Research Article: Karanth KK, Gopalaswamy AM, DeFries R, Ballal N (2012) Assessing Patterns of Human-Wildlife Conflicts and Compensation around a Central Indian Protected Area. PLoS ONE 7(12): e50433. 

Blog Author: Nitya Satheesh

Key Highlights

  • Kanha Tiger Reserve, spanning an area of 940 km², is home to diverse wildlife including tigers, leopards, wild dogs, sambar, chital, barasingha, and gaur.
  • In 2011 73% of households near Kanha Tiger Reserve reported significant crop damage due to wildlife and 33% reported livestock predation. 
  • The authors found that only 26% of households that were affected by crop loss reported losses to authorities and of the 33 % that reported livestock predation only 34% reported losses to authorities. 
  • Physical barriers have proven successful in deterring livestock predation, highlighting a practical solution for communities living near the park.
  • The study emphasizes the importance of evolving management strategies that address both spatial and temporal variations in human-wildlife conflict.

Reducing conflict between wildlife and humans is a key conservation priority, especially in areas where both occur in close proximity. While it seems like human-wildlife conflict incidents are increasing, there is not enough data to determine whether this is due to an actual increase in incidents, or better reporting by affected communities. India’s protected areas (PAs) are home to a wide variety of wildlife. Species like nilgai (blue bull), chinkara (Indian gazelle), and blackbuck are generally accepted, while others, such as wild pigs and elephants, are often seen as a threat by communities living around PAs. Crop loss is the most frequent type of conflict, far more common than livestock loss or human injury. Since local residents often bear the brunt of these losses, it is important to understand the factors contributing to conflict for efficient allocation and management of conservation resources. 

In this study,  scientists focused on understanding how communities living near the park experience conflict with wildlife, particularly in terms of crop damage and livestock predation. They aimed to understand patterns and factors that influence both the occurrence of conflict and the compensation process. The study was conducted around Kanha Tiger Reserve which spans an area of 940 square km and is one of India’s most well-known Tiger Reserves. The vegetation in and around Kanha Tiger Reserve is a rich blend of sal trees, mixed deciduous forests, and grasslands. This diverse habitat supports a variety of wildlife, including carnivores like the tiger, leopard, and wild dog, as well as herbivores such as sambar, chital (spotted deer), barasingha (swamp deer), and gaur. It is one of the few parks in India that has an officially designated administrative buffer zone in which activities such as grazing, and forest resource collection are permitted. A total of 735 structured and open-ended surveys were conducted in October 2011 in 347 villages in the buffer zone around the Park. Respondents were asked questions about recent conflict experiences and compensation received. In addition to this, the authors also collected official year-wise summary records of total compensation paid out to individual households. 

The study found that local households face significant challenges from wildlife-related crop raiding and livestock predation. The results indicate that crop losses were highly prevalent, with 73% of surveyed households affected, particularly those closer to the reserve and those engaged in longer cropping seasons. Surprisingly, while households implemented multiple mitigation measures, none effectively reduced crop loss, highlighting the complex nature of these conflicts. Livestock predation was less frequent than crop loss and was common among households grazing cattle near or within the reserve. However, the use of physical structures to protect livestock proved to be a successful deterrent.  The authors found that only 26% of households that were affected by crop loss reported losses to authorities and of the 33 % that reported livestock predation only 34% reported losses to authorities. The study states that over the past decade, many households have shifted toward stall-feeding livestock rather than free-range grazing, possibly indicating an evolving response to wildlife conflicts, though this trend could also reflect the limitations of recalling past practices. With regard to compensation, the study states that This nuanced understanding of human-wildlife conflict underscores the importance of adaptive management strategies that consider both spatial and temporal variations in conflict patterns.

To read the original article, click here.