460

Erb PL, McShea WJ, Guralnick RP (2012) Anthropogenic influences on macro-level mammal occupancy in the Appalachian trail corridor. PlosOne 7(8):e42574

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Eshete G, Tesfay G, Bauer H, Ashenafi ZT, de Iongh H, Marino J (2015) Community resource uses and Ethiopian wolf conservation in Mount Abune Yosef. Environ Manage 56:684–694

Everatt KT, Kokes R, Lopez Pereira C (2019) Evidence of a further emerging threat to lion conservation; targeted poaching for body parts. Biodivers Conserv 28(14):4099–4114

Fontúrbel FE, Orellana JI, Rodríguez-Gómez GB, Tabilo CA, Castaño-Villa GJ (2021) Habitat disturbance can alter forest understory bird activity patterns: a regional-scale assessment with camera-traps. For Ecol Manag 479:118618

Fox CH, Papouchis CM (2005) Coyotes in our midst. Animal Protection Institute Sacramento, California, USA

Frank B (2012) The conflict-coexistence continuum: a human dimension case study on wild boar management in Italy (Doctoral dissertation, Memorial University of Newfoundland)

Frank B (2016) Human–wildlife conflicts and the need to include tolerance and coexistence: an introductory comment. Soc Nat Resour 29(6):738–743

Frank B, Glikman JA (2019) Human-wildlife conflicts and the need to include coexistence. Human-wildlife interactions: Turning conflict into coexistence , 1–19

Fulton DC, Manfredo MJ, Lipscomb J (1996) Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Hum Dimensions Wildl 1(2):24–47

Galaty JG (1982) Being Maasai; being people-of‐cattle: ethnic shifters in East Africa. Am Ethnologist 9(1):1–20

Galvin KA, Thornton PK, De Pinho JR, Sunderland J, Boone RB (2006) Integrated modeling and its potential for resolving conflicts between conservation and people in the rangelands of East Africa. Hum Ecol 34:155–183

Gangadharan A, Pollock S, Gilhooly P, Friesen A, Dorsey B, Clair S, C. C (2017) Grain spilled from moving trains create a substantial wildlife attractant in protected areas. Anim Conserv 20(5):391–400

Gaynor KM, Hojnowski CE, Carter NH, Brashares JS (2018) The influence of human disturbance on wildlife nocturnality. Science 360(6394):1232–1235

Gaynor KM, Brown JS, Middleton AD, Power ME, Brashares JS (2019) Landscapes of fear: spatial patterns of risk perception and response. Trends Ecol Evol 34(4):355–368

Gaynor KM, Brashares JS, Gregory GH, Kurz DJ, Seto KL, Withey LS, Fiorella KJ (2020) Anticipating the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on wildlife. Front Ecol Environ 18(10):542

Gaynor KM, Cherry MJ, Gilbert SL, Kohl MT, Larson CL, Newsome TM, Smith JA (2021) An applied ecology of fear framework: linking theory to conservation practice. Anim Conserv 24(3):308–321

Gebresenbet F, Baraki B, Yirga G, Sillero-Zubiri C, Bauer H (2018) A culture of tolerance: coexisting with large carnivores in the Kafa Highlands, Ethiopia. Oryx 52(4):751–760

Gendall J, Lill A, Beckman J (2015) Tolerance of disturbance by humans in long-time resident and recent colonist urban doves. Avian Res 6:1–8

Gillingham S, Lee PC (1999) The impact of wildlife-related benefits on the conservation attitudes of local people around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environ Conserv 26(3):218–228

Glikman JA, Frank B, Marchini S (2019) Human-wildlife interactions: multifaceted approaches for turning conflict into coexistence. Human-wildlife Interactions: Turn Confl into Coexistence, 439–452

Glikman JA, Frank B, Ruppert KA, Knox J, Sponarski CC, Metcalf EC, Marchini S (2021) Coexisting with different human-wildlife coexistence perspectives. Front Conserv Sci 2:703174

Gore ML, Kahler JS (2012) Gendered risk perceptions associated with human-wildlife conflict: implications for participatory conservation. PLoS ONE, 7(3), e32901

Goumas M, Lee VE, Boogert NJ, Kelley LA, Thornton A (2020) The role of animal cognition in human-wildlife interactions. Front Psychol 11:589978

Govind SK, Jayson EA (2018) Damage to paddy (Oryza sativa) by Indian peafowl (Pavo cristatus) near Chulannur Peafowl Sanctuary, Kerala, India. Indian Birds 14(5):149–150

Gryseels S, Mbala-Kingebeni P, Akonda I, Angoyo R, Ayouba A, Baelo P, Ahuka-Mundeke S (2020) Role of wildlife in emergence of Ebola virus in Kaigbono (Likati), Democratic Republic of the Congo, 2017. Emerg Infect Dis 26(9):2205

Gryseels S, De Bruyn L, Gyselings R, Calvignac-Spencer S, Leendertz FH, Leirs H (2021) Risk of human‐to‐wildlife transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2. Mammal Rev 51(2):272–292

Gusset M, Swarner MJ, Mponwane L, Keletile K, McNutt JW (2009) Human–wildlife conflict in northern Botswana: livestock predation by endangered African wild dog Lycaon pictus and other carnivores. Oryx 43(1):67–72

Haney JC, Kroeger T, Casey F, Quarforth A, Schrader G, Stone SA (2007) Wilderness discount on livestock compensation costs for imperiled gray wolf Canis lupus. In USDA Forest Service Proceedings (Vol. 49, pp. 1–11)

Harihar A, Chanchani P, Sharma RK, Vattakaven J, Gubbi S, Pandav B, Noon B (2013) Conflating co-occurrence with coexistence. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(2):E109–E109

Hariohay KM, Fyumagwa RD, Kideghesho JR, Røskaft E (2018) Awareness and attitudes of local people toward wildlife conservation in the Rungwa Game Reserve in Central Tanzania. Hum Dimensions Wildl 23(6):503–514

Harris NC, Wilkinson CE, Fleury G, Nhleko ZN (2023) Responsibility, equity, justice, and inclusion in dynamic human–wildlife interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

Harrop SR (2011) ‘Living in harmony with nature’? Outcomes of the 2010 Nagoya Conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Journal of Environmental Law , 23 (1), 117–128

Harvey RG, Briggs-Gonzalez V, Mazzotti FJ (2017) Conservation payments in a social context: determinants of tolerance and behavioural intentions towards wild cats in northern Belize. Oryx 51(4):730–741

Heemskerk M, Wilson K, Pavao-Zuckerman M (2003) Conceptual models as tools for communication across disciplines. Conserv Ecol, 7 (3)

Herzog HA Jr, Burghardt GM (1988) Attitudes toward animals: origins and diversity. Anthrozoös 1(4):214–222

Hill CM (1998) Conflicting attitudes towards elephants around the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. Environ Conserv 25(3):244–250

Hoare RE, Du Toit JT (1999) Coexistence between people and elephants in African savannas. Conserv Biol 13(3):633–639

Hobbs SJ, White PC (2016) Achieving positive social outcomes through participatory urban wildlife conservation projects. Wildl Res 42(7):607–617

Honda T, Iijima H (2016) Managing boldness of wildlife: an ethological approach to reducing crop damage. Popul Ecol 58:385–393

Honda T, Iijima H, Tsuboi J, Uchida K (2018) A review of urban wildlife management from the animal personality perspective: the case of urban deer. Sci Total Environ 644:576–582

Huang C, Li XY, Shi LJ, Jiang XL (2018) Patterns of human-wildlife conflict and compensation practices around Daxueshan Nature Reserve, China. Zoological Res 39(6):406

Hunter ML, Hitchcock RK, Wyckoff-Baird B (1990) Women and wildlife in Southern Africa. Conserv Biol 4(4):448–451

Hussain S (2003) The status of the snow leopard in Pakistan and its conflict with local farmers. Oryx 37(1):26–33

Jaman MF, Huffman MA (2013) The effect of urban and rural habitats and resource type on activity budgets of commensal rhesus macaques ( Macaca mulatta ) in Bangladesh. Primates 54:49–59

Jila N (2006) Myths and traditional beliefs about the wolf and the crow in Central Asia: examples from the Turkic Wu-Sun and the mongols. Asian Folklore Stud, 161–177

Jones MS, Solomon J (2019) Challenges and supports for women conservation leaders. Conserv Sci Pract, 1(6), e36

Kamal S, Grodzińska-Jurczak M, Brown G (2015) Conservation on private land: a review of global strategies with a proposed classification system. J Environ Planning Manage 58(4):576–597

Kansky R, Kidd M, Knight AT (2016) A wildlife tolerance model and case study for understanding human wildlife conflicts. Biol Conserv 201:137–145

Karanth KK, Kramer RA, Qian SS, Christensen NL Jr (2008) Examining conservation attitudes, perspectives, and challenges in India. Biol Conserv 141(9):2357–2367

Karanth KK, Nichols JD, Hines JE, Karanth KU, Christensen NL (2009) Patterns and determinants of mammal species occurrence in India. J Appl Ecol 46(6):1189–1200

Karanth KK, Gopalaswamy AM, Prasad PK, Dasgupta S (2013) Patterns of human–wildlife conflicts and compensation: insights from western ghats protected areas. Biol Conserv 166:175–185

Karanth KK, Gupta S, Vanamamalai A (2018) Compensation payments, procedures and policies towards human-wildlife conflict management: insights from India. Biol Conserv 227:383–389

Karlsson J, Sjöström M (2007) Human attitudes towards wolves, a matter of distance. Biol Conserv 137(4):610–616

Kellert SR, Berry JK (1987) Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildl Soc Bull (1973–2006) 15(3):363–371

Khan W, Hore U, Mukherjee S, Mallapur G (2020) Human-crocodile conflict and attitude of local communities toward crocodile conservation in Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary, Odisha, India. Mar Policy 121:104135

Killion AK, Ramirez JM, Carter NH (2021) Human adaptation strategies are key to cobenefits in human–wildlife systems. Conserv Lett, 14(2), e12769

Killion AK, Honda A, Trout E, Carter NH (2023) Integrating spaceborne estimates of structural diversity of habitat into wildlife occupancy models. Environ Res Lett 18(6):065002

Kipling R (1895) The jungle book. The second jungle book, vol 5. Doubleday, Page

Knight J (Ed.) (2000) Natural enemies: people-wildlife conflicts in anthropological perspective. Psychology Press.

Knox J, Ruppert K, Frank B, Sponarski CC, Glikman JA (2021) Usage, definition, and measurement of coexistence, tolerance and acceptance in wildlife conservation research in Africa. Ambio 50:301–313

Kollmuss A, Agyeman J (2002) Mind the gap: why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environ Educ Res 8(3):239–260

König HJ, Kiffner C, Kramer-Schadt S, Fürst C, Keuling O, Ford AT (2020) Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world. Conserv Biol 34(4):786–794

König HJ, Carter N, Ceaușu S, Lamb C, Ford AT, Kiffner C (2021) Human-wildlife coexistence in science and practice

Kretser HE, Curtis PD, Francis JD, Pendall RJ, Knuth BA (2009) Factors affecting perceptions of human–wildlife interactions in residential areas of northern New York and implications for conservation. Hum Dimensions Wildl 14(2):102–118

Kshettry A, Vaidyanathan S, Athreya V (2017) Leopard in a tea-cup: a study of leopard habitat-use and human-leopard interactions in north-eastern India. PLoS ONE, 12(5), e0177013

Kshettry A, Bhave N, Das P, Athreya V (2021) Mahakal blessed my crop: community dynamics and religious beliefs influence the efficacy of a wildlife compensation program. Front Conserv Sci, 52

Kuriyan R (2002) Linking local perceptions of elephants and conservation: Samburu pastoralists in northern Kenya. Soc &Natural Resour 15(10):949–957

Kusi N, Sillero-Zubiri C, Macdonald DW, Johnson PJ, Werhahn G (2020) Perspectives of traditional himalayan communities on fostering coexistence with himalayan wolf and snow leopard. Conserv Sci Pract, 2(3), e165

Kuswanda W, Harahap RH, Alikodra HS, Sibarani R (2021), March Characteristics and community perception on mitigation of Human-Tapanuli Orangutans conflict around Dolok Sipirok Natural Reserve, South Tapanuli. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 713, No. 1, p. 012006). IOP Publishing

Lagendijk DG, Gusset M (2008) Human–Carnivore coexistence on communal land bordering the Greater Kruger Area, South Africa. Environ Manage 42:971–976

Larson LR, Cooper CB, Hauber ME (2016) Emotions as drivers of wildlife stewardship behavior: examining citizen science nest monitors’ responses to invasive house sparrows. Hum Dimensions Wildl 21(1):18–33

Lauber TB, Anthony ML, Knuth BA (2001) Gender and ethical judgments about suburban deer management. Soc Nat Resour 14(7):571–583

Lavergne S, Mouquet N, Thuiller W, Ronce O (2010) Biodiversity and climate change: integrating evolutionary and ecological responses of species and communities. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 41:321–350

Lele S, Wilshusen P, Brockington D, Seidler R, Bawa K (2010) Beyond exclusion: alternative approaches to biodiversity conservation in the developing tropics. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2(1–2):94–100

Leopold A (1949) Wilderness for Wildlife, Essays on Conservation from Round River. Leopold, Aldo

Lewis DL, Baruch-Mordo S, Wilson KR, Breck SW, Mao JS, Broderick J (2015) Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human-bear conflict mitigation. Ecosphere 6(8):1–18

Lewis JS, Spaulding S, Swanson H, Keeley W, Gramza AR, VandeWoude S, Crooks KR (2021) Human activity influences wildlife populations and activity patterns: implications for spatial and temporal refuges. Ecosphere, 12 (5), e03487.4

Lindsey KJ, Adams CE (2006) Public demand for information and assistance at the human–wildlife interface. Hum Dimensions Wildl 11(4):267–283

Linkie M, Dinata Y, Nofrianto A, Leader-Williams N (2007) Patterns and perceptions of wildlife crop raiding in and around Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra. Anim Conserv 10(1):127–135

Lischka SA, Teel TL, Johnson HE, Reed SE, Breck S, Carlos AD, Crooks KR (2018) A conceptual model for the integration of social and ecological information to understand human-wildlife interactions. Biol Conserv 225:80–87

Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Alberti M, Folke C, Moran E, Taylor WW (2007) Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317(5844):1513–1516

Liu F, McShea WJ, Garshelis DL, Zhu X, Wang D, Shao L (2011) Human-wildlife conflicts influence attitudes but not necessarily behaviors: factors driving the poaching of bears in China. Biol Conserv 144(1):538–547

Lovell C, Li S, Turner J, Carbone C (2022) The effect of habitat and human disturbance on the spatiotemporal activity of two urban carnivores: the results of an intensive camera trap study. Ecol Evol, 12(3), e8746

Loveridge AJSW, Wang SW, Frank L, Seidensticker J (2010) People and wild felids: conservation of cats and management of conflicts. Biology and conservation of wild felids

Lowry H, Lill A, Wong BB (2013) Behavioural responses of wildlife to urban environments. Biol Rev 88(3):537–549

Lute ML, Carter NH, López-Bao JV, Linnell JD (2018) Conservation professionals agree on challenges to coexisting with large carnivores but not on solutions. Biol Conserv 218:223–232

Lyamuya RD, Straube S, Guttu AC, Masenga AM, Mbise EH, Fyumagwa FP, Røskaft RD, E (2016) Can enhanced awareness change local school children’s knowledge of carnivores in Northern Tanzania? Hum Dimensions Wildl 21(5):403–413

Mackenzie DI (2006) Modeling the probability of resource use: the effect of, and dealing with, detecting a species imperfectly. J Wildl Manag 70(2):367–37

Mackenzie CA (2012) Accruing benefit or loss from a protected area: location matters. Ecol Econ 76:119–129

Manfredo MJ, Teel TL, Henry KL (2009) Linking society and environment: a multilevel model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the western United States. Soc Sci Q 90(2):407–427

Marchini S, Ferraz KMPMB, Zimmermann A, Guimarães-Luiz T, Morato R, Correa PL, Macdonald DW (2019) Planning for coexistence in a complex human-dominated world. Human–wildlife interactions: Turning conflict into coexistence , 414–438

Marchini S, Ferraz KM, Foster V, Reginato T, Kotz A, Barros Y, Macdonald DW (2021) Planning for human-wildlife coexistence: conceptual framework, workshop process, and a model for transdisciplinary collaboration. Front Conserv Sci 2:752953

Margules CR, Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405(6783):243–253

Marris E (2021) Wild souls: freedom and flourishing in the non-human world. Bloomsbury Publishing USA

Marshall M (2023) What does the fox say? New Sci 258(3439):28

Mattson DJ, Watters R, Anderson AC, Clark D, Workman L, Slocombe DS, Milloy C (2014) Large Carnivore conservation: integrating science and policy in the North American West. University of Chicago Press

Mbise FP, Skjà GR, Lyamuya RD, Fyumagwa RD, Jackson C, Holmern T (2018) Livestock depredation by wild carnivores in the Eastern Serengeti Ecosystem, Tanzania. Int J Biodivers Conserv 10(3):122–130

McCleery RA (2009) Improving attitudinal frameworks to predict behaviors in human wildlife conflicts. Soc Nat Resour 22(4):353–368

McDermott M, Mahanty S, Schreckenberg K (2013) Examining equity: a multidimensional framework for assessing equity in payments for ecosystem services. Environ Sci Policy 33:416–427

McNutt JW, Stein AB, McNutt LB, Jordan NR (2017) Living on the edge: characteristics of human–wildlife conflict in a traditional livestock community in Botswana. Wildl Res 44(7):546–557

McRae BH, Schumaker NH, McKane RB, Busing RT, Solomon AM, Burdick CA (2008) A multi-model framework for simulating wildlife population response to land-use and climate change. Ecol Model 219(1–2):77–91

Meena V, Macdonald DW, Montgomery RA (2014) Managing success: Asiatic lion conservation, interface problems and peoples’ perceptions in the Gir Protected Area. Biol Conserv 174:120–126

Megaze A, Balakrishnan M, Belay G (2017) Human–wildlife conflict and attitude of local people towards conservation of wildlife in Chebera Churchura National Park, Ethiopia. Afr Zool 52(1):1–8

Merrick MJ, Koprowski JL (2017) Should we consider individual behavior differences in applied wildlife conservation studies? Biol Conserv 209:34–44

Milda D, Ashish K, Ramesh T, Kalle R, Thanikodi M (2023) Evaluation of anthropogenic pressure on the occupancy patterns of large mammals in the western and eastern ghats. Landscape Ecol 38(2):409–422

Millennium ecosystem assessment, M. E. A (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being, vol 5. Island, Washington, DC, p 563

Mir ZR, Noor A, Habib B, Veeraswami GG (2015) Attitudes of local people toward wildlife conservation: a case study from the Kashmir Valley. Mt Res Dev 35(4):392–400

Mishra C, Allen P, McCarthy TOM, Madhusudan MD, Bayarjargal A, Prins HH (2003) The role of incentive programs in conserving the snow leopard. Conserv Biol 17(6):1512–1520

Mkonyi FJ, Estes AB, Msuha MJ, Lichtenfeld LL, Durant SM (2017) Local attitudes and perceptions toward large carnivores in a human-dominated landscape of northern Tanzania. Hum Dimensions Wildl 22(4):314–330

Moreto WD (2019) Provoked poachers? Applying a situational precipitator framework to examine the nexus between human-wildlife conflict, retaliatory killings, and poaching. Criminal Justice Stud 32(2):63–80

Morzillo AT, Mertig AG, Garner N, Liu J (2007) Resident attitudes toward black bears and population recovery in East Texas. Hum Dimensions Wildl 12(6):417–428

Mudappa DIVYA, Raman TS, Shahabuddin G, Rangarajan M (2007) Rainforest restoration and wildlife conservation on private lands in the western ghats. Mak Conserv work, 210–240

Muhly TB, Semeniuk C, Massolo A, Hickman L, Musiani M (2011) Human activity helps prey win the predator-prey space race. PLoS ONE, 6(3), e17050

Mukeka JM, Ogutu JO, Kanga E, Røskaft E (2019) Human-wildlife conflicts and their correlates in Narok County, Kenya. Global Ecol Conserv 18:e00620

Mullin M (2002) Animals and anthropology. Soc Anim 10(4):387–393

Mwangi E, Meinzen-Dick R, Sun Y (2011) Gender and sustainable forest management in East Africa and Latin America. Ecol Soc, 16 (1)

Nabane N, Matzke G (1997) A gender-sensitive analysis of a community‐based wildlife utilization initiative in Zimbabwe’s Zambezi valley. Soc Nat Resour 10(6):519–535

Naughton-Treves L (1997) Farming the forest edge: vulnerable places and people around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Geogr Rev 87(1):27–46

Naughton-Treves L (2005) 16 Socio-ecological factors shaping local support for wildlife: crop-raiding by elephants and other wildlife in Africa LISA NAUGHTON-TREVES AND ADRIAN TREVES. People and wildlife, conflict or co-existence? 9 , 252

Newmark WD, Manyanza DN, Gamassa DGM, Sariko HI (1994) The conflict between wildlife and local people living adjacent to protected areas in Tanzania: human density as a predictor. Conserv Biol 8(1):249–255

Nickel BA, Suraci JP, Allen ML, Wilmers CC (2020) Human presence and human footprint have non-equivalent effects on wildlife spatiotemporal habitat use. Biol Conserv 241:108383

Nikolakis W, Hotte N (2022) Implementing ethical space: an exploratory study of indigenous-conservation partnerships. Conserv Sci Pract, 4(1), e580

Nilsson D, Fielding K, Dean AJ (2020) Achieving conservation impact by shifting focus from human attitudes to behaviors. Conserv Biol 34(1):93–102

Norris D, Michalski F, Peres CA (2010) Habitat patch size modulates terrestrial mammal activity patterns in amazonian forest fragments. J Mammal 91(3):551–560

Nunn CL, Thrall PH, Stewart K, Harcourt AH (2008) Emerging infectious diseases and animal social systems. Evol Ecol 22:519–543

Nyhus PJ (2016) Human–wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annu Rev Environ Resour 41:143–171

O’Rourke E (2019) The raptor and the lamb: reintroduction of carnivores in agricultural landscapes in Ireland. Natural resource conflicts and sustainable development. Routledge, pp 69–83

O’Connell AF, Bailey LL (2011) Inference for occupancy and occupancy dynamics. Camera traps in animal ecology: Methods and analyses , 191–204

Ogra MV (2008) Human–wildlife conflict and gender in protected area borderlands: a case study of costs, perceptions, and vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum 39(3):1408–1422

Ogra M, Badola R (2008) Compensating human–wildlife conflict in protected area communities: ground-level perspectives from Uttarakhand, India. Hum Ecol 36:717–729

Ogutu JO, Piepho HP, Said MY, Kifugo SC (2014) Herbivore dynamics and range contraction in Kajiado County Kenya: climate and land use changes, population pressures, governance, policy and human-wildlife conflicts. Open Ecol J, 7 (1)

Ohashi H, Saito M, Horie R, Tsunoda H, Noba H, Ishii H, Kaji K (2013) Differences in the activity pattern of the wild boar Sus scrofa related to human disturbance. Eur J Wildl Res 59:167–177

Okello MM (2009) Contraction of wildlife dispersal area and displacement by human activities in Kimana Group Ranch near Amboseli National Park, Kenya. Open Conserv Biology J, 3 (1)

Oliver P, Johnston H (2000) What a good idea! Ideologies and frames in social movement research. Mobilization: Int Q 5(1):37–54

Orams MB (2002) Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction: a review of issues and impacts. Tour Manag 23(3):281–293

Oriol-Cotterill A, Macdonald DW, Valeix M, Ekwanga S, Frank LG (2015) Spatiotemporal patterns of lion space use in a human-dominated landscape. Anim Behav 101:27–39

Ostermann-Miyashita EF, Pernat N, Koenig HJ, Hemminger K, Gandl N, Bellingrath-Kimura SD, Kiffner C (2023) Attitudes of wildlife park visitors towards returning wildlife species: an analysis of patterns and correlates. Biol Conserv 278:109878

Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422

Paranjpe D, Dange P (2018) A tale of two species: human and peafowl interactions in human dominated landscape influence each other’s behaviour: Wildlife near human habitation. bioRxiv, 412254

Paudel RP, Kadariya R, Lamichhane BR, Subedi N, Sashika M, Shimozuru M, Tsubota T (2022) Habitat occupancy of sloth bear Melursus ursinus in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Ecol Evol, 12(3), e8699

Perry-Hill R, Smith JW, Reimer A, Mase AS, Mullendore N, Mulvaney KK, Prokopy LS (2014) The influence of basic beliefs and object-specific attitudes on behavioural intentions towards a rare and little-known amphibian. Wildl Res 41(4):287–299

Peterson MN, Birckhead JL, Leong K, Peterson MJ, Peterson TR (2010) Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlife conflict. Conserv Lett 3(2):74–82

Phumanee W, Steinmetz R, Phoonjampa R, Bejraburnin T, Grainger M, Savini T (2020) Occupancy-based monitoring of ungulate prey species in Thailand indicates population stability, but limited recovery. Ecosphere, 11(9), e03208

Pirie TJ, Thomas RL, Fellowes MD (2017) Increasing game prices may alter farmers’ behaviours towards leopards (Panthera pardus) and other carnivores in South Africa. PeerJ 5:e3369

Podgórski T, Baś G, Jędrzejewska B, Sönnichsen L, Śnieżko S, Jędrzejewski W, Okarma H (2013) Spatiotemporal behavioral plasticity of wild boar (Sus scrofa) under contrasting conditions of human pressure: primeval forest and metropolitan area. J Mammal 94(1):109–119

Pooley SP, Mendelsohn JA, Milner-Gulland EJ (2014) Hunting down the chimera of multiple disciplinarity in conservation science. Conserv Biol 28(1):22–32

Pooley S, Bhatia S, Vasava A (2021) Rethinking the study of human–wildlife coexistence. Conserv Biol 35(3):784–793

Pooley S, Linnell JD, Münster U, Van Dooren T, Zimmermann A (2022) Understanding coexistence with wildlife. Front Conserv Sci 3:8

Pradhan A, Yonle R (2022) Socio-ecological assessment of squamate reptiles in a human-modified ecosystem of Darjeeling, Eastern Himalaya. Hum Dimensions Wildl 27(2):134–150

Proffitt KM, Grigg JL, Hamlin KL, Garrott RA (2009) Contrasting effects of wolves and human hunters on elk behavioral responses to predation risk. J Wildl Manag 73(3):345–356

Rajan R (2001) India’s Wildlife History. Permanent Black, New Delhi, pp 28–43

Réale D, Reader SM, Sol D, McDougall PT, Dingemanse NJ (2007) Integrating animal temperament within ecology and evolution. Biol Rev 82(2):291–318

Redpath SM, Young J, Evely A, Adams WM, Sutherland WJ, Whitehouse A, Gutierrez RJ (2013) Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol Evol 28(2):100–109

Reilly ML, Tobler MW, Sonderegger DL, Beier P (2017) Spatial and temporal response of wildlife to recreational activities in the San Francisco Bay ecoregion. Biol Conserv 207:117–126

Rosell C, Llimona F (2012) Human–wildlife interactions. Anim Biodivers Conserv 35(2):219–220

Rust NA, Tzanopoulos J, Humle T, MacMillan DC (2016) Why has human–Carnivore conflict not been resolved in Namibia? Soc Nat Resour 29(9):1079–1094

Sainsbury KJ, Campbell RA, Lindholm R, Whitelaw AW (1997) Experimental management of an Australian multispecies fishery: examining the possibility of trawl-induced habitat modification. Global Trends: Fisheries Manage 20:107–112

Sainsbury KJ, Punt AE, Smith AD (2000) Design of operational management strategies for achieving fishery ecosystem objectives. ICES J Mar Sci 57(3):731–741

Sandifer PA, Sutton-Grier AE, Ward BP (2015) Exploring connections among nature, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human health and well-being: opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosyst Serv 12:1–15

Sanjo JV, Nameer PO (2020) The expanding distribution of the Indian Peafowl (Pavo cristatus) as an indicator of changing climate in Kerala, southern India: a modelling study using MaxEnt. Ecol Ind 110:105930

Schanning K (2009) Human dimensions: public opinion research concerning wolves in the Great Lakes States of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Recovery of gray wolves in the Great Lakes region of the United States: an endangered species success story. Springer New York, New York, NY, pp 251–265

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Schultz PW (2011) Conservation means behavior. Conserv Biol 25(6):1080–1083

Schwartz SH, Bilsky W (1987) Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. J Personal Soc Psychol 53(3):550

Shanahan DF, Bush R, Gaston KJ, Lin BB, Dean J, Barber E, Fuller RA (2016) Health benefits from nature experiences depend on dose. Sci Rep 6(1):28551

Shiva V (1988) Staying alive: women, ecology, and survival in India, vol 84. Kali for Women, New Delhi

Sillero-Zubiri C, Switzer D (2001) Crop raiding primates: searching for alternative, humane ways to resolve conflict with farmers in Africa. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Oxford University, Oxford

Sillero-Zubiri C, Sukumar R, Treves A (2007) Living with wildlife: the roots of conflict and the solutions. Key Top Conserv Biology, 266–272

Sinha A, Mukhopadhyay K (2012) The monkey in the town’s commons, revisited: an anthropogenic history of the Indian bonnet macaque. The macaque connection: Cooperation and conflict between humans and macaques. Springer New York, New York, NY, pp 187–208

Smith TS, Derocher AE, Mazur RL, York G, Owen MA, Obbard M, Amstrup SC (2022) Anthropogenic food: an emerging threat to polar bears. Oryx , 1–10

Soga M, Gaston KJ, Yamaura Y, Kurisu K, Hanaki K (2016) Both direct and vicarious experiences of nature affect children’s willingness to conserve biodiversity. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13(6):529

Solomon ME (1949) The natural control of animal populations. J Anim Ecol, 1–35

Soulsbury CD, White PC (2015) Human–wildlife interactions in urban areas: a review of conflicts, benefits and opportunities. Wildl Res 42(7):541–553

Soulsbury CD, White PC (2019) A framework for assessing and quantifying human-wildlife interactions in urban areas. Human-wildlife Interactions: Turn Confl into Coexistence 23:107–128

Srivathsa A, Karanth KK, Jathanna D, Kumar NS, Karanth KU (2014) On a dhole trail: examining ecological and anthropogenic correlates of dhole habitat occupancy in the western ghats of India. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e98803

Starfield AM, Smith KA, Bleloch AL (1994) How to model it: Problem solving for the computer age. Interaction Book Company

Sukumar R (1994) Wildlife-human conflict in India: an ecological and social perspective. Social Ecol, 303–317

Sultaire SM, Millspaugh JJ, Jackson PJ, Montgomery RA (2023) The influence of fine-scale topography on detection of a mammal assemblage at camera traps in a mountainous landscape. Wildl Biology 2023(2):e01026

Sun C, Mingie JC, Petrolia DR, Jones WD (2015) Economic impacts of nonresidential wildlife watching in the United States. For Sci 61(1):46–54

Suraci JP, Clinchy M, Zanette LY, Wilmers CC (2019) Fear of humans as apex predators has landscape-scale impacts from mountain lions to mice. Ecol Lett 22(10):1578–1586

‘t Sas-Rolfes M, Challender DW, Hinsley A, Veríssimo D, Milner-Gulland EJ (2019) Illegal wildlife trade: Scale, processes, and governance. Annu Rev Environ Resour 44(1):201–228

Tadesse SA, Kotler BP (2016) Attitudes of local people towards the mountain nyala (Tragelaphus buxtoni) in Munessa, Ethiopia. Afr J Ecol 54(4):488–499

Tadesse SA, Zewde NT (2019) The knowledge of local people on human-wildlife conflict and their attitudes towards problematic wildlife around wof-washa forests, North Shewa Administrative Zone, Ethiopia. Greener J Biol Sci 9(2):43–58

Talukdar NR, Choudhury P (2020), December Attitudes and perceptions of the local people on human–elephant conflict in the Patharia Hills Reserve Forest of Assam, India. In Proceedings of the Zoological Society (Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 380–391). New Delhi: Springer India

Tan KC (2021) Just conservation: the question of justice in global wildlife conservation. Philos Compass 16(2):e12720

Tauli-Corpuz V, Alcorn J, Molnar A, Healy C, Barrow E (2020) Cornered by PAs: adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost-effective conservation and climate action. World Dev 130:104923

Taylor-Brown A, Booth R, Gillett A, Mealy E, Ogbourne SM, Polkinghorne A, Conroy GC (2019) The impact of human activities on Australian wildlife. PLoS ONE, 14(1), e0206958

TEEB RO (2010) Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature. TEEB Geneva, Switzerland

Teel TL, Manfredo MJ (2010) Understanding the diversity of public interests in wildlife conservation. Conserv Biol 24(1):128–139

Teixeira L, Tisovec-Dufner KC, Marin GDL, Marchini S, Dorresteijn I, Pardini R (2021) Linking human and ecological components to understand human–wildlife conflicts across landscapes and species. Conserv Biol 35(1):285–296

Tessema ME, Lilieholm RJ, Ashenafi ZT, Leader-Williams N (2010) Community attitudes toward wildlife and protected areas in Ethiopia. Soc Nat Resour 23(6):489–506

Thapa A, Singh A, Pradhan PK, Joshi BD, Thakur M, Sharma LK, Chandra K (2020) Is the Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus moving higher up in the mountains? Indian BIRDS 15(6):177–179

Thapa A, Pradhan PK, Joshi BD, Mukherjee T, Thakur M, Chandra K, Sharma LK (2021) Non-protected areas demanding equitable conservation strategies as of protected areas in the Central Himalayan region. PLoS ONE, 16(8), e0255082

Thu AM, Thang TH, Campos-Arceiz A, Quan RC (2022) Disentangling vertebrate spatio-temporal responses to anthropogenic disturbances: evidence from a protected area in central Myanmar. Oryx , 1–10

Tilker A, Abrams JF, Nguyen AN, Hörig L, Axtner J, Louvrier J, Wilting A (2020) Identifying conservation priorities in a defaunated tropical biodiversity hotspot. Divers Distrib 26(4):426–440

Tittensor DP, Walpole M, Hill SL, Boyce DG, Britten GL, Burgess ND, Ye Y (2014) A mid-term analysis of progress toward international biodiversity targets. Science 346(6206):241–244

Treves A (2012) Tolerant attitudes reflect an intent to steward: a reply to Bruskotter and Fulton. Soc Nat Resour 25(1):103–104

Treves A, Bruskotter J (2014) Tolerance for predatory wildlife. Science 344(6183):476–477

Treves A, Santiago-Ávila FJ (2020) Myths and assumptions about human‐wildlife conflict and coexistence. Conserv Biol 34(4):811–818

Treves A, Jurewicz RL, Naughton-Treves L, Wilcove DS (2009a) The price of tolerance: wolf damage payments after recovery. Biodivers Conserv 18:4003–4021

Treves A, Wallace RB, White S (2009b) Participatory planning of interventions to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts. Conserv Biol 23(6):1577–1587

Urban MC (2015) Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348(6234):571–573

van Doormaal N, Ohashi H, Koike S, Kaji K (2015) Influence of human activities on the activity patterns of Japanese sika deer ( Cervus nippon ) and wild boar ( Sus scrofa ) in Central Japan. Eur J Wildl Res 61:517–527

Varley N, Boyce MS (2006) Adaptive management for reintroductions: updating a wolf recovery model for Yellowstone National Park. Ecol Model 193(3–4):315–339

Vieira RR, Pressey RL, Loyola R (2019) The residual nature of protected areas in Brazil. Biol Conserv 233:152–161

Viollaz JS, Thompson ST, Petrossian GA (2021) When human–wildlife conflict turns deadly: comparing the situational factors that drive retaliatory leopard killings in South Africa. Animals 11(11):3281

von Essen E, Redmalm D (2023) Natural born cullers? How hunters police the more-than-human right to the city. Environ Plann E: Nat Space, 25148486231221021

Vucetich JA, Burnham D, Macdonald EA, Bruskotter JT, Marchini S, Zimmermann A, Macdonald DW (2018) Just conservation: what is it and should we pursue it? Biol Conserv 221:23–33

Wagner KK, Schmidt RH, Conover MR (1997) Compensation programs for wildlife damage in North America. Wildl Soc Bull, 312–319

Wang Y, Allen ML, Wilmers CC (2015) Mesopredator spatial and temporal responses to large predators and human development in the Santa Cruz Mountains of California. Biol Conserv 190:23–33

Wang S, Fu B, Zhao W, Liu Y, Wei F (2018) Structure, function, and dynamic mechanisms of coupled human–natural systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 33:87–91

Watson R, Baste I, Larigauderie A, Leadley P, Pascual U, Baptiste B, Mooney H (2019) Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES Secretariat: Bonn Ger, 22–47

Western D, Russell S, Cuthill I (2009) The status of wildlife in protected areas compared to non-protected areas of Kenya. PLoS ONE, 4(7), e6140

White PC, Jennings NV, Renwick AR, Barker NH (2005) Questionnaires in ecology: a review of past use and recommendations for best practice. J Appl Ecol 42(3):421–430

Wittemyer G, Elsen P, Bean WT, Burton ACO, Brashares JS (2008) Accelerated human population growth at protected area edges. Science 321(5885):123–126

Woodroffe R (2000) Predators and people: using human densities to interpret declines of large carnivores. Anim Conserv 3(2):165–173

Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A (2005) The impact of human-wildlife conflict on natural systems. Conserv BIOLOGY SERIES-CAMBRIDGE- 9:1

CAS   Google Scholar  

Wydeven AP, Wiedenhoeft JE, Schultz RN, Thiel RP, Jurewicz RL, Kohn BE, Van Deelen TR (2009) History, population growth, and management of wolves in Wisconsin. Recovery gray Wolves Great Lakes Region United States: Endanger Species Success Story, 87–105

Zafra-Calvo N, Pascual U, Brockington D, Coolsaet B, Cortes-Vazquez JA, Gross-Camp N, Burgess ND (2017) Towards an indicator system to assess equitable management in protected areas. Biol Conserv 211:134–141

Zelenski JM, Dopko RL, Capaldi CA (2015) Cooperation is in our nature: nature exposure may promote cooperative and environmentally sustainable behavior. J Environ Psychol 42:24–31

Zinn HC, Pierce CL (2002) Values, gender, and concern about potentially dangerous wildlife. Environ Behav 34(2):239–256

Zinn HC, Manfredo MJ, Decker DJ (2008) Human conditioning to wildlife: steps toward theory and research. Hum Dimensions Wildl 13(6):388–399

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the people and wildlife of the Himalaya for inspiring this work and helping us conceive this idea.

Although this work was not funded by any agency or institution, the authors are currently supported through different grants and fellowships. AT is/was supported by the Coexistence Consortium under the Coexistence fellowship 2022-23. TM is supported by Department of Science & Technology INSPIRE Faculty Award, Government of India (Sanction no: DST/INSPIRE/04/2021/001149). AP is/was supported by the Oriental Bird Club Conservation Grant (No. P1437 and No. P1545) and Rufford Small Grants (ID 38843-1 and ID 43488-2).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Zoology, University of Calcutta, Kolkata, 70019, India

Avantika Thapa & Aditya Pradhan

The coexistence consortium, University of Trans-disciplinary Research and Health Science, Bengaluru, India

Avantika Thapa

Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Regional Office Eastern Himalaya-Northeast, Tadong, 737102, India

Agricultural and Ecological Research Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Baranagar, Kolkata, 700108, India

Tanoy Mukherjee & Joydev Chattopadhyay

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

A.T.: Conceptualization, Investigation, Visualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing. T.M.: Investigation, Visualization, Writing - review and editing. A.P.: Investigation, Writing - review and editing. J.C.: Writing - review and editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aditya Pradhan .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Thapa, A., Mukherjee, T., Pradhan, A. et al. Understanding the prospects of human-wildlife coexistence: a conceptual framework. Biodivers Conserv (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-024-02922-w

Download citation

Received : 17 October 2023

Revised : 25 July 2024

Accepted : 09 August 2024

Published : 27 August 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-024-02922-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Human-wildlife interaction
• Human-wildlife conflict
• Human-dominated landscape
• Human-modified landscape
• Community attitude
• Socio-ecological landscape
• Community perception
• Wildlife response
• Biodiversity conservation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Environment and Resources

Volume 41, 2016, review article, human–wildlife conflict and coexistence.

• Philip J. Nyhus 1
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: Environmental Studies Program, Colby College, Waterville, Maine, 04901; email: [email protected]
• Vol. 41:143-171 (Volume publication date October 2016) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085634
• First published as a Review in Advance on September 01, 2016
• © Annual Reviews

Human interactions with wildlife are a defining experience of human existence. These interactions can be positive or negative. People compete with wildlife for food and resources, and have eradicated dangerous species; co-opted and domesticated valuable species; and applied a wide range of social, behavioral, and technical approaches to reduce negative interactions with wildlife. This conflict has led to the extinction and reduction of numerous species and uncountable human deaths and economic losses. Recent advances in our understanding of conflict have led to a growing number of positive conservation and coexistence outcomes. I summarize and synthesize factors that contribute to conflict, approaches that mitigate conflict and encourage coexistence, and emerging trends and debates. Fertile areas for scholarship include scale and complexity, models and scenarios, understanding generalizable patterns, expanding boundaries of what is considered conflict, using new tools and technologies, information sharing and collaboration, and the implications of global change. The time may be ripe to identify a new field, anthrotherology, that brings together scholars and practitioners from different disciplinary perspectives to address human–wildlife conflict and coexistence.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• Waters CN , Zalasiewicz J , Summerhayes C , Barnosky AD , Poirier C . 1.  et al. 2016 . The Anthropocene is functionally and stratigraphically distinct from the Holocene. Science 351 : doi: 10.1126/science.aad2622 [Google Scholar]
• Woodroffe R , Thirgood S , Rabinowitz A . 2.  2005 . People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press Landmark edited volume covering human–wildlife conflict and coexistence. [Google Scholar]
• Estes JA , Terborgh J , Brashares JS , Power ME , Berger J . 3.  et al. 2011 . Trophic downgrading of planet Earth. Science 333 : 301– 6 [Google Scholar]
• Conover MR. 4.  2002 . Resolving Human-Wildlife Conflicts: The Science of Wildlife Damage Management Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Comprehensive summary of animal damage management. [Google Scholar]
• Redpath SM , Young J , Evely A , Adams WM , Sutherland WJ . 5.  et al. 2013 . Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28 : 100– 9 [Google Scholar]
• Treves A , Karanth KU . 6.  2003 . Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conserv. Biol. 17 : 1491– 99 Important early review of human–wildlife conflict and carnivores. [Google Scholar]
• Peterson MN , Birckhead JL , Leong K , Peterson MJ , Peterson TR . 7.  2011 . Rearticulating the myth of human–wildlife conflict. Conserv. Lett. 3 : 74– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Reidinger RF Jr. , Miller JE . 8.  2013 . Wildlife Damage Management: Prevention, Problem Solving, and Conflict Resolution. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Redpath SM , Gutierrez RJ , Wood KA , Young JC . 9.  2015 . Conflicts in Conservation: Navigating Toward Solutions Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Madden F. 10.  2004 . Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to address human-wildlife conflict. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 9 : 247– 57 [Google Scholar]
• Soulsbury CD , White PCL . 11.  2015 . Human-wildlife interactions in urban areas: a review of conflicts, benefits and opportunities. Wildlife Research: Interactions Between Humans and Wildlife in Urban Areas A Taylor, P White 541– 53 Australia: CSIRO [Google Scholar]
• Dickman AJ , Macdonald EA , Macdonald DW . 12.  2011 . A review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and encourage human-carnivore coexistence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108 : 13937– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Harihar A , Chanchani P , Sharma RK , Vattakaven J , Gubbi S . 13.  et al. 2013 . Conflating “co-occurrence” with “coexistence”. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110 : E109 [Google Scholar]
• Linnell JDC , Rondeau D , Reed DH , Williams R , Altwegg R . 14.  et al. 2010 . Confronting the costs and conflicts associated with biodiversity. Anim. Conserv. 13 : 429– 31 [Google Scholar]
• Gittleman JL , Funk SL , Macdonald DW , Wayne RK . 15.  2001 . Carnivore Conservation Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Loveridge AJ , Wang SW , Frank LG , Seidensticker J . 16.  2010 . People and wild felids: conservation of cats and management of conflicts. See Ref. 30 161– 95
• Hoare R. 17.  2012 . Lessons from 15 years of human elephant conflict mitigation: management considerations involving biological, physical and governance issues in Africa. Pachyderm 51 : 60– 74 [Google Scholar]
• Barua M , Bhagwat SA , Jadhav S . 18.  2013 . The hidden dimensions of human–wildlife conflict: health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biol. Conserv. 157 : 309– 16 [Google Scholar]
• Dirzo R , Young HS , Galetti M , Ceballos G , Isaac NJB , Collen B . 19.  2014 . Defaunation in the Anthropocene. Science 345 : 401– 06 [Google Scholar]
• Ripple WJ , Estes JA , Beschta RL , Wilmers CC , Ritchie EG . 20.  et al. 2014 . Status and ecological effects of the world's largest carnivores. Science 343 : doi: 10.1126/science.1241484 [Google Scholar]
• Worm B. 21.  2015 . A most unusual (super)predator. Science 349 : 784– 85 [Google Scholar]
• Treves A , Palmqvist P . 22.  2007 . Reconstructing hominin interactions with mammalian carnivores (6.0–1.8 Ma). Primate Anti-Predator Strategies SL Gursky, KAI Nekaris 355– 81 New York: Springer [Google Scholar]
• Hart D , Sussman W . 23.  2009 . Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators, and Human Evolution Boulder, CO: Westview Press [Google Scholar]
• Surovell TA , Pelton SR , Anderson-Sprecher R , Myers AD . 24.  2016 . Test of Martin's overkill hypothesis using radiocarbon dates on extinct megafauna. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113 : 886– 91 [Google Scholar]
• Guthrie RD. 25.  2005 . The Nature of Paleolithic Art Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Sukumar R. 26.  1989 . The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Nyhus PJ , Tilson R . 27.  2010 . Panthera tigris versus Homo sapiens: conflict, coexistence, or extinction. See Ref. 153 125– 41
• Coggins C. 28.  2010 . “King of the Hundred Beasts:” A long view of tigers in Southern China. See Ref. 153 431– 84
• Macdonald DW , Sillero-Zubiri C . 29.  2004 . The Biology and Conservation of Wild Canids Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Macdonald DW , Loveridge AJ . 30.  2010 . Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Mech LD. 31.  1970 . The Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press [Google Scholar]
• Chapron G , Kaczensky P , Linnell JDC , von Arx M , Huber D . 32.  et al. 2014 . Recovery of large carnivores in Europe's modern human-dominated landscapes. Science 346 : 1517– 19 Documents groundbreaking work to recover large carnivores in Europe. [Google Scholar]
• Carbone C , Gittleman JL . 33.  2002 . A common rule for the scaling of carnivore density. Science 295 : 2273– 76 [Google Scholar]
• Boitani L , Powell RA . 34.  2012 . Carnivore Ecology and Conservation Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Inskip C , Zimmermann A . 35.  2009 . Human-felid conflict: a review of patterns and priorities worldwide. Oryx 43 : 18– 34 Excellent global review and synthesis of human–wildlife conflict. [Google Scholar]
• Ripple WJ , Newsome TM , Wolf C , Dirzo R , Everatt KT . 36.  et al. 2015 . Collapse of the world's largest herbivores. Sci. Adv. 1 : e1400103 [Google Scholar]
• Can ÖE , D'Cruze N , Garshelis DL , Beecham J , Macdonald DW . 37.  2014 . Resolving human-bear conflict: a global survey of countries, experts, and key factors. Conserv. Lett. 7 : 501– 13 [Google Scholar]
• Schley L , Dufrêne M , Krier A , Frantz A . 38.  2008 . Patterns of crop damage by wild boar ( Sus scrofa ) in Luxembourg over a 10-year period. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 54 : 589– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Langley RL. 39.  2010 . Adverse encounters with alligators in the United States: an update. Wilderness Environ. Med. 21 : 156– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Caldicott DGE , Croser D , Manolis C , Webb G , Britton A . 40.  2005 . Crocodile attack in Australia: an analysis of its incidence and review of the pathology and management of crocodilian attacks in general. Wilderness Environ. Med. 16 : 143– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Waterfield G , Zilberman D . 41.  2012 . Pest management in food systems: an economic perspective. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 37 : 223– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Myers JH , Savoie A , van Randen E . 42.  1998 . Eradication and pest management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 43 : 471– 91 [Google Scholar]
• 43.  APHIS-NWRC 2015 . Innovative Solutions to Human-Wildlife Conflicts: National Wildlife Research Center Accomplishments, 2014. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Miscellaneous Publication No. 1611. Fort Collins, CO: US Dep. Agric., Anim. Plant Health Inspect. Serv., Nat. Wildl. Res. Cent. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/wildlife_damage/2015/2014_nwrc_report.pdf [Google Scholar]
• Gompper ME . 44.  2014 . Free-Ranging Dogs and Wildlife Conservation Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Loss SR , Will T , Marra PP . 45.  2013 . The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nat. Commun. 4 : 1396 [Google Scholar]
• Hughes J , Macdonald DW . 46.  2013 . A review of the interactions between free-roaming domestic dogs and wildlife. Biol. Conserv. 157 : 341– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Lescureux N , Linnell JDC . 47.  2014 . Warring brothers: the complex interactions between wolves ( Canis lupus ) and dogs ( Canis familiaris ) in a conservation context. Biol. Conserv. 171 : 232– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Naughton-Treves L , Grossberg R , Treves A . 48.  2003 . Paying for tolerance: the impact of depredation and compensation payments on rural citizens’ attitudes toward wolves. Conserv. Biol. 17 : 1500– 11 [Google Scholar]
• Athreya V , Odden M , Linnell JDC , Krishnaswamy J , Karanth U . 49.  2014 . A cat among the dogs: leopard Panthera pardus diet in a human-dominated landscape in western Maharashtra, India. Oryx 50 : 156– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Nimmo DG , Miller KK . 50.  2007 . Ecological and human dimensions of management of feral horses in Australia: a review. Wildl. Res. 34 : 408– 17 [Google Scholar]
• Burgess GH. 51.  2015 . ISAF 2014 Worldwide Shark Attack Summary. Gainesville, FL: Fla. Mus. Nat. Hist., Univ. Fla. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/isaf/2014Summary.html [Google Scholar]
• Van Der Hoop JM , Moore MJ , Barco SG , Cole TVN , Daoust P-Y . 52.  et al. 2013 . Assessment of management to mitigate anthropogenic effects on large whales. Conserv. Biol. 27 : 121– 33 [Google Scholar]
• West JG. 53.  2011 . Changing patterns of shark attacks in Australian waters. Mar. Freshw. 62 : 744– 54 [Google Scholar]
• Laist DW , Knowlton AR , Mead JG , Collet AS , Podesta M . 54.  2001 . Collisions between ships and whales. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 17 : 35– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Daszak P , Cunningham AA , Hyatt AD . 55.  2000 . Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife—threats to biodiversity and human health. Science 287 : 443– 49 [Google Scholar]
• Jones KE , Patel NG , Levy MA , Storeygard A , Balk D . 56.  et al. 2008 . Global trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature 451 : 990– 93 [Google Scholar]
• Conover MR , Vail R . 57.  2015 . Human Diseases from Wildlife Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press [Google Scholar]
• Linnell JDC , Andersen R , Andersone Z , Balciauskas L , Blanco JC . 58.  et al. 2002 . The fear of wolves: a review of wolf attacks on people. NINA Oppdragsmelding 731 : 1– 65 [Google Scholar]
• McKinney ML. 59.  2006 . Urbanization as a major cause of biotic homogenization. Biol. Conserv. 127 : 247– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Woodroffe R. 60.  2000 . Predators and people: using human densities to interpret declines of large carnivores. Anim. Conserv. 2000 : 165– 73 [Google Scholar]
• Linnell J , Swenson J , Anderson R . 61.  2001 . Predators and people: conservation of large carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favourable. Anim. Conserv. 4 : 345– 49 [Google Scholar]
• Ohrens O , Treves A , Bonacic C . 62.  2016 . Relationship between rural depopulation and puma-human conflict in the high Andes of Chile. Environ. Conserv. 43 : 24– 33 [Google Scholar]
• Tilman D. 63.  1999 . Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: the need for sustainable and efficient practices. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 96 : 5995– 6000 [Google Scholar]
• Schmitz C , van Meijl H , Kyle P , Nelson GC , Fujimori S . 64.  et al. 2014 . Land-use change trajectories up to 2050: insights from a global agro-economic model comparison. Agric. Econ. 45 : 69– 84 [Google Scholar]
• Thornton PK. 65.  2010 . Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 365 : 2853– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Langbein J , Putman R , Pokorny B . 66.  2011 . Traffic collisions involving deer and other ungulates in Europe and available measures for mitigation. Ungulate Management in Europe: Problems and Practices R Putman, M Apollonio, R Andersen 215– 59 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Bissonette JA , Kassar CA , Cook LJ . 67.  2008 . Assessment of costs associated with deer–vehicle collisions: human death and injury, vehicle damage, and deer loss. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2 : 17– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Conover MR , Pitt WC , Kessler KK , DuBow TJ , Sanborn WA . 68.  1995 . Review of human injuries, illnesses, and economic losses caused by wildlife in the United States. Wildl. Soc. Bull. (1973–2006) 23 : 407– 14 [Google Scholar]
• Snow NP , Porter WF , Williams DM . 69.  2015 . Underreporting of wildlife-vehicle collisions does not hinder predictive models for large ungulates. Biol. Conserv. 181 : 44– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Loss SR , Will T , Marra PP . 70.  2014 . Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. J. Wildl. Manag. 78 : 763– 71 [Google Scholar]
• 71.  APHIS-NWRC 2014 . Innovative Solutions to Human-Wildlife Conflicts: National Wildlife Research Center Accomplishments, 2013. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Miscellaneous Publication No. 1610. Fort Collins, CO: US Dep. Agric., Anim. Plant Health Inspect. Serv., Nat. Wildl. Res. Cent. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/wildlife_damage/2014/rpt_nwrc_accomps.pdf [Google Scholar]
• Naugle DE. 72.  2011 . Energy Development and Wildlife Conservation in Western North America Washington, DC: Island Press [Google Scholar]
• Duncan C , Kretz D , Wegmann M , Rabeil T , Pettorelli N . 73.  2014 . Oil in the Sahara: mapping anthropogenic threats to Saharan biodiversity from space. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 369 : 20130191 [Google Scholar]
• Loss SR , Will T , Marra PP . 74.  2013 . Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in the contiguous United States. Biol. Conserv. 168 : 201– 9 [Google Scholar]
• Bruskotter JT , Vucetich JA , Enzler S , Treves A , Nelson MP . 75.  2014 . Removing Protections for Wolves and the Future of the U.S. Endangered Species Act 1973. Conserv. Lett. 7 : 401– 7 [Google Scholar]
• Naughton-Treves L , Holland MB , Brandon K . 76.  2005 . The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30 : 219– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Juffe-Bignoli D , Burgess ND , Bingham H , Belle EMS , de Lima MG . 77.  et al. 2014 . Protected Planet Report 2014: Tracking Progress Towards Global Targets for Protected Areas. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC [Google Scholar]
• Chiyo PI , Moss CJ , Alberts SC . 78.  2012 . The influence of life history milestones and association networks on crop-raiding behavior in male African elephants. PLOS ONE 7 : e31382 [Google Scholar]
• Lambert CMS , Wielgus RB , Robinson HS , Katnik DD , Cruickshank HS . 79.  et al. 2006 . Cougar population dynamics and viability in the Pacific Northwest. J. Wildl. Manag. 70 : 246– 54 [Google Scholar]
• Kertson BN , Spencer RD , Grue CE . 80.  2013 . Demographic influences on cougar residential use and interactions with people in western Washington. J. Mammal. 94 : 269– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Sukumar R , Gadgil M . 81.  1988 . Male-female differences in foraging on crops by Asian elephants. Anim. Behav. 36 : 1233– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Elfström M , Zedrosser A , Støen O-G , Swenson JE . 82.  2014 . Ultimate and proximate mechanisms underlying the occurrence of bears close to human settlements: review and management implications. Mamm. Rev. 44 : 5– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Chiyo PI , Moss CJ , Archie EA , Hollister-Smith JA , Alberts SC . 83.  2011 . Using molecular and observational techniques to estimate the number and raiding patterns of crop-raiding elephants. J. Appl. Ecol. 48 : 788– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Naughton-Treves L. 84.  1998 . Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Conserv. Biol. 12 : 156– 68 Important early paper examining patterns of conflict. [Google Scholar]
• Packer C , Hilborn R , Mosser A , Kissui B , Borner M . 85.  et al. 2005 . Ecological change, group territoriality, and population dynamics in Serengeti lions. Science 307 : 390– 93 [Google Scholar]
• Patterson BD , Kasiki SM , Selempo E , Kays RW . 86.  2004 . Livestock predation by lions ( Panthera leo ) and other carnivores on ranches neighboring Tsavo National ParkS, Kenya. Biol. Conserv. 119 : 507– 16 [Google Scholar]
• Stahl P , Vandel J , Herrenschmidt V , Migot P . 87.  2001 . The effect of removing lynx in reducing attacks on sheep in the French Jura Mountains. Biol. Conserv. 101 : 15– 22 [Google Scholar]
• Herfindal I , Linnell JDC , Moa PF , Odden J , Austmo LB , Andersen R . 88.  2005 . Does recreational hunting of lynx reduce depredation losses of domestic sheep?. J. Wildl. Manag. 69 : 1034– 42 [Google Scholar]
• Chartier L , Zimmermann A , Ladle RJ . 89.  2011 . Habitat loss and human-elephant conflict in Assam, India: Does a critical threshold exist?. Oryx 45 : 528– 33 [Google Scholar]
• Sillero-Zubiri C , Sukumar R , Treves A . 90.  2007 . Living with wildlife: the roots of conflict and the solutions. Key Topics in Conservation Biology DW Macdonald, K Service 253– 70 Oxford, UK: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
• Woodroffe R , Ginsberg JR . 91.  1998 . Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science 280 : 2126– 28 Influential paper identifying conflict as major cause of large carnivore mortality. [Google Scholar]
• Poessel SA , Breck SW , Teel TL , Shwiff S , Crooks KR , Angeloni L . 92.  2013 . Patterns of human–coyote conflicts in the Denver Metropolitan Area. J. Wildl. Manag. 77 : 297– 305 [Google Scholar]
• Redfern JV , McKenna MF , Moore TJ , Calambokidis J , Deangelis ML . 93.  et al. 2013 . Assessing the risk of ships striking large whales in marine spatial panning. Conserv. Biol. 27 : 292– 302 [Google Scholar]
• Decker DJ , Riley SJ , Siemer WF . 94.  2012 . Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Clark SG , Rutherford MB , Mattson DJ . 95.  2014 . Large carnivores, people, and governance. Larger Carnivore Conservation: Integrating Science and Policy in the North American West SG Clark, MB Rutherford 20– 28 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
• Dickman AJ. 96.  2010 . Complexities of conflict: the importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Anim. Conserv. 13 : 458– 66 [Google Scholar]
• Inskip C , Fahad Z , Tully R , Roberts T , MacMillan D . 97.  2014 . Understanding carnivore killing behaviour: exploring the motivations for tiger killing in the Sundarbans, Bangladesh. Biol. Conserv. 180 : 42– 50 [Google Scholar]
• Rust NA. 98.  2015 . Media framing of financial mechanisms for resolving human–predator conflict in Namibia. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 20 : 440– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Ogra MV. 99.  2008 . Human–wildlife conflict and gender in protected area borderlands: a case study of costs, perceptions, and vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum 39 : 1408– 22 [Google Scholar]
• Young JK , Ma Z , Laudati A , Berger J . 100.  2015 . Human–carnivore interactions: lessons learned from communities in the American West. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 20 : 349– 66 [Google Scholar]
• Bruskotter JT , Schmidt RH , Teel TL . 101.  2007 . Are attitudes toward wolves changing? A case study in Utah. Biol. Conserv. 139 : 211– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Forman RTT , Alexander LE . 102.  1998 . Roads and their major ecological effects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29 : 201– 31 [Google Scholar]
• Newsome TM , Dellinger JA , Pavey CR , Ripple WJ , Shores CR . 103.  et al. 2015 . The ecological effects of providing resource subsidies to predators. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24 : 1– 11 [Google Scholar]
• Riley SJ , Nesslage GM , Maurer BA . 104.  2004 . Dynamics of early wolf and cougar eradication efforts in Montana: implications for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 119 : 575– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Sillero-Zubiri C , Laurenson MK . 105.  2001 . Interactions between carnivores and local communities: Conflict or co-existence?. See Ref. 15 283– 312
• Peebles KA , Wielgus RB , Maletzke BT , Swanson ME . 106.  2013 . Effects of remedial sport hunting on cougar complaints and livestock depredations. PLOS ONE 8 : e79713 [Google Scholar]
• Liberg O , Chapron G , Wabakken P , Pedersen HC , Hobbs NT , Sand HK . 107.  2011 . Shoot, shovel and shut up: cryptic poaching slows restoration of a large carnivore in Europe. Proc. R. Soc. B 279 910– 15 [Google Scholar]
• Murray DL , Smith DW , Bangs EE , Mack C , Oakleaf JK . 108.  et al. 2010 . Death from anthropogenic causes is partially compensatory in recovering wolf populations. Biol. Conserv. 143 : 2514– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Swenson JE , Sandegren F , Soderberg A , Bjarvall A , Franzen R , Wabakken P . 109.  1997 . Infanticide caused by hunting of male bears. Nature 386 : 450– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Krofel M , Treves A , Ripple WJ , Chapron G , López-Bao JV . 110.  2015 . Hunted carnivores at outsized risk. Science 350 : 518– 19 [Google Scholar]
• McManus JS , Dalton DL , Kotzé A , Smuts B , Dickman A . 111.  et al. 2015 . Gene flow and population structure of a solitary top carnivore in a human-dominated landscape. Ecol. Evol. 5 : 335– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Goodrich JM , Seryodkin I , Miquelle DG , Bereznuk SL . 112.  2010 . Conflicts between Amur (Siberian) tigers and humans in the Russian Far East. Biol. Conserv. 144 : 584– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Vanak AT , Dickman CR , Silva-Rodriguez EA , Butler JRA , Ritchie EG . 113.  2014 . Top-dogs and under-dogs: competition between dogs and sympatric carnivores. See Ref. 44 69– 93
• Swanepoel LH , Somers MJ , Dalerum F . 114.  2015 . Functional responses of retaliatory killing versus recreational sport hunting of leopards in South Africa. PLOS ONE 10 : e0125539 [Google Scholar]
• Linnell JDC , Aanes R , Swenson JE , Odden J , Smith ME . 115.  1997 . Translocation of carnivores as a method for managing problem animals: a review. Biodivers. Conserv. 6 : 1245– 57 [Google Scholar]
• Fontorbel FE , Simonetti JA . 116.  2011 . Translocations and human-carnivore conflicts: Problem solving or problem creating?. Wildl. Biol. 17 : 217– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Linnell JDC , Odden J , Mertens A . 117.  2012 . Mitigation methods for conflict associated with carnivore depredation on livestock. Carnivore Ecology and Conservation: A Handbook of Techniques L Boitani, RA Powell 314– 32 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Woodroffe R , Hedges S , Durant SM . 118.  2014 . To fence or not to fence. Science 344 : 46– 48 [Google Scholar]
• Musiani M , Paquet PC . 119.  2004 . The practices of wolf persecution, protection, and restoration in Canada and the United States. Bioscience 54 : 50– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Lichtenfeld L , Trout C , Kisimir E . 120.  2014 . Evidence-based conservation: predator-proof bomas protect livestock and lions. Biodivers. Conserv. 24 : 483– 93 [Google Scholar]
• Hedges S , Gunaryadi D . 121.  2010 . Reducing human-elephant conflict: Do chillies help deter elephants from entering crop fields?. Oryx 44 : 139– 46 [Google Scholar]
• King LE , Douglas-Hamilton I , Vollrath F . 122.  2011 . Beehive fences as effective deterrents for crop-raiding elephants: field trials in northern Kenya. Afr. J. Ecol. 49 : 431– 39 [Google Scholar]
• Lewis DL , Baruch-Mordo S , Wilson KR , Breck SW , Mao JS , Broderick J . 123.  2015 . Foraging ecology of black bears in urban environments: guidance for human-bear conflict mitigation. Ecosphere 6 : 1– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Marker LL , Dickman AJ , Macdonald DW . 124.  2005 . Perceived effectiveness of livestock-guarding dogs placed on Namibian farms. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 58 : 329– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Shivik JA. 125.  2006 . Tools for the edge: What's new for conserving carnivores. BioScience 56 : 253– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Rust NA , Whitehouse-Tedd KM , MacMillan DC . 126.  2013 . Perceived efficacy of livestock-guarding dogs in South Africa: implications for cheetah conservation. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 37 : 690– 97 [Google Scholar]
• Kolowski JM , Holekamp KE . 127.  2006 . Spatial, temporal, and physical characteristics of livestock depredations by large carnivores along a Kenyan reserve border. Biol. Conserv. 128 : 529– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Treves A , Naughton-Treves L , Shelley V . 128.  2013 . Longitudinal analysis of attitudes toward wolves. Conserv. Biol. 27 : 315– 23 [Google Scholar]
• Treves A , Wallace RB , Naughton-Treves L , Morales A . 129.  2006 . Co-managing human–wildlife conflicts: a review. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 11 : 383– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Manfredo MJ , Dayer AA . 130.  2004 . Concepts for exploring the social aspects of human–wildlife conflict in a global context. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 9 : 17– 328 [Google Scholar]
• Nyhus PJ , Osofsky SA , Ferraro P , Fischer H , Madden F . 131.  2005 . Bearing the costs of human-wildlife conflict: the challenges of compensation schemes. See Ref. 2 107– 21
• Zabel A , Holm-Müller K . 132.  2008 . Conservation performance payments for carnivore conservation in Sweden. Conserv. Biol. 22 : 247– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Kintisch E. 133.  2014 . What's killing the reindeer?. Science 346 : 685 [Google Scholar]
• Steele JR , Rashford BS , Foulke TK , Tanaka JA , Taylor DT . 134.  2013 . Wolf ( Canis lupus ) predation impacts on livestock production: direct effects, indirect effects, and implications for compensation ratios. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 66 : 539– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Chen S , Yi Z-F , Campos-Arceiz A , Chen M-Y , Webb EL . 135.  2013 . Developing a spatially-explicit, sustainable and risk-based insurance scheme to mitigate human–wildlife conflict. Biol. Conserv. 168 : 31– 39 [Google Scholar]
• Zabel A , Roe B . 136.  2009 . Optimal design of pro-conservation incentives. Ecol. Econ. 69 : 126– 34 [Google Scholar]
• Persson J , Rauset GR , Chapron G . 137.  2015 . Paying for an endangered predator leads to population recovery. Conserv. Lett. 8 : 345– 50 [Google Scholar]
• Nelson F , Lindsey P , Balme G . 138.  2013 . Trophy hunting and lion conservation: a question of governance?. Oryx 47 : 501– 9 [Google Scholar]
• Gunderson LH , Holling C . 139.  2002 . Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems Washington, DC: Island Press [Google Scholar]
• Liu J , Dietz T , Carpenter SR , Alberti M , Folke C . 140.  et al. 2007 . Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317 : 1513– 16 [Google Scholar]
• Graham K , Beckerman AP , Thirgood S . 141.  2005 . Human–predator–prey conflicts: ecological correlates, prey losses and patterns of management. Biol. Conserv. 122 : 159– 71 [Google Scholar]
• Buttke DE , Decker DJ , Wild MA . 142.  2015 . The role of one health in wildlife conservation: a challenge and opportunity. J. Wildl. Dis. 51 : 1– 8 [Google Scholar]
• Creel S , Becker M , Christianson D , Dröge E , Hammerschlag N . 143.  et al. 2015 . Questionable policy for large carnivore hunting. Science 350 : 1473– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Karanth KU , Nichols J . 144.  1998 . Estimation of tiger densities in India using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79 : 2852– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Urban MC. 145.  2015 . Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 348 : 571– 73 [Google Scholar]
• Svenning J-C , Pedersen PBM , Donlan CJ , Ejrnæs R , Faurby S . 146.  et al. 2016 . Science for a wilder Anthropocene: synthesis and future directions for trophic rewilding research. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113 : 898– 906 [Google Scholar]
• Carter NH , Shrestha BK , Karki JB , Pradhan NMB , Liu J . 147.  2012 . Coexistence between wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 : 15360– 65 [Google Scholar]
• Athreya V , Odden M , Linnell JDC , Krishnaswamy J , Karanth U . 148.  2013 . Big cats in our backyards: persistence of large carnivores in a human dominated landscape in India. PLOS ONE 8 : e57872 [Google Scholar]
• Packer C , Loveridge A , Canney S , Caro T , Garnett ST . 149.  et al. 2013 . Conserving large carnivores: dollars and fence. Ecol. Lett. 16 : 635– 41 Emerging debate in the conflict and coexistence literature; i.e., what role do fences play? [Google Scholar]
• Decker DJ , Chase LC . 150.  1997 . Human dimensions of living with wildlife—a management challenge for the 21st century. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 25 : 788– 95 [Google Scholar]
• Manfredo MJ , Vaske JJ , Brown PJ , Decker DJ , Duke EA . 151.  2009 . Wildlife and Society: The Science of Human Dimensions Washington, DC: Island Press [Google Scholar]
• Dinerstein E , Loucks C , Wikramanayake E , Ginsberg J , Sanderson E . 152.  et al. 2007 . The fate of wild tigers. BioScience 57 : 508– 14 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, adaptive governance of social-ecological systems, dynamics of land-use and land-cover change in tropical regions, climate change and food systems, wetland resources: status, trends, ecosystem services, and restorability, global water pollution and human health, adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework, i ndustrial s ymbiosis : literature and taxonomy, environmental governance, c arbon d ioxide e missions from the g lobal c ement i ndustry 1, global biogeochemical cycling of mercury: a review.

• Open access
• Published: 03 September 2024

Rapid assessment of human–elephant conflict: a crime science approach

• Mangai Natarajan 1  

Crime Science volume  13 , Article number:  24 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

An interdisciplinary approach has the potential not only to help solve conservation-centric problems but also to enrich and improve evidence-based scientific research. Crime science, an offshoot of criminology, provides a comprehensive, solution-oriented approach that transcends disciplinary boundaries and bridges science and practice for developing effective conservation interventions to real-life problems such as Human Elephant Conflict (HEC). This paper focuses on HEC as a conservation concern, but the resultant behaviors toward elephants, people, and their property are criminology’s concern. Using the Action Research paradigm, a rapid assessment of human–elephant conflict (HEC) in India was undertaken to identify contextual solutions. This study utilized problem-oriented field research methods that enabled the gathering of data on elephant habitat-landscape, villagers’ lifestyle (habitat) in the fringe areas, their current approaches in dealing with the conflict, the challenges forest officials face to mitigate HEC, and the assistance provided by district administrators to protect villagers and their corps and HEC-related deaths. The qualitative inquiry, including observation of village-forest fringe areas, focus group discussions with villagers, and interviews with forest officers and rangers, and district administrators/collectors who are handlers, guardians, and managers of the conflict space, provided rich data in identifying situational practical measures and underscored the role of crime science in providing a conceptual framework to gather evidence in addressing HEC in forest areas. The findings of the research suggest that human–animal convergence space is the source (or location) of conflict and criminology-driven situational crime prevention measures, including increasing effort, risks, reducing rewards and provocations, and removing excuses might mitigate the conflict, requiring coordinated efforts by villagers, forest and district administrators, and local law enforcers.

Introduction

The human–elephant conflict (HEC) has escalated into a major conservation concern, particularly in the Asia and Africa regions, which are elephants’ natural habitats. The root cause of these conflicts can be traced back to the expanding human population and their encroachment into elephants’ territories (see Gandiwa et al., 2013 ; Gunawansa et al., 2023 ; Shaffer et al., 2019 ; Yurike et al., 2021 ). The resulting spatial convergence between human and elephant habitats and the coexistence has sparked a series of territorial disputes, including crop raiding, human casualties, and retaliatory killings of elephants (see Thant et al., 2021 ). This escalating HEC poses a significant threat to biodiversity conservation, especially elephants’ survival and habitat loss, and jeopardizes the safety, security, and property loss of those residing in and around forest areas. Over the years, HEC has been considered a conservation concern, and conservation scientists have relentlessly undertaken mitigating initiatives through their research and policies. It is a human–elephant coexistence issue in an evolving urbanized world demanding an understanding of human behaviors and ecosystems, entailing societal-level solutions to minimize HEC.

Conservation scientists have already recognized the limitations of a single disciplinary approach in solving conservation-centric problems and addressing the complex issue of species and ecosystem losses (Clark et al., 2001 ). Bennett et. al. ( 2017 ) have echoed this sentiment, advocating for an interdisciplinary approach to enrich and enhance conservation, particularly in the social sciences. They have identified 18 social science subfields, each with its unique contribution. Footnote 1 However, their comprehensive review has overlooked criminology, a crucial emerging subfield making significant strides in solving conservation problems such as wildlife crimes, illegal logging, and poaching. This paper delves into this subfield, offering a comprehensive, solution-oriented approach that transcends disciplinary boundaries and bridges science and practice which can assist conservation in providing insights into human ecology in dealing with Pohl, ( 2011 ). It specifically focuses on a new school of criminology, environmental criminology or crime science, which has pioneered a range of theories (including routine activity, crime pattern, and criminological rational choice) that explain crime events as the interaction between a motivated offender and the environment where crime opportunities are present in space and time (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1984 ; Clarke, 1983 ; Cohen & Felson, 1979 ; Cornish & Clarke, 1986 ). With four decades of empirical assessment, this criminological approach has successfully prevented and mitigated numerous crime situations (Clarke, 2018 ).

One of the crime science approaches is Clarke’s ( 1980 ) Situational Crime Prevention (SCP), which, in contrast to most other crime prevention approaches, focuses on reducing opportunities for crime and disorder. This situational crime prevention effort can take one of five main forms or objectives: increase the difficulties of crime, increase the risks of crime, reduce the rewards of crime, remove provocations and temptations, and remove excuses for crime. To date, 25 different ways of achieving these objectives have been identified (see Clarke, 1995 , 2004 ; Clarke & Cornish, 1985 ; Cornish & Clarke, 1986 , 2003 ). Using this approach, a handful of crime scientists (they are also known as conservation criminologists) have undertaken studies on elephant poaching, tiger poaching, parrot poaching, and ranger patrols, informing conservation-oriented crime prevention research and policies (e.g. Boratto & Gibbs, 2021 ; Clarke et al., 2014 ; Delpech et al., 2021 ; Kahler, 2018 ; Kahler et al., 2023 ; Kurland, 2019 ; Kurland & Pires, 2017 ; Lemieux, 2014a , 2014b ; Lynch & Pires, 2019 ; Lynch et al., 2018 ; Pires et al., 2012 ; Wilson & Boratto, 2020 ; Wilson & Clarke, 2019 ). Kahler ( 2018 ) expanded Cornish and Clarke’s ( 2003 ) situational crime prevention matrix from 25 to 30 techniques for conservation under a new category. This new category, increasing the incentive for compliance, includes (1) local residents as guardians, (2) increased transparency, (3) cooperative extension education, (4) increased economic incentives, and (5) increased risks of detection. Criminology’s situational crime prevention perspective can indeed be beneficial in identifying and addressing the specific situational factors that contribute to HEC. While environmental criminologists have used various location-based analyses and applied SCP measures to deal with wildlife crimes, there is scarce literature on criminology’s contribution to HEC. This paper is intended to fill the void in the literature.

Driven by the law of human action, environmental criminological theories, otherwise known as crime opportunity theories, emphasize the interaction of person and environment/setting that facilitates crime, suggesting that opportunity-reducing prevention makes the environment harder for anyone to commit crimes. This interaction is fundamental to crime opportunity theories Footnote 2 that seek to explain the occurrence of crime rather than simply the existence of criminal dispositions. There are two practical benefits of focusing on opportunities: first, reducing opportunities immediately affects crime and disorders, while addressing the so-called root causes of crime can only produce results in the future, if ever. Second, any agency, whether private or public, can take action to reduce opportunities for a crime problem in its jurisdiction (Natarajan, 2017 ). Numerous case studies demonstrate the successful application of environmental criminology’s situational crime prevention in reducing crime and disorders (Clarke, 2018 ). Footnote 3 Environmental criminologists have developed pathways to holistic solutions and created reliable evidence about ‘what works’ in preventing crime. They have studied and found solutions to prevent wildlife crimes in the past decade. However, it has been acknowledged that analysts are relatively rare in wildlife protection; most analytic capacity is found within the biological monitoring division of an organization, not the law enforcement units (Lemieux et al., 2022 ). When dealing with the interaction between wildlife and human behaviors in protected forests and fringe areas, conservation scientists could benefit from integrating years of research by environmental criminologists. This integration is necessary in using evidence-based science to integrate transdisciplinary science-stakeholder policy approaches to mitigating human–wildlife conflicts on a larger scale.

Routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979 ), a prominent crime science theory, deals with the three essential elements of a criminal event (offender, target, place). Applying this theory to human–elephant conflict has implications for understanding the problem and identifying the concerned stakeholders in reducing the conflicts. Suppose it is assumed that the elephants are perpetrators and the villagers are victims. In that case, the theory will lead to identifying the “handlers,” the “guardians,” and the “place managers” where the conflicts occur (Felson, 1994 ). Handlers are people closely associated with the elephants, guardians are the farm owners in the forests’ fringe areas, and managers are government officials or village leaders formally authorized to monitor forest and village “convergence” sites where human–elephant conflict occurs.

In sum, in the past few decades, scholars of crime science, informed by environmental criminology, have illustrated proactive approaches to studying and identifying solutions to conservation problems, including HEC (e.g., Kahler, 2018 ; Lemieux, 2014a , 2014b ; Moreto & Pires, 2018 ; Viollaz et al., 2022 ).

The issue of human–elephant conflict is a complex, multifaceted problem that negatively affects both humans and wildlife. This conflict leads to trauma, injuries, deaths, and property damages (Dickman, 2010 ; Gross et al., 2021 ; Gulati et al., 2021 ; Karanth et al., 2012 ; Thakur et al., 2016 ). Many conservation researchers have made valuable contributions to understanding and mitigating these conflicts (Denninger Snyder & Rentsch, 2020 ; Evans & Adams, 2018 ; Gubbi, 2012 ; Hahn et al., 2017 ; Hoare, 2015 ; La Grange et al., 2022 ; Lenin and Sukumar, 2008 ; Mayberry et al., 2017 ; Mumby & Plotnik, 2018 ; Neupane et al., 2018 ; Ntukey et al., 2022 ; Nyumba et al., 2020 ; Prakash et al., 2020a ; Sampson et al., 2019 ; Shaffer et al., 2019 ; Venkataramana et al., 2017 ; Virtanen et al., 2021 ). For example, Zeppelzauer et. al. ( 2015 ) highlighted the importance of a visual detection method for tracking elephants in wildlife videos as an acoustic early warning system using real-time audio data. Studies in African and Asian countries have shown the positive results of using various fences to protect crops involving the local community (Karidozo & Osborn, 2015 ; Vibha et al., 2021 ). In Tanzania, chili fences have proven effective in preventing crop-raiding by elephants, as elephants dislike the smell of hot chili peppers (Chang’a et al., 2016 ; Hedges & Gunaryadi, 2010 ). Research has also shown that growing chili plants not only dissuades elephants from entering the farms but has become an alternative source of livelihood for local farmers and helps deal with HEC (Pozo et al., 2019 ). According to König et. al. ( 2020 ), fence building has become widespread, “resulting in decreased economic losses from wildlife damage but also in the displacement of wildlife conflicts to new areas” (p. 792). Additionally, recent studies have emphasized the importance of predicting environmental impacts and temporal patterns of land use and land cover change hotspots and human–elephant conflict (see also Chen et al., 2016 ; Rathnayake et al., 2022 ; Tiller et al., 2021 ).

In India, human–elephant conflict (HEC) is a significant conservation issue that conservation scientists have extensively researched. This paper describes the research on HEC conducted in the forest areas of Tamil Nadu, a southern state in India. The research demonstrates the relevance of social science problem-solving methods and offers a promising direction for reducing HEC and its associated impacts, adding to the existing literature. Though the nature and extent of conflict cannot be comparable, Human–elephant Conflict (HEC) has been a persistent problem in many regions across Asia and Africa, and the situation in Tamil Nadu, India, a South Asian nation, is no exception.

Human–elephant conflict (HEC) in India

India is home to an estimated 30,000 wild elephants. In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, around 2760 elephants are found, primarily concentrated in several forest areas surrounded by villages and towns (Project Elephant India, 2017 , see Tables 1 and 2 ). According to the Forest Survey of India ( 2017 ), the State’s Recorded Forest Area in 2015 was 22,877 sq. km, 17.59 percent of the State’s Geographical Area, with an estimated human population of 83.9 Footnote 4 million. The forests are spread along the Western and Eastern Ghats in Tamil Nadu, and wild elephants are found in three central Tiger reserves. Government estimates of the number of people and animals (including livestock) show that the space available for both groups has declined. Further, due to the lack of suitable forage and water, elephants overcome man-made barriers and regularly emerge from the forests. The result has been an increase in human–elephant conflict (HEC). While these conflicts might qualify for conservation concern because they happen in and around forest areas, the resultant harmful behaviors of personal and property damage by elephants and people in these locations are criminology’s concern. When elephants raid crops, in the process, villagers, when defending the crops, get killed and often injured. Their properties are also damaged (see Gross et al., 2021 ). On occasions, villagers kill elephants in retaliation. Given this large number of elephants and their limited habitat, it is not surprising that conflicts between elephants and villagers frequently cause human and elephant deaths and are reported heavily in the media (see Desai & Riddle, 2015 ; Ganesh, 2019 ; Ramkumar et al., 2014 ).

Despite all the mitigation efforts in India and other Asian and African countries, the Human Elephant Conflict (HEC) continues and will continue to be a critical issue for conservation, especially the changing climate, as an emerging driver among others, including biological, ecological, and behavioral factors of habitat loss and the expanding human settlements in forest fringe areas. In India, where many millions live within a few kilometers of protected areas (Ghosh-Harihar et al., 2019 ), elephant attacks on people have become lethal, causing injury and deaths, leading to public outcry. Recent data from India shows that between 2009 and 2023, approximately 1300 elephants died due to unnatural causes (Azad, 2023 ). This highlights the urgent need for practical solutions to reduce human–elephant conflict and protect both the lives of elephants and humans.

HEC results in crop-raiding by elephants, injuries and deaths of farmers, and retaliatory killings of elephants. Though these problems seem interconnected, they are distinctive. For example, crop-raiding of elephants requires measures that are distinct from elephants destroying homes while searching for food and injuring or killing people in the process when villagers go to the forest for cattle grazing or when elephants get killed on the rail tracks. Each of these problems requires specific opportunity-reducing measures geared to the nature of the problem in extending guardianship (Cohen & Felson, 1979 ; Felson & Clarke, 1999 ) by increasing efforts and risks. Situational Crime Prevention (SCP) is a well-situated theoretical model incorporating socio-psychological, economic, and cultural contexts, operates under the premises of Action Research that is focused on specific problems by gathering appropriate data to find solutions , especially in developing countries (Clarke & Natarajan, 2018 ) to mitigate HEC.

The present study

This research uses a case study approach to discuss the issue of human–elephant conflict (HEC) in Tamil Nadu. It aims to demonstrate how criminology and crime science can contribute to transdisciplinary conservation research and understanding of HEC, a problem at the intersection of conservation and human activities. The study also explores the use of Rapid Assessment Methodology (RAM), a comprehensive mixed-method inquiry and an important tool that integrates SCP’s Action Research paradigm to improve evidence-based scientific research for developing effective conservation and community-level interventions to address the issue of HEC in Tamil Nadu, India. Essentially, the goal of this study is not to establish universal facts and laws but to gather practical information to find solutions. This study aims, specifically with the above objectives, to find answers to the following questions:

What are the characteristic features of HEC in Tamil Nadu?

What measures are in place, and what works to address the problem of HEC?

What is more needed to prevent the damage and deaths (both humans and elephants)

What actions are needed to safeguard the crops and the forests for elephant and human co-existence?

How can crime scientists contribute to conservation science in dealing with HEC?

Methodology

Crime science, especially its situational prevention paradigm, relies on action research (Lewin, 1946 ) strategies to generate shared knowledge of the causal conditions of the social/behavioral world and its attendant difficulties (Friedman & Rogers, 2009 ). Clarke ( 1997 , p. 16) states that action research involves specific stages. It is like the problem-solving methodology used in problem-oriented policing and in many other forms of social intervention that can be modified depending on the nature of the SCP project. Figure  1 illustrates the spiraling process of the SCP’s Action Research for data collection to address HEC.

Addressing human elephant conflict: SCP’s action research process for data collection

Using the SCP’s-Action Research, this research also aims to demonstrate the use of Rapid Assessment Methodology (RAM) to forewarn the need to target the “high-risk” space(s) of HEC and to describe the responses that are in place for an action plan to mitigate the harm to people and animals in the forest fringe areas. RAM is an approach to gathering contextual data with three fundamental premises: the participatory approach, methodological pluralism, and action orientation (Ndolamb, 1991 ). Rapid assessments comprise various qualitative methods to gain rich, in-depth perspectives on complex issues and provide quick insight into the problems to produce findings that can be translated into action for policies and future research. RAM is a rapidly evolving approach to analyzing situations to understand the context in which the problem develops, as this could be critical for the well-being of the affected population and a tool for developing responses (e.g., Beebe, 2005 ; Given, 2008 ; McNall & Foster-Fishman, 2007 ; Natarajan, 2016 ; Oliveira et al., 2023 ; Stimson et al., 1999 ). It has helped integrate SCP’s problem-solving methodology, using routine activity theory, into crime prevention responses suitable for specific crime problems (Cherney, 2006 , 2009 ; Natarajan, 2016 ).

Under the backcloth of the Action Research paradigm, Natarajan ( 2016 ) reports that the RAM is interdisciplinary and generates substantial, relevant, and policy-relevant timely data to understand and solve a crime problem at a relatively low cost from small samples of key informants using semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and surveys, especially for cost-effective research in developing countries. Some conservation scientists have employed RAM in their research depending on their needs in developing action plans (e.g., Ervin, 2003 ; Parker et al., 2018 ; Schaffer-Smith et al., 2016 ; Strange et al., 2024 ; Venkataraman et al., 2017 ).

Data collection methods

The study gathered qualitative data using a non-random purposive and convenience sampling strategy. Footnote 5 It involved naturalistic field observations, focus group discussions with villagers and Adidravidas (Indigenous people living in forest areas), interviews with forest rangers, administrators, and city administrators, and informal dialogues with NGOs. This diverse qualitative data on HEC was collected to minimize limitations in generalizability and evaluate the validity of the results. Structured focus group discussions and interview protocols were separately prepared (refer to study questions in Appendix A) to collect data.

The research followed the ethics code of the researcher’s university, requesting verbal consent and assuring anonymity of the participants’ locations and names to protect their identities. With the official permission of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests of Tamil Nadu, India, this 2-year study (July 2016–August 2018) was undertaken in three major forest areas: Cauvery North Wildlife Sanctuary, Sathymangalam Tiger Reserve, and Anamalai Tiger Reserve (see Fig.  2 ).

Observation of the forest areas and the villages in the fringe areas

Field observation research was employed to observe the habitat features of humans and elephants in the study area at four intervals. Footnote 6 Using the ride-along Footnote 7 and transect walk method, Footnote 8 data were gathered by visiting twenty forest locations in the three forest areas/divisions: Coimbatore, Sathyamangalam, and Hosur. Riding along in these forest areas and interacting with conservation experts, forest rangers, local police, and NGOs provided a contextual understanding of the protected and fringe forest sides of the HEC problem. Footnote 9

Focus group discussions

Data were gathered from 16 focus groups (farmers, villagers, and Adidravidas-local Indigenous/tribal people, including men and women) discussions with 110 participants in the three forest areas mentioned above. In some fringe areas, women-only discussions were only allowed, which enabled three women-only group discussions. The data include basic information about crops grown, the frequency of crop-raiding and seasonal variations, measures deployed to deter the elephants, how these are implemented, the perceived usefulness of each measure, difficulties attached to each measure, and limits to their wider deployment. Data were collected at three intervals during the day. Footnote 10 The focus group discussions ranged from 4 to 20 participants (an average of 7 participants) and took 30–60 min to complete. The discussions happened on the farms, villagers’ front porches, roadsides, and in Adidravidas community open setting gathering rooms. Some participants spontaneously formed a group to speak to the researcher and her field visit team when they stopped for lunch and coffee breaks during the field visits. The researcher, a native, undertook the focus group interviews/discussions in the local language and natural settings, which made the voluntary participants comfortable sharing their views, especially obtaining the gender-inclusive voices on their premises.

Interviews and dialogues

Unstructured interviews were undertaken with three District Collectors, 12 Forest officers, antipoaching staff and rangers, and dialogues with NGOs and conservation scientists. Footnote 11 The interview questions included the type and nature of predominant conflicts, the challenges in dealing with them in their respective jurisdictions, and how the forest department has dealt with them over the years. Formal interviews (which lasted an hour despite their busy schedule) were conducted in the offices of forest officials and district administrators with appointments. Dialogues involving NGO conversations happened during the field visits at lunch and dinner.

The primary goal of this study is to enhance the understanding of human–elephant conflict (HEC) as a conservation and human-centric problem and examine it from a criminology/crime science perspective. It addresses research questions related to two main points: the distinct characteristics of HEC in Tamil Nadu and the steps taken by stakeholders to preserve the lives of elephants and humans and protect crops.

Characteristic features of HEC in Tamil Nadu

Elephants require large areas of natural habitat but suffer from habitat fragmentation and degradation (Acharya et al., 2017 ). The study noted that in recent years, human settlements have increasingly encroached on elephants’ migratory paths, extending signs of conflicting spatial situations in and around the forest areas. Also, it was found that the landscapes with higher human density where local people frequently encountered elephants were at higher risk of elephant attacks (see Shaffer et al., 2019 ; Thant et al., 2021 ).

As observed, each Indian elephant requires many gallons of water and about 150 kg of food daily. They are herbivores and mainly eat grass, tree leaves, twigs, shrubs, bamboo, roots, flowers, wild fruits, and bananas- because grains are more nutritious than grasses, elephants seek grains when foraging. According to the study participants, elephants also raid agricultural lands, mainly crops such as sugar cane, bananas, and rice, which brings them into conflict with humans. Further, observing the elephant habitat reveals that some parts of the forest areas are rich in edible plants for elephants and have enough water. Consequently, relatively few elephants move out of these forests. However, in some places, for example, near Sirumugai, where the river basins are dry, plants are scarce, and elephants tend to forage in fringe areas where villagers cultivate. The elephants also search for water in these areas, thus causing them to come into conflict with villagers.

Focus group discussions with villagers in the fringe areas and interviews with forest rangers reveal the migratory patterns and the impact of understanding the reasons for the rowdiness of elephants in their regions. Several study participants said:

“Elephants migrate primarily for foraging. Female elephants invariably move in groups, but male ‘tuskers” are either solitary or move in small groups, which may include other adults and young bulls.” “The elephants frequently raid when crops are ripe from January to May. After that, they may return to the forest, which we call reverse migration, and the distance the elephants cover varies from individual to individual, group to group, and year to year.” “The poachers killing the tuskers (who manage the young ones) had deprived the young males of role models. In the absence of “paternal’ guidance, when the young ones find a “food” niche during their migration, they tend to stay put and may become unruly “problem elephants” when humans are in their way.”

Agriculture is the dominant land use and most prominent source of livelihood for a sizable proportion of the Indian population (see the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report—Kumar et al., 2018 ; Sharma, 2016 ), and Tamil Nadu is no exception. The study observation found that land close to forests is usually fertile, and wealthy or poor farmers prefer that land for cultivating specific crops. Several village participants in the focus group discussions said:

“Farmers prefer high-yield crops, such as sugar, ragi, maize, and bananas (annual crops), which are primarily seasonal because they are low maintenance in terms of human labor and irrigation (if “bore wells” are dug and water is channeled through pipes).”

The Adidravidas, the Indigenous/tribal people of Tamil Nadu, the study participants who live in the forest areas, said that they know the movement patterns of all animals and take self-measures resonating with Felson and Clarke’s ( 2010 ) “routine precautions” to protect themselves from animal attacks. Because of the lack of toilets at home, many study Adidravidas participants said they go into the forest for toiletry, especially in the late evening and at night. By doing so, they risk being injured or killed by elephants. Further, going into the forest to graze cattle and collect firewood and honey also poses high risks for elephant attacks on humans and cattle by other carnivores. (Please see the photos in Appendix B of the injury caused by the elephant during the field visit).

Some farmers watch their farms during the night in the villages. They may take routine precautions to protect themselves, but wild elephants are very clever and can sense human movements and actions. In a noted incident during the study, a villager was hurt by an elephant, and, according to his account,

“When the elephant stamped on me, I did not get up but pretended to be dead. The elephant returned to see if I was alive (moving or not), and since there was no movement, it went away. After waiting for some time, I managed to get help. I am now undergoing treatment for fractured bones (see photos in Appendix B).”

Gathering firewood for personal use or sale from the forest areas in India is a common practice. Focus group discussions involving only women revealed that despite taking precautions, villagers, especially women and young girls, who are sent into the forest to collect firewood, may still face injuries and even death due to the unpredictable behavior of elephants. In addition to injuries caused by elephants (refer to Appendix A), other carnivores in the forest may completely consume human victims, leaving no evidence of their deaths.

The study findings show that some conflicts occur in towns between hills. In such situations, barriers and checkposts allow people to enter the forest at odd hours. Some drive through the forest on two-wheelers in the late evenings and nights. They may encounter elephants inside the forest areas, thus putting them at risk of elephant attacks. Also, it is important to note that sizable numbers of elephants are purposely killed in retaliation using high-voltage electric fences.

The study revealed that Human–Elephant Conflict (HEC) is a significant issue in Tamil Nadu due to elephants’ recent changes in migration patterns from their original habitat. These changes cause the elephants to venture out for food and water. Additionally, the development of human settlements near forest fringe fertile lands has led to elephants raiding the crops grown by villagers, which are attractive to them. The study also found that HEC is seasonal and impacts some fringe areas more severely than others. The attacks by elephants on humans result in loss of life and crop damage. In the same vein, the retaliatory killings of elephants by the villagers are of concern. Furthermore, the study identified economic disparities in how residents of fringe areas cope with HEC.

Measures undertaken by various stakeholders in dealing with HEC

Villagers and adidravidas measures.

The study found that villagers have made use of the following measures to protect themselves and their crops: barbed wire and rope (also chili-coated) fences; bio fences (Agave and Cactus), electric fences; kerosene lamps; fire spears, iron spears; sticks and stones; firecrackers; sound makers (tin-cans-and-stones); flashlights; powerful spotlights; and treehouse watch towers (see photos of measures in Appendix C). Wealthier farmers protect their crops by maintaining fences, finding multiple types of fences depending upon the type of crops, and searching for innovative ways to safeguard their crops. Poorer farmers may have tried the electric fences the forest department gave them, but the study observation showed the need for the proper training, dedication, and finances to maintain them. Some study participants said trenches are unpopular because of their limited deterrent effect. According to them:

“Elephants have learned to cross the trenches, and if these are to be used, they must be dug much deeper. If the soil is not suitable, trenches become useless over time; in loose or muddy soil, an elephant can use its trunk to fill the trenches and go across in no time”.

During a field visit, a farmer in a hilly town in the Sathyamanglam forest area reported that elephants had smashed the entire farm and damaged pipes, causing extensive damage. Footnote 12 He had just started using multiple measures on a farm he recently leased from another farmer who gave it up due to elephant crop-raiding. His multiple measures included barbed wire, trenches, electric fences, and solar fences. His account in the focus group discussion states:

“First, the elephants tried smashing the barbed wire fences, only to encounter trenches they could not cross because they were dug deeper in and around the farm. Beyond the trench, the elephants could see the electric fence. They then gave up and have not returned to the farm in months”.

While this is a success story, the farmer said he is still trying to protect his farm by using several other measures, including chili ropes used in African and other Asian countries (which he learned from the Internet).

The study findings are that while poor farmers are frustrated and discouraged from mending fences, wealthy farmers maintain them and try various other forms of defense. Some of their fences are tall walls built with heavy stones that would make it very hard for elephants to break, and they also use solar fences to protect their farms. It was claimed in focus group discussions that because of such measures taken by wealthy farmers, poor farmers in adjacent farms get hit by elephants, wondering about the spatial displacement impact of target hardening measures. This would be a fascinating research topic for crime scientists to illustrate the possibilities of displacement and the type of displacement that happens when new measures are introduced. According to a number of focus group study participants,

“Elephants smash the electric fences or develop ways to avoid them. They flip the branches from coconut trees on the electric fences and walk on top of the branches to avoid shocks. Once elephants have damaged the fences, we are reluctant to invest in new fences. Even when installed, we are confused about their operations—for example, when to turn on the electricity, how much voltage to use, etc. Sometimes, people and other animals get injured or killed by electric shocks if the fences are set at a higher voltage by mistake. No maintenance or service providers live close by to help us promptly replace or repair the fences.

In sum, the costs of installation and maintenance, training in adequately operating the fences, and easy access to repair services beg for attention and action.

The study found some issues involving compensation reported by most focus group participants. While villagers welcome the forest department initiatives, they complain that the compensation is often just a fraction of the money they spend on mending the damages. They also criticize bureaucratic delays in receiving compensation, which dissuades them from seeking compensation. The frustration then leads them to take drastic steps, i.e., the retaliatory killing of elephants. Understanding the human psychology of retaliation is vital in finding healthy solutions, such as increasing and releasing compensation promptly. Several of the focus group participants informed that,

“The Tamil Nadu Forestry Department has increased compensation for deaths due to elephants (to about $6000 per victim), and the compensation is being delivered to the victims’ families quicker than before. However, obtaining death certificates from the village administrators and the investigation by the forestry department and the local police can be very slow.”

Some villagers complained about the bribes to get their cases handled faster, which could be an agenda for criminologists.

Forestry department measures

According to the interviews with the District Forestry Department officers and staff, the following measures have been used to mitigate HEC, including scaring squads, deployment of drummers and distribution of crackers to villagers, removal of problem elephants, use of “kumki” elephants (captive-tamed/trained elephants) to drive away problem elephants, early warning systems, posting danger signs, creating ponds and water sources in the forests. The departments have also created hotlines for the villagers to inform officers if they spot elephants, and, recently, WhatsApp has also been used to alert the authorities if elephants are spotted in the outskirts of the forest. The officers warn villagers about the dangers of grazing cattle and collecting firewood from reserve forest areas, providing them with safety tips. They also advise villagers to be vigilant when sleeping in the nearby forest areas at night.

City administration measures

The city administration claims that it is the job of the forest department to deal with elephants that attack villagers and damage their property. However, all three district collectors interviewed are willing to assist when objective recommendations are made. To deal with HEC, one of the district collectors went beyond his duty call to support a model project subject (involving randomized control design based on the success mentioned above story mentioned earlier) if funding is being obtained.

Situational prevention measures

The study identified a series of situational, opportunity-reducing measures that are in place to address human–elephant conflict (HEC) in the study areas. These measures were organized under the five categories of SCP (increasing the efforts, increasing the risks, reducing the rewards, and removing provocations and excuses for crime) that have immense relevance to minimizing the harm to elephants and humans during conflict situations (see Table  3 ). Of the 25 SCP techniques of SCP), the measures reported by the study participants and observation fitted the 16 SCP techniques Footnote 13 (Clarke, 1997 ; Cornish & Clarke, 2003 ). These categories of SCP provide an idea of the role of specific stakeholders in implementing the specific measures (see Table  3 ). For example, the villagers have a significant role in SCP’s increasing efforts by making it difficult for the elephants to raid the corps and cause property damage. At the same token, increasing the risks requires the contribution of several stakeholders at the community level, demanding collaboration between forest and local law enforcement in patrolling the protected and fringe areas. Reducing the rewards and removing provocations and excuses require large-scale state-level forest department and city administration initiatives to deal with the problem of HEC in their jurisdictions. The important finding of this study is that grouping the measures under rational choice and routine activity theory-driven SCP techniques provides a solid foundation for individual studies, reinforcing the various community stakeholders’ guardianship role (Kahler et al., 2023 ) in mitigating HEC.

This study reveals that the identified measures to reduce human–elephant conflict (HEC) are already in place and widely used by local stakeholders. Also, these measures are practical, affordable, and have been in place for a significant period. The stakeholders are open to trying different solutions to reduce HEC, depending on available resources. Some can manage on their own, while others require financial assistance. Villagers exchange information about their initiatives and share stories of success and failure.

This study is the first to categorize the measures and recognize the specific stakeholders’ importance in designing, resourcing, and implementing strategies to reduce HEC in particular areas. However, evaluating these measures for their success or failure is essential to establish evidence-based case studies that can effectively address HEC conflicts and save human and elephant lives. This highlights the crucial role of researchers, conservationists, policymakers, and stakeholders in bringing about positive change in managing HEC.

Based on the research findings, an interdisciplinary approach is essential for effectively addressing human–elephant conflict (HEC). Understanding the theoretical implications of this research emphasizes the need to integrate environmental criminology-driven situational-prevention measures into HEC mitigation strategies. Furthermore, the practical implications underscore the importance of engaging local stakeholders and communities in designing and implementing long-term solutions to mitigate HEC. This discussion explores how these theoretical and practical implications can inform future research and policy practices in resolving HEC.

Theoretical implications

The study findings revealed three significant themes (convergence space, hot spots, territorial boundaries of conflict) related to HEC locations. These have theoretical implications for minimizing the harms associated with HEC in Tamil Nadu.

Human–elephant conflict space: convergence, hot spots, territorial boundaries

An environmental criminological understanding of how offenders and their targets/victims come together in specific places and times is essential to explaining crime events (Cohen & Felson, 1979 ; Weisburd, 2015 ). Figure  3 provides a hypothetical scenario showing the overlap of humans and elephants in certain areas where various activities harm both parties.

Human elephant conflict convergence space

The present study’s observation of elephants’ and villagers’ habitats also suggests that villages with higher protected area frontage and unirrigated land were crucial factors leading to conflict. Additionally, a higher risk of elephant attacks is found in landscapes with higher human density (e.g., Gross et al., 2021 ; Gubbi, 2012 ; Gubbi et al., 2014 ; Sukumar et al., 2016 ; Thant et al., 2021 ). However, the locations of Human–Elephant Conflicts (HECs) vary considerably. These findings illustrate the importance of conflict areas where villagers and elephants come together, prompting further research to identify and understand the specific problem areas and gather detailed data to measure the issues’ size, magnitude, and trend in these convergence spaces/locations.

The literature suggests that detailed spatial analysis of the convergence spaces would help focus on the specific locations and measures to assess what works and where. Recent geospatial analysis of elephant movement patterns (Chen et al., 2016 ; Das et al., 2018 ; Tripathy et al., 2021 ) would shed light on identifying the specific convergence locations for action. This need for mapping the convergence spaces certainly resonates with Brantingham and Brantingham’s ( 1984 , 2017 ) crime pattern theory, which states that crime incidents are not random but concentrated in space and time. The results of such analysis could help identify measures to be addressed by the villagers, the forest department, or the city government. While some NGOs are researching HEC, more context-specific space-based research is needed to resolve these conflicts.

A fundamental principle of situational crime prevention is that crime is highly concentrated on particular people, places, and things; hence, focusing on resources where crime is concentrated will yield the most significant preventive benefits (Clarke & Eck, 2003 ). This also reflects Pareto’s principle, the 80/20 rule, Footnote 14 or, as Juran ( 2004 ) points out, a small percentage of areas have more extensive problems, and focusing on these areas would help solve a large percentage of HEC. Guided by the SCP, identifying the hotspots or specific convergence areas of HEC locations in the fringe areas in developing measures would give a positive outcome. While conservation scientists have undertaken enormous research for years, the crime science lens will no doubt complement and enhance the outcomes in mitigating HEC.

The discussions reveal that illegal logging, livestock grazing, encroachment, retaliatory killings of elephants and elephants destroying properties, and people harming are considered territorial issues (see also Fig.  3 ). Footnote 15 While climate change and forest degradation force elephants to move beyond their territory, villagers and some wealthy people are encroaching on or legally owning lands on the forest’s borders. Also, observation of some convergence areas found that some of the elephants’ deaths are hit-and-run accidents due to the railroad crossing of the Tamil Nadu–Kerala State (an adjacent southern state) borders.

A recent study by Blount-Hill and Natarajan ( 2019 ) indicated that human societal development may be directly harmful to animal species, thus setting the stage for competition between human development interests and wildlife survival. This study also found that human activities may harm other species due to competition over finite resources. For example, despite the forestry department’s warnings and rules, villagers and Adidravidas persist in grazing their cattle in the forest and killing other animals, such as wild pigs, for their meat. Villagers argued in the focus group discussions that cattle are also animals and have the right to be fed in forest areas. To resolve similar arguments, sub-Saharan African countries have begun to explore hydroponic fodder production technology to grow fodder for their livestock near forest areas. Tamil Nadu forest department may also use such technology to grow fodder for their cattle. There should be a concerted effort by the villagers to grow firewood, the use of solar ovens and cookers that do not need firewood, and the forestry department to take an inventory of fodder in the forest areas should be made, including what plants exist and what plants elephants like. For example, the species suggested are Dalbergia sissoo (native), Acacia auriculiformis , and Casuarina equisetifolia (exotic). Footnote 16 Though daunting, a program to grow edible plants in forest areas might be considered. NGOs and the district administration could assist in promoting such concepts by demonstrating them to the villagers as part of HEC strategies so that territoriality/turf fights can be minimized. The need for practical solutions reflects the Routine Activity Theory, which emphasizes the importance of forest and township managers, including local police, village, and district administrators, in safeguarding elephants and people in fringe areas.

Integrating SCP’s action research and rapid assessment methodology (RAM)

RAM’s participatory approach requires the involvement of local stakeholders in data gathering. It combines methods and techniques to gain insights into how to solve the problem. The commonality of Action Research and RAM is that they are both assessment methodologies involving practitioners and stakeholders to assess the situation and find solutions. Guided by SCP’s routine activity and rational choice theories, Action Research identifies and deals with the problem in a specific setting (Cherney, 2006 , 2009 ; Clarke, 1997 ; Natarajan, 2016 ). Integrating SCP’s action research with RAM, which is familiar to conservation scientists, would enhance the action plan and assist in an interdisciplinary approach to advancing the knowledge and solving conservation problems such as wildlife crimes and HEC.

Figure  4 illustrates the RAM’s complementarity in gathering rich qualitative primary data to assess HEC. The methodological pluralism, an essential embodiment of RAM, provided validity in this study for the problem assessment in a real-time HEC situation. Footnote 17 For instance, observing the habitats helped to see the damaged areas by elephants in the villages and how the villagers managed the conflicts. The focus group discussions helped to see the actual injuries of people and hear about the elephant killing people in the protected area (especially on the day of the field research), the various methods used to mitigate, and all the challenges faced. Simultaneously, the ride along with the forest rangers helped to comprehend the initiatives the forest departments had implemented and their challenges. The interviews with administrators and dialogues with NGOs helped to see the collaborative sense of community involvement in dealing with HEC.

HEC: integrating rapid assessment methodology (RAM) and action research

One limitation of this study is that it did not collect any quantitative measures of official forest data on the unnatural deaths of elephants and other animals or the deaths, injuries, and property damages of people in the forest areas. It also did not measure the proximity length of fringe and protected areas. It also did not survey to quantify and explain the various measures and the factors associated with their applicability in dealing with HEC.

Practical implications

The prior literature, whether in India or elsewhere, indicates that electric fences are working well and seem to be effective in mitigating elephant crop-raiding (Kioko et al., 2008 ; Neupane et al., 2017 , 2018 ; Ponnusamy et al., 2016 ; Tsegaye et al., 2023 ). However, despite financial support from the forest department in installing fences, villagers are reluctant to maintain them. The suggestion is that the forest department may put up the fences, but the villagers should maintain them. The city government can assist the villagers by providing some subsidies to help the poor farmers maintain them. The local banks could also assist with loans with low interest. This again calls for randomized controlled trials as part of the SCP agenda to illustrate the impact of different measures, including the importance of maintenance, Footnote 18 so funding from the city and state can be justified. Crime scientists can assist with such evaluation studies; after all, they are trained to identify measures to reduce the damage to people and property and, at the same time, retaliation killings of elephants.

Elephants are the keystone species that help enhance forest biodiversity and are considered ecosystem engineers—seed dispersers, food and water providers to other animals, and habitat modifiers (Fritz, 2017 ). Providing a conducive ecosystem for elephants is vital as one of the measures to deal with HEC. After all, the elephants wander around villages because there is not enough food or water in their spaces. Also, targeting elephant numbers to conserve biodiversity is essential. If too many are in a forest, the forest departments could work with others to translocate them (Fernando et al., 2012 ). Suitable habitats should be available to translocate problems or excess animals. Further, forest departments could experiment with camera traps as surveillance (as discussed in Clarke et al., 2014 ) in crop-raiding areas to help the farmers manage the elephants and their movements. When the forest departments could identify the “rogue or problem” elephants, they could use more of the translocation strategy. Under the SCP framework, crime scientists can assist in surveillance research.

The women-only focus group discussions raised another severe problem concerning missing girls and young women in the fringe areas with suspected foul play of sexual predators. Solving problems such as missing women and girls in and around the forest fringe areas and undertaking surveillance and investigations of accidental vs. intentional deaths of people and elephants are major criminological concerns. Crime scientists can assist the forest departments and the local police in conducting safety audits of forest and fringe areas to solve conservation-related crime and disorder issues.

In sum, forest administration must have an agenda to plant fodder suitable for elephants, continue to dig water holes wherever needed, and explore other ways to protect the elephants in the forests. Farmers and the people living in and around the fringe areas need support from district administrators to protect their farms and themselves. On the other hand, for the district administration, HEC should also be on its agenda because it concerns the welfare of villagers and Adidravidas. Though people who live in the protected and fringe areas take routine precautions against the depredations caused by the elephant, these are not enough. The farmers’ and villagers’ dependency on forests must be reduced by eco-development programs, as in other Asian and African countries, where criminologists or crime scientists can help develop public safety and security programs in and out of the protected areas. The Forest Dwellers Act of 2006 has provided alternate land for those who live in government lands, but it is hard for some to move out to find alternatives, and there is a dire need to assist the families who live in forest areas. It was noted that many have children who do not go to school and are destined to follow in their parent’s footsteps, resulting in cattle grazers or woodcutters such as cattle grazing. Overcrowding of families in the forest fringe areas might also contribute to HEC. All of these are not just major conservation concerns but are major social concerns. Integrating social science research will help in alleviating such problems.

Below listed are specific recommendations to deal with HEC in which crime scientists can participate:

Conducting a systematic inventory of situational prevention measures: as known, HEC results in crop raiding by elephants, injuries, and deaths of farmers, as well as retaliatory killings of elephants. Though these problems seem interconnected and distinctive. For example, crop raiding of elephants requires measures distinct from elephants destroying homes while searching for food and injuring or killing people in the process. When villagers go to the forest for cattle grazing or when elephants get killed on the rail tracks. Each of these problems requires specific opportunity-reducing measures geared to the nature of the problem.

Promoting constant conservation and criminological education: there is a need to raise awareness of compliance with HEC initiatives for people (who live in fringe areas) and tourists (who visit the forest areas). Criminologists could assist and train local police to patrol village areas where tourists congregate for picnics. This might help prevent tourists from alarming elephants when crossing borders and safeguard them from elephants. Police should prevent people from aggregating in areas where elephants traditionally move in or out of the forest.

Undertaking location-based research using spatial analyses: the observational analysis indicated that in order to introduce specific situational measures to reduce the damages and casualties, a thorough study is needed of spatial aspects of HEC; temporal aspects (month, day, time, season); type of damage (crop, injury, deaths); perimeter of the conflict situations—the exact spots (the boundary line); the type of crops; and existing measures that forest departments and villagers are currently taking to deal with HEC. The results of such an analysis could help identify measures to be addressed by the villagers, by the forest department, or by the city government.

Based on the research findings, several other suggestions have been proposed to reduce the impact of human–elephant conflict (HEC) in Tamil Nadu. These include collaboratively finding funding and allocating resources by engaging various stakeholders, creating physical pathways to guide elephants away from human settlements, employing aerial surveillance to monitor the migratory paths of elephants, enhancing the resources available to the forest department staff, implementing evidence-based mitigation measures and sharing best practices, organizing interdisciplinary seminars and conferences at regional, national, and international levels on HEC involving both practitioners and academics, establishing an Elephant Conservation Committee to spearhead conservation efforts, and employing robust methods for counting the elephant population (see Hedges et al., 2013 ) and placing emphasis on effective elephant management to ensure their well-being.

Conclusions

The most significant threat to African elephants is wildlife crime, specifically poaching for the illegal ivory trade. On the other hand, the main threat to Asian elephants is habitat loss, fragmentation, and the resulting human–elephant conflict (World Wildlife Fund.org; Luo et al., 2022 ; Menon & Tiwari, 2019 ; Padalia et al., 2019 ; Prakash et al., 2020a , 2020b ). The present study confirms that HEC is concentrated on where human habitats converge with elephants’ habitats. Hence, protecting elephants and people within their respective land boundaries is paramount. As stated by a handful of environmental criminologists/crime scientists (see Lemieux et al., 2022 ; Viollaz et al., 2022 ), conservation science could benefit from integrating the environmental criminological/crime science framework into its efforts to enhance the capacity to deal with HEC efficiently and effectively.

This research presents an interdisciplinary approach to HEC by integrating crime science and criminology. The study offers practical and sustainable solutions using situational crime prevention framework and action research. The specific measures identified and categorized under SCP taxonomy show promise for resolving conflicts, particularly in the problem conflict space where major human–elephant conflict incidents occur, primarily in developing countries (Clarke & Natarajan, 2018 ). Furthermore, the research highlights the key stakeholders in developing and implementing these effective techniques (see Table  3 ).

This case study identified several vital situational factors that contribute to HEC, including the proximity of human settlements to elephant habitats, inadequate fencing and lighting around crops, and poor management practices. Addressing these factors would require a multidisciplinary approach that involves not only conservation scientists but also criminologists, criminal justice practitioners, urban planners, city and conservation management experts, and other stakeholders. In 2001, Clark, Stevenson, and Ziegelmayer articulated the importance of interdisciplinary problem-solving if humanity is to solve the problem of species and ecosystem loss. Lessons learned from this study certainly have implications for framing interdisciplinary team research (Hoffmann et al., 2017 ; see also Boratto & Gibbs, 2021 ) in dealing with HEC but also for designing SCP-informed prospective studies and Randomized Control Trials to assess what works so that the farmers can diffuse the benefits to other farmers in resolving HEC at large. Also, it emphasizes a rapid assessment methodology that is relatively cost-effective, technically eclectic, real-time, and pragmatic in collecting data in designing appropriate culturally sensitive measures and its precursor role in designing RCT in assessing the impact of measures.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) identifies elephants as a “red-flagged” endangered species. It emphasizes the importance of protecting them for biodiversity conservation. Recent studies by Anoop et. al. ( 2023 ) and Fernando et. al. ( 2021 ) have highlighted the increasing human–elephant conflicts (HEC) as a significant concern for the conservation of Asian elephants. The study emphasizes the importance of collaboration between criminologists and conservation scientists to address complex societal problems like human–animal conflicts. Although conservation scientists have significantly contributed to understanding HEC, there is a need to involve other disciplines, such as criminology, in developing effective solutions.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Included social sciences are—sociology, anthropology, political science, geography, economics, history, philosophy, psychology, conservation and development, conservation marketing, environmental and conservation law, environmental and conservation education, human dimensions of conservation, policy sciences, political ecology, science and technology, ecological economics, environmental humanities.

They include Cohen and Felson’s ( 1979 ) routine activity theory, the criminological bounded rational choice perspective of Clarke and Cornish (Clarke, 1985 ; Cornish & Clarke, 1986 ), and Brantingham and Brantingham’s ( 1984 ) crime pattern theory. Also, see Clarke and Felson ( 2017 ).

Over 200 SCP case studies can be accessible, see https://popcenter.asu.edu/content/situational-crime-prevention-database-home .

Estimate 2024 population of Tamil Nadu ( https://www.indiacensus.net/states/tamil-nadu ).

Combining purposive and convenience sampling enables the researchers to select participants based on specific criteria while considering practicality and accessibility.

August 2016, January 2017, August 2017, and January 2018.

With the local police, forest department staff, conservation specialists, NGOs.

Widely used in observation research, especially when studying social interactions, landscapes, and activities in real-time situations.

The researcher was accompanied by a team including a retired forest administrator, an internationally renowned conservation scientist, and ununiformed local police staff.

Fourteen FGDs were undertaken in January and May 2017; the rest were in August 2018.

The researcher attended a seminar (held under the leadership of the Forest Head at the Advanced Wildlife Management Training Center in one of the research sites) on mitigation measures of HEC in Sri Lanka by a Sri Lankan conservation scientist. It was an informative lecture as part of professional development for the local staff and officers to learn about what other countries are trying to deal with. At the conference, the researcher met a couple of international speakers (who are conservation scientists).

The damage to the farm was observed in one of the site observation trips.

The 16 SCP techniques are as follows: target hardening, access control, deflecting offenders, controlling facilitators, screen exits, control tools/weapons, extending guardianship, natural surveillance, reducing anonymity: removing targets, identifying the property, denying benefits, reducing frustrations and stress, neutralizing peer pressure, setting rules, assist compliance, control drugs, and alcohol.

Environmental criminologists use this 20/80 principle, which is known as the Pareto principle or J curve. Vilfredo Pareto, an Italian economist (1848–1923) who observed 20% of the income in Italy was received by 80% of the Italian population, and 20% of the population owned 80% of the property. In 1937, Dr. Juran conceptualized the Pareto principle to help separate the “vital few” from the “useful many” in activities.

While the elephants and humans have territorial resource-sharing issues, this study noted “turf conflicts” between the city and forest departments. For example, though the forest department provides electric fences to help farmers with some validity, the city administration argues that the forest departments should also bear the cost of damage caused by elephants. Compensation for the villagers does happen (see Karanth et al., 2018 ); the city administration should share the burden of assisting the villagers by providing additional resources and incentives to sustain mitigation efforts.

The literature on HEC in Africa and Asia (see Gross et al., 2017 ) suggests that growing crops that are unattractive to elephants but provide revenue for farmers could lead to innovative strategies for land use in and around elephant corridors. Also, from personal communication with an internationally renowned conservation scientist, Dr. A. J. T. Johnsingh.

During the study period, two older couples in their 70 s went to the forest late at night, and the elephants stamped upon them, causing injuries that resulted in their deaths. A focus group discussion was undertaken the next day of the incident in that area informed the real incident situation.

A model project on managing electric fences along the following lines is needed: (1) choose a forest fringe area in the study location provide electric fences and develop mechanisms for maintenance: (2) obtain cost quotes from various electric fence builders; (3) assess the electricity and solar options; (4) assist a local fence management team regularly in the chosen conflict area; (5) require 6–12 months to teach villagers about the importance of maintaining the fences; (6) undertake an evaluation using a four-group post experiment: one group with maintenance management (electric and solar); one group with no maintenance; one group with multiple methods (electric fences with trenches); one group with multiple methods (electric fences with trenches) but with no maintenance.

Acharya, K. P., Paudel, P. K., Jnawali, S. R., Neupane, P. R., & Koehl, M. (2017). Can forest fragmentation and configuration work as indicators of human–wildlife conflict? Evidence from human death and injury by wildlife attacks in Nepal. Ecological Indicators, 80 , 74–83.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anoop, N. R., Krishnan, S., & Ganesh, T. (2023). Elephants in the farm–changing temporal and seasonal patterns of human–elephant interactions in a forest-agriculture matrix in the Western Ghats, India. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 4 , 1142325.

Azad, S. (2023, Sep 20). Over 1,300 jumbos died due to unnatural causes ranging from electrocution to poisoning in 14 years: RTI data. Times of India. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/103795458.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Beebe, J. (2005). Rapid assessment process. The encyclopedia of social measurement (pp. 285–291). Elsevier.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D. A., Wyborn, C., Curran, D., Greenberg, A., Sandlos, J., & Veríssimo, D. (2017). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation, 205 , 93–108.

Blount-Hill, K. L., & Natarajan, M. (2019). Human-wildlife competition: Exploring human activities, environmental transformation, and mammalian species threat. In M. J. Lynch & S. F. Pires (Eds.), Quantitative studies in green and conservation criminology (pp. 111–126). Routledge.

Boratto, R., & Gibbs, C. (2021). Advancing interdisciplinary research on illegal wildlife trade using a conservation criminology framework. European Journal of Criminology, 18 (6), 777–798.

Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1984). Patterns in crime . Macmillan Publishing Company.

Google Scholar  

Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (2017). Environment, routine, and situation: Toward a pattern theory of crime. In R. V. Clarke & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice (pp. 259–294). Routledge.

Chang’a, A., de Souza, N., Muya, J., Keyyu, J., Mwakatobe, A., Malugu, L., Ndossi, H. P., Konuche, J., Omondi, R., Hahn, N., Palminteri, S., & Olsen, D. (2016). Scaling up the use of chili fences for reducing human–elephant conflict across landscapes Tanzania. Tropical Conservation Science, 9 (2), 921–930. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291600900220

Chen, Y., Marino, J., Chen, Y., Tao, Q., Sullivan, C. D., Shi, K., et al. (2016). Predicting hotspots of human–elephant conflict to inform mitigation strategies in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China. PLoS ONE, 11 , e0162035. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162035

Cherney, A. (2006). Problem solving for crime prevention. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 314 , 1–6.

Cherney, A. (2009). Exploring the concept of research utilization: Implications for evidence-based crime prevention. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 11 , 243–257.

Clark, T. W., Stevenson, M. J., & Ziegelmayer, K. (2001) Species and ecosystem conservation: An interdisciplinary approach. Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies Bulletin Series . 96.

Clarke, R. (2018, January 24). The theory and practice of situational crime prevention. Oxford research encyclopedia of criminology. Retrieved April 23, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.001.0001/acrefore-9780190264079-e-327

Clarke, R. V. (1980). Situational crime prevention: Theory and practice. The British Journal of Criminology , 20 , 136–147.

Clarke, R. V. (1983). Situational crime prevention: Its theoretical basis and practical scope. Crime and Justice, 4 , 225–256.

Clarke, R. V. (1985). Delinquency, environment and intervention. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 26 , 505–523.

Clarke, R. V. (1995). Situational crime prevention. Crime and Justice , 19 , 91–150.

Clarke, R. V. (Ed.). (1997). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (2nd ed.). Criminal Justice Press.

Clarke, R. V. (2004). Technology, criminology, and crime science. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 10 (1), 55–63.

Clarke, R. V., Chetty, K., & Natarajan, M. (2014). Eyes on the forest: CCTV and ecotourism in Indian tiger reserves. In A. M. Lemieux (Ed.), Understanding and preventing poaching: An international perspective. Routledg.

Clarke, R. V., & Cornish, D. B. (1985). Modeling offenders’ decisions: A framework for research and policy. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 6, pp. 147–185). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Clarke, R. V., & Eck, J. E. (2003). Become a problem-solving crime analyst: In 55 small steps . London: Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science.

Clarke, R. V., & Felson, M. (2017). The origins of the routine activity approach and situational crime prevention. The origins of American criminology (pp. 245–260). Routledge.

Clarke, R., & Natarajan, M. (2018). Situational crime prevention. In M. Tenca & E. MendezOrtiz (Eds.), Handbook of crime prevention and citizen security. Ediciones Didot.

Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44 , 588–608.

Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. V. (1986). The reasoning criminal . Springer-Verlag.

Book   Google Scholar  

Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (2003). Opportunities, precipitators, and criminal decisions: A reply to Wortley’s critique of situational crime prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, 16 , 41–96.

Das, S., Chockalingam, J., Mondal, S., & Sharma, R. (2018). Geospatial modelling of human–elephant conflicts in Dalma wildlife sanctuary and its surroundings in India (pp. 77–92). Nova Science Publishers Inc.

Delpech, D., Borrion, H., & Johnson, S. (2021). Systematic review of situational prevention methods for crime against species. Crime Science, 10 (1), 1–20.

Denninger Snyder, K., & Rentsch, D. (2020). Rethinking assessment of success of mitigation strategies for elephant-induced crop damage. Conservation Biology, 34 (4), 829–842.

Desai, A. A., & Riddle, H. S. (2015). Human–elephant conflict in Asia. US Fish and Wildlife Service Asian Elephant Support .

Dickman, A. J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: The importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation, 13 , 458–466.

Ervin, J. (2003). WWF: Rapid assessment and prioritization of protected area management (RAPPAM) methodology . WWF International Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN (FAO) (n.d) India at a glance. Retrieved June 3rd, , from https://www.fao.org/india/fao-in-india/india-at-a-glance/en/

Evans, L. A., & Adams, W. M. (2018). Elephants as actors in the political ecology of human–elephant conflict. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 43 (4), 630–645.

Felson, M. (1994). Crime and everyday life: Insights and implications for society . Pine Forge Press.

Felson, M., & Clarke, R. (2010). Routine precautions, criminology and crime prevention. In H. Barlow & S. Decker (Eds.), Crime and Public Policy: Putting Theory to Work (pp. 106–120). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Felson, M., & Clarke, R. V. G. (1999). Opportunity makes the thief: Practical theory for crime prevention . Home Office Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

Fernando, P., De Silva, M. C. R., Jayasinghe, L. K. A., Janaka, H. K., & Pastorini, J. (2021). First country-wide survey of the Endangered Asian elephant: Towards better conservation and management in Sri Lanka. Oryx, 55 (1), 46–55.

Fernando, P., Leimgruber, P., Prasad, T., & Pastorini, J. (2012). Problem-elephant translocation: Translocating the problem and the elephant? PLoS ONE, 7 (12), e50917.

Forest Survey of India. (2017). Forest survey of India. https://fsi.nic.in/isfr2017/tamilnadu-isfr-2017.pdf

Friedman, V. J., & Rogers, T. (2009). There is nothing so theoretical as good action research. Action Research, 7 (1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750308099596

Fritz, H. (2017). Long-term field studies of elephants: Understanding the ecology and conservation of a long-lived ecosystem engineer. Journal of Mammalogy, 98 (3), 603–611.

Gandiwa, E., Heitkönig, I. M., Lokhorst, A. M., Prins, H. H., & Leeuwis, C. (2013). CAMPFIRE and human–wildlife conflicts in local communities bordering northern Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe. Ecology and Society, 18 (4), 78–92.

Ganesh, S. (2019). Human elephant conflict kills 1713 people, 373 pachyderms in 3 years . https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/human-elephant-conflict-kills-1713-people-373-pachyderms-in-3-years/article26225515.ece

Ghosh-Harihar, M., An, R., Athreya, R., Borthakur, U., Chanchani, P., Chetry, D., Datta, A., Harihar, A., Karanth, K. K., Mariyam, D., Mohan, D., Onial, M., Ramakrishnan, U., Robin, V. V., Saxena, A., Shahabuddin, G., Thatte, P., Vijay, V., Wacker, K., … Price, T. D. (2019). Protected areas and biodiversity conservation in India. Biological Conservation, 237 , 114–124.

Given, L. M. (Ed.). (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods . Sage publications.

Gross, E. M., Drouet-Hoguet, N., Subedi, N., & Gross, J. (2017). The potential of medicinal and aromatic plants (MAPs) to reduce crop damages by Asian Elephants ( Elephas maximus ). Crop Protection , 100 , 29–37.

Gross, E. M., Lahkar, B. P., Subedi, N., Nyirenda, V. R., Klebelsberg, E., & Jakoby, O. (2021). Elephants in the village: Causes and consequences of property damage in Asia and Africa. Conservation Science and Practice, 3 (2), e343.

Gubbi, S. (2012). Patterns and correlates of human–elephant conflict around a south Indian reserve. Biological Conservation, 148 (1), 88–95.

Gubbi, S., Swaminath, M. H., Poornesha, H. C., Bhat, R., & Raghunath, R. (2014). An elephantine challenge: Human–elephant conflict distribution in the largest Asian elephant population, southern India. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23 (3), 633–647.

Gulati, S., Karanth, K. K., Le, N. A., & Noack, F. (2021). Human casualties are the dominant cost of human–wildlife conflict in India. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 118 (8), e1921338118.

Gunawansa, T. D., Perera, K., Apan, A., & Hettiarachchi, N. K. (2023). The human–elephant conflict in Sri Lanka: History and present status. Biodiversity and Conservation, 32 (10), 3025–3052.

Hahn, N., Mwakatobe, A., Konuche, J., de Souza, N., Keyyu, J., Goss, M., Chang’a, A., Palminteri, S., Dinerstein, E., & Olson, D. (2017). Unmanned aerial vehicles mitigate human–elephant conflict on the borders of Tanzanian Parks: A case study. Oryx, 51 (3), 513–516.

Hedges, S., & Gunaryadi, D. (2010). Reducing human–elephant conflict: Do chilies help deter elephants from entering crop fields? Oryx, 44 (1), 139–146.

Hedges, S., Johnson, A., Ahlering, M., Tyson, M., & Eggert, L. S. (2013). Accuracy, precision, and cost-effectiveness of conventional dung density and fecal DNA-based survey methods to estimate Asian elephant ( Elephas maximus ) population size and structure. Biological Conservation, 159 , 101–108.

Hoare, R. (2015). Lessons from 20 years of human–elephant conflict mitigation in Africa. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 20 (4), 289–295.

Hoffmann, S., Pohl, C., & Hering, J. G. (2017). Methods and procedures of transdisciplinary knowledge integration: Empirical insights from four thematic synthesis processes. Ecology and Society, 22 (1), 27.

Juran, J. M. (2004). Architect of quality: The autobiography of Dr. Joseph M. Juran . McGraw-Hill.

Kahler, J. S. (2018). The situational prevention of wildlife poaching in Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park, Sumatra . Michigan State University.

Kahler, J. S., Reynald, D. M., & Gore, M. L. (2023). “I let it go:” Quantifying residential guardianship intentions when witnessing wildlife poaching. Biological Conservation, 277 , 109829.

Karanth, K. K., Gopalaswamy, A. M., DeFries, R., & Ballal, N. (2012). Assessing patterns of human–wildlife conflicts and compensation around a central Indian protected area. PLoS ONE, 7 (12), e50433.

Karanth, K. K., Gupta, S., & Vanamamalai, A. (2018). Compensation, payments, procedures and policies towards human–wildlife conflict management: Insights from India. Biological Conservation, 227 , 383–389.

Karidozo, M., & Osborn, F. V. (2015). Community-based conflict mitigation trials: Results of field tests of chilli as an elephant deterrent. Journal of Biodiversity & Endangered Species, 3 (1), 44. https://doi.org/10.4172/2332-2543.1000144

Kioko, J., Muruthi, P., Omondi, P., & Chiyo, P. I. (2008). The performance of electric fences as elephant barriers in Amboseli, Kenya. South African Journal of Wildlife Research-24-Month Delayed Open Access, 38 (1), 52–58.

König, H. J., Kiffner, C., Kramer-Schadt, S., Fürst, C., Keuling, O., & Ford, A. T. (2020). Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world. Conservation Biology, 34 (4), 786–794.

Kumar, S., Bhatt, B. P., Dey, A., Shivani Kumar, U., Idris, M., Mishra, J. S., & Kumar, S. (2018). Integrated farming system in India: Current status, scope and future prospects in changing agricultural scenario. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 88 (11), 13–27.

Kurland, J. (2019). Wildlife trafficking: the problem, patterns and promising path towards prevention. In M. Natarajan (Ed.), International and transnational crime and justice. Cambridge University Press.

Kurland, J., & Pires, S. F. (2017). Assessing US wildlife trafficking patterns: How criminology and conservation science can guide strategies to reduce the illegal wildlife trade. Deviant Behavior, 38 (4), 375–391.

La Grange, M., Matema, C., Nyamukure, B., & Hoare, R. (2022). The virtual fence dynamic: A breakthrough for low-cost and sustainable mitigation of human–elephant conflict in subsistence agriculture. Frontiers in Conservation Science, 3 , 863180.

Lemieux, A. M. (2014a). Situational prevention of poaching . Routledge.

Lemieux, A. M. (Ed.). (2014b). Situational prevention of poaching . Routledge.

Lemieux, A. M., Pickles, R. S. A., & Weekers, D. (2022). Problem analysis for wildlife protection in 55 steps . Arizona State University.

Lenin, J., & Sukumar, R. (2008). Action plan for the mitigation of elephant–human conflict in India. Transformation, 10 , 35.

Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2 (4), 34–46.

Luo, L., Wang, X., Guo, H., Zhu, L., Ma, Y., Yang, R., Wang, S., Wang, G., Wang, M., Shao, J., & Liu, C. (2022). Eighteen years (2001–2018) of forest habitat loss across the Asian elephant’s range and its drivers. Science Bulletin, 67 , 1513–1516.

Lynch, M. J., & Pires, S. F. (Eds.). (2019). Quantitative studies in green and conservation criminology: The measurement of environmental harm and crime . Routledge.

Lynch, M. J., Stretesky, P. B., & Long, M. A. (2018). Situational crime prevention and the ecological regulation of green crime: A review and discussion. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 679 (1), 178–196.

Mayberry, A. L., Hovorka, A. J., & Evans, K. E. (2017). Well-being impacts of human–elephant conflict in Khumaga, Botswana: Exploring visible and hidden dimensions. Conservation and Society, 15 (3), 280–291.

McNall, M., & Foster-Fishman, P. G. (2007). Methods of rapid evaluation, assessment, and appraisal. American Journal of Evaluation, 28 (2), 151–168.

Menon, V., & Tiwari, S. K. (2019). Population status of Asian elephants Elephas maximus and key threats. International Zoo Yearbook, 53 (1), 17–30.

Moreto, W. D., & Pires, S. F. (2018). Wildlife crime: An environmental criminology and crime science perspective . Carolina Academic Press.

Mumby, H. S., & Plotnik, J. M. (2018). Taking the elephants’ perspective: Remembering elephant behavior, cognition and ecology in human–elephant conflict mitigation. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 6 , 122.

Natarajan, M. (2016). Crime in developing countries: The contribution of crime science. Crime Science, 5 , 1–5.

Natarajan, M. (Ed.). (2017). Crime opportunity theories: Routine activity, rational choice and their variants . Routledge.

Ndolamb, N. (1991). Rapid assessment procedures: Rapid assessment methodologies: A conference summary. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 13 (1), 1–4.

Neupane, B., Budhathoki, S., & Khatiwoda, B. (2018). Human–elephant conflict and mitigation measures in Jhapa District, Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 16 (1), 103–112.

Neupane, D., Johnson, R. L., & Risch, T. S. (2017). How do land-use practices affect human–elephant conflict in Nepal? Wildlife Biology, 2017 (1), 1–9.

Ntukey, L. T., Munishi, L. K., Kohi, E., & Treydte, A. C. (2022). Land use/cover change reduces elephant habitat suitability in the Wami Mbiki–Saadani wildlife corridor, Tanzania. Land, 11 (2), 307.

Nyumba, T. O., Emenye, O. E., & Leader-Williams, N. (2020). Assessing impacts of human–elephant conflict on human wellbeing: An empirical analysis of communities living with elephants around Maasai Mara National Reserve in Kenya. PLoS ONE, 15 (9), e0239545.

Oliveira, E., Natarajan, M., & da Silva, B. (2023). Bus robberies in belo horizonte, Brazil: solutions for safe travel. Crime & Delinquency , 69 (11), 2359–2383.

Padalia, H., Ghosh, S., Reddy, C. S., Nandy, S., Singh, S., & Kumar, A. S. (2019). Assessment of historical forest cover loss and fragmentation in Asian elephant ranges in India. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 191 , 1–13.

Parker, S. S., Pauly, G. B., Moore, J., Fraga, N. S., Knapp, J. J., Principe, Z., Brown, V. B., Randall, M. J., Cohen, S. B., & Wake, T. A. (2018). Adapting the bioblitz to meet conservation needs. Conservation Biology, 32 (5), 1007–1019.

Pires, S., & Clarke, R. V. (2012). Are parrots CRAVED? An analysis of parrot poaching in Mexico. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 49 (1), 122–146.

Pohl, C. (2011). What is progress in transdisciplinary research? Futures, 43 (6), 618–626.

Ponnusamy, V., Chackrapani, P., Lim, T. W., Saaban, S., & Campos-Arceiz, A. (2016). Farmers’ perceptions and attitudes towards government-constructed electric fences in Peninsular Malaysia. Gajah, 45 , 4–11.

Pozo, R. A., Coulson, T., McCulloch, G., Stronza, A., & Songhurst, A. (2019). Chilli briquettes modify the temporal behaviour of elephants but not their numbers. Oryx, 53 (1), 100–108.

Prakash, T. G. S. L., Indrajith, W. A. A. D. U., Aththanayaka, A. M. C. P., Karunarathna, S., Botejue, M., Nijman, V., & Henkanaththegedara, S. (2020b). Illegal capture and internal trade of wild Asian Elephants ( Elephas maximus ) in Sri Lanka. Nature Conservation, 42 , 51–69.

Prakash, T. G. S. L., Wijeratne, A. W., & Fernando, P. (2020a). Human–elephant conflict in Sri Lanka: Patterns and extent. Gajah, 51 , 16–25.

Project Elephant India. (2017). Synchronized elephant population estimation, India 2017 . Project Elephant Division, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India.

Ramkumar, K., Ramakrishnan, B., & Saravanamuthu, R. (2014). Crop damage by Asian elephants Elephas maximus and effectiveness of mitigating measures in Coimbatore Forest Division, South India. International Research Journal of Biological Sciences, 3 (8), 1–11.

Rathnayake, C. W., Jones, S., Soto-Berelov, M., & Wallace, L. (2022). Human–elephant conflict and land cover change in Sri Lanka. Applied Geography, 143 , 102685.

Sampson, C., Leimgruber, P., Rodriguez, S., McEvoy, J., Sotherden, E., & Tonkyn, D. (2019). Perception of human–elephant conflict and conservation attitudes of affected communities in Myanmar. Tropical Conservation Science, 12 , 1940082919831242.

Schaffer-Smith, D., Swenson, J. J., & Boveda-Penalba, A. J. (2016). Rapid conservation assessment for endangered species using habitat connectivity models. Environmental Conservation, 43 (3), 221–230.

Shaffer, L. J., Khadka, K. K., Van Den Hoek, J., & Naithani, K. J. (2019). Human–elephant conflict: A review of current management strategies and future directions. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 6 , 235.

Sharma, B. P. (2016). Present position of agriculture in India. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 5 (4), 240–243.

Stimson, G. V., Fitch, C., Rhodes, T., & Ball, A. (1999). Rapid assessment and response: Methods for developing public health responses to drug problems. Drug and Alcohol Review, 18 (3), 317–325.

Strange, N., zuErmgassen, S., Marshall, E., Bull, J. W., & Jacobsen, J. B. (2024). Why it matters how biodiversity is measured in environmental valuation studies compared to conservation science. Biological Conservation, 292 , 110546.

Sukumar, R., Varma, S., Tiwari, S. K., & Menon, V. (2016). Sustainable landscapes and corridors to conserve Asian elephants in India. In A. Aguirre & R. Sukumar (Eds.), Tropical conservation: Perspectives on local and global priorities (pp. 29–39). Oxford University Press.

Thakur, A. K., Yadav, D. K., & Jhariya, M. K. (2016). Socio-economic status of human–elephant conflict: Its assessment and solutions. Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 8 (4), 2104–2110.

Thant, Z. M., May, R., & Røskaft, E. (2021). Pattern and distribution of human–elephant conflicts in three conflict-prone landscapes in Myanmar. Global Ecology and Conservation, 25 , e01411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01411

Tiller, L. N., Humle, T., Amin, R., Deere, N. J., Lago, B. O., Leader-Williams, N., et al. (2021). Changing seasonal, temporal and spatial crop-raiding trends over 15 years in a human-elephant conflict hotspot. Biol Conserv , 254 , 108941.

Tripathy, B. R., Liu, X., Songer, M., Zahoor, B., Wickramasinghe, W. M. S., & Mahanta, K. K. (2021). Analysis of landscape connectivity among the habitats of Asian elephants in Keonjhar Forest Division, India. Remote Sensing, 13 (22), 4661.

Tsegaye, A., Bekele, A., & Atikem, A. (2023). Local’s attitude towards African elephant conservation in and around Chebra Churchura National Park. Ethiopia. Plos One, 18 (10), e0292641.

Venkataramana, G. V., Sreenivasa, & Lingaraju, H. G. (2017). An assessment of crop damage and economic loss caused by elephants in Harohalli and Kodihalli ranges of Bannerghatta National Park, Karnataka, India. Current Science, 113 , 161–167.

Vibha, G., Lingaraju, H. G., & Venktaramana, G. V. (2021). Effectiveness of solar fence in reducing human–elephant conflicts in Manchahalli village, Mysuru, Karnataka, India. Current Science, 120 (4), 707–711.

Viollaz, J., Rizzolo, J. B., Long, B., Trung, C. T., Kempinski, J., Rawson, B. M., Reynald, D., Quang, H. X., Hien, N. N., Dung, C. T., & Huyen, H. T. (2022). Potential for informal guardianship in community-based wildlife crime prevention: Insights from Vietnam. Nature Conservation, 48 , 123–147.

Virtanen, P., Macandza, V., Goba, P., Mourinho, J., Roque, D., Mamugy, F., & Langa, B. (2021). Assessing tolerance for wildlife: Human–elephant conflict in Chimanimani, Mozambique. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 26 (5), 411–428.

Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology, 53 (2), 133–157.

Wilson, L., & Boratto, R. (2020). Conservation, wildlife crime, and tough-on-crime policies: Lessons from the criminological literature. Biological Conservation, 251 , 108810.

Wilson, L., & Clarke, R. V. G. (2019). Poaching of terrestrial wild animals and plants. In M. Natarajan (Ed.), International and transnational crime and justice. Cambridge University Press.

World Wildlife Fund. https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/elephant

Yurike, Y., Yonariza, Y., & Febriamansyah, R. (2021). Patterns of forest encroachment behavior based on characteristics of immigrants and local communities. International Journal of Engineering, Science and Information Technology, 1 (4), 84–89.

Zeppelzauer, M., Hensman, S., & Stoeger, A. S. (2015). Towards an automated acoustic detection system for free-ranging elephants. Bioacoustics, 24 (1), 13–29.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Partial support for local travel to study areas was funded by Rutgers, the State University of New Jeresy’s Center for Conservation Crime Science. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the view of Rutgers University or John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York (the authors’ institution), or the Tamil Nadu Forestry Department, India. The author obtained institutional IRB approval and permission for the Tamil Nadu Forest Department to undertake the research. Thanks to Dr. A. J. T. Johnsingh, a conservation specialist, who provided an enormous amount of guidance in conceptualization, undertaking, and accompanying the fieldwork especially the landscape of elephants, and in commenting on the draft of the report. Sincere thanks to Dr. K. Radhakrishnan IPS (Former DGP Civil Supplies) for facilitating the project; without his support, it would have been impossible to do the study in such a short time. Undertaking the project would not have been possible without the assistance of Mr. Soundarajan, DFO Retd. Thanks to Mr. Boominathan Durairaj (WWF-India), Mr. Kalidasan, Mr. Arunachalam Tamilmarai, Mr. T, Samuel (OSAI—Environmental Organization in Coimbatore ) for providing me with a wealth of information including the maps that depict the HEC in Tamil Nadu. Thanks to the villagers, the forest department staff and the anti-poaching staff, the district collectors who participated in the focus group discussions and interviews, and Mr. Rajaram and Mrs. Viji Rajaram (Sethumadai, Coimbatore) for facilitating meetings with Adidravidas who live in the Anamalai foothills. Finally, I am grateful to Professor Ronald V. Clarke of Rutgers University for much helpful advice, commenting on an earlier manuscript version. This research was initiated as part of his Conservation Crime Science Research Initiative.

The open-access publication fees for this research were funded by John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Office of Advancement of Research.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Criminal Justice, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York, Haaren Hall, Room # 63205, 524 West 59 Street, New York, NY, 10019, USA

Mangai Natarajan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

I am the sole author of the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mangai Natarajan .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Natarajan, M. Rapid assessment of human–elephant conflict: a crime science approach. Crime Sci 13 , 24 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-024-00223-9

Download citation

Received : 30 December 2023

Accepted : 02 August 2024

Published : 03 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-024-00223-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Interdisciplinary
• Crime science
• Human elephant conflict
• Rapid assessment
• Action research
• Situation-specific measures

Crime Science

ISSN: 2193-7680

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Human-Animal Conflicts

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Bear conservation Follow Following
• Pastoralism (Social Anthropology) Follow Following
• Actor-Network-Theory Follow Following
• Human-Animal Relations Follow Following
• Human-wildlife conflicts Follow Following
• Anthropological zoosemiotics Follow Following
• The archaeology and ethnography of human-animal social relationships Follow Following
• Sustainable Human-Environmental Systems Follow Following
• Phenomenology of Nature Follow Following
• Peircean phenomenology Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Journals
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Data, analysis, convening and action.

The world’s largest and most diverse environmental network.

• IUCN WORLD CONSERVATION CONGRESS
• REGIONAL CONSERVATION FORA
• CONTRIBUTIONS FOR NATURE
• IUCN ENGAGE (LOGIN REQUIRED)

IUCN tools, publications and other resources.

• News & Events
• Eastern and Southern Africa
• Eastern Europe and Central Asia
• Mediterranean
• Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean
• North America
• South America
• West and Central Africa
• IUCN Academy
• IUCN Contributions for Nature
• IUCN Library
• IUCN Red List of Threatened Species TM
• IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas
• IUCN World Heritage Outlook
• IUCN Leaders Forum
• Protected Planet
• Union Portal (login required)
• IUCN Engage (login required)
• Commission portal (login required)

Get Involved

Human-wildlife conflict

• Wildlife can threaten people’s safety and livelihoods, which can lead to conflicts between groups of people over how to resolve the situation; experts call this ‘human-wildlife conflict’.
• Human-wildlife conflicts are becoming more frequent, serious and widespread as human populations grow and habitats are lost.
• Effectively managing human-wildlife conflicts protects communities, stops conflicts escalating, builds trust in conservation and avoids retaliation against wildlife.
• Human-wildlife conflicts have unique ecological, cultural, social, historical, physical, economic and political characteristics which strategies to manage conflicts must consider.

What is the issue?

Wildlife can pose a direct threat to the safety, livelihoods and wellbeing of people . For example, when elephants forage on crops, seals damage fishing nets or jaguars kill livestock, people can lose their livelihoods. Retaliation against the species blamed often ensues.

The term human-wildlife conflict has traditionally been applied only to these negative interactions between people and wildlife, but this implies deliberate action by wildlife species and ignores the conflicts between groups of people about what should be done to resolve the situation.

The IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Human-Wildlife Conflict & Coexistence Specialist Group defines human-wildlife conflict as:  struggles that emerge when the presence or behaviour of wildlife poses an actual or perceived, direct and recurring threat to human interests or needs, leading to disagreements between groups of people and negative impacts on people and/or wildlife.

Human-wildlife conflicts are becoming more frequent, serious and widespread because of human population growth, agricultural expansion, infrastructure development, climate change and other drivers of habitat loss. Human-wildlife conflicts can occur wherever wildlife and human populations overlap, so any factor that forces wildlife and people into closer contact makes conflicts more likely.

Much work to date has focussed on interventions to reduce impacts on people and retaliation against wildlife such as creating barriers, deploying deterrents or moving wildlife. In the absence of consultative, collaborative processes with stakeholders, these measures often have limited success.

Why is this important?

Healthy ecosystems and the vital services they provide to people depend on wildlife. Managing human-wildlife conflicts is therefore crucial to achieve the UN Vision for Biodiversity 2050 in which ‘humanity lives in harmony with nature and in which wildlife and other living species are protected’.

Human-wildlife conflicts have severe implications for communities’ livelihoods, safety and wellbeing, and risk undermining conservation efforts by eroding support for protected areas, wildlife and biodiversity.

Retaliation against wildlife can pose a serious threat to a species’ survival, and reverse previous conservation progress.

For example, wolves, bears and other large carnivores are recovering across Europe, leading to tensions over how to manage their presence, which is welcomed by some and perceived as a risk to safety and livelihoods by others.

What can be done?

Human-wildlife conflict is recognised as a global concern in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s post-2020 global biodiversity framework

(to be adopted by Parties at CBD COP15 Part Two). Related to this, many governments are beginning to include the management of human-wildlife conflict in national policies and strategies to ensure resources are made available to manage them.

There are numerous approaches and measures that can be taken to reduce the damage or impacts, de-escalate tensions, address risks to income and poverty, and develop sustainable solutions.

These sometimes include barriers (fences, nets, trenches), guarding and early-warning systems, deterrents and repellents (sirens, lights, beehives), translocation (moving wildlife), compensation or insurance, providing risk-reducing alternatives, as well as managing tensions between stakeholders involved in these situations.

Effective planning and implementation of such measures requires consideration of good principles in community led-conservation , in collaboration with the communities affected .

Research has shown that conflicts are complex and each situation has unique ecological, cultural, social, historical, physical, economic and political characteristics .

Although it is tempting to transfer approaches for damage reduction (e.g. fences, barriers) that appear helpful in one area directly to another, these only succeed if achieved through consultative, collaborative processes with stakeholders.

There can be pressure for ‘quick fixes’ to human-wildlife conflicts, but actions that do not consider the wider social and local contexts can lead to unintended consequences and increase tensions.

These can escalate into deeper divisions in which stakeholders perceive the conflict over wildlife to threaten their values or identity. Such situations become extremely difficult to resolve. In tensions over wolves in parts of North America for example, the relationship between stakeholders has deteriorated to deeply polarised conflict. In such cases, professional mediation and reconciliation processes (as used in peacebuilding) are needed.

Efforts to assess and manage complex human-wildlife conflicts require collaboration across disciplines and sectors . For example, collaborations could involve conservation practitioners, community leaders, governments, researchers, businesses and other stakeholders; and need expertise in ecology, social psychology, economics, peacebuilding and environmental law.

More information:

IUCN SSC Human-Wildlife Conflict & Coexistence Specialist Group: hwctf.org  

• hwctf.org/document-library - resource library
• hwctf.org/policies - briefing papers
• hwctf.org/guidelines - guidance

IUCN Resolution WCC-2020-Res-101 Addressing human-wildlife conflict: fostering a safe and beneficial coexistence of people and wildlife iucncongress2020.org/motion/117

Building River Dialogue and Governance (BRIDGE) has been running since 2011 with the goal to secure…

This is Legal Brief 4: IUCN WCEL legal brief INC Intersessional Expert Group 2 Criteria…

This is Legal Brief 3: IUCN WCEL legal brief for the INC Intersessional Expert Group 2…

• Social Psychology
• Conflict (Psychology)

ANALYSIS OF HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

• This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

• Juno Terra Technology Private Limited

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Joao Pedro Barreiros

• Amandeep Kaur
• Anshika Mendiratta
• Anjali Mishra

• Ankita Grover

• Simon Thirgood

• BIOL CONSERV

• Asha Bhardwaj
• Jean-Louis Auguste
• Jean-Marc Blondy
• Frederic Gérôme
• Ms Jyoti Gaurav Gulhane
• Chetana Makade
• Dr Dasgupta
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

IEEE Account

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.