Research Article: Karanth, K.K., Jain, S., & Weinthal, E. (2017) Human-wildlife interactions and attitudes towards wildlife and wildlife reserves in Rajasthan, India. Oryx. 1-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001028

Blog Author: Shruti Namboodiri

Key Highlights:

  • India has a network of protected areas with its unique wildlife and a high-density human population living around these who depend on agriculture and livestock rearing.
  • Here, human-wildlife conflicts are frequent, with losses for both, making it important to understand the nature of our relationship with wildlife
  • In 2014, a team of researchers led by the Centre for Wildlife Studies led a study in four understudied wildlife sanctuaries in Rajasthan: Jaisamand, Kumbhalgarh, Phulwari, and Sitamata, to understand the human-wildlife interactions here. 
  • The team visited villages around these sanctuaries to understand their attitude towards wildlife, protecting wildlife reserves, any negative interactions, losses they had due to wildlife in recent years, and mitigation measures used.
  • They found out that despite crop and livestock losses faced, 85% of people still believed in protecting wild animals. To find out more, read ahead!

Across the globe and in India, people and wild animals live on shared lands. In these shared spaces, people grow food for needs, and crops to sell, and raise domestic animals. And on this same land, wild animals roam around foraging and hunting for food, disperse across a wide area. Shared spaces can, at times lead to problems for both people and animals which we today term as human-wildlife conflict. In a country like India, which has its unique wildlife that needs to be protected, and where most people live in high densities and depend on agriculture and livestock rearing, human-wildlife conflict leads to frequent losses for both. This makes it important to understand the nature of our relationship with wildlife and how to prevent losses for the benefit of us and our wildlife.

A team led by Dr. Krithi Karanth from the Centre for Wildlife Studies, visited the state of Rajasthan from January to March 2014 to understand people’s attitude towards wildlife and wildlife reserves, the type of human-wildlife interactions here, history of crop damage and livestock predation, and mitigation measures used in the landscape. The team focused on four understudied wildlife sanctuaries: Jaisamand, Kumbhalgarh, Phulwari, and Sitamata. These dry forest sanctuaries are home to wolves, leopards, sloth bears, hyaenas, sambar deer, spotted deer, nilgai, and four-horned antelopes. People living around these sanctuaries depend on agriculture and livestock rearing. The team went to 1,096 villages around these sanctuaries and talked to 2,233 households, using questionnaire surveys, about the kind of interactions they have had with wildlife. They obtained a suite of information including demographic factors, livelihood practices, use of mitigation measures, access to compensation, and geographic details of each household.

Of all the people they spoke to, 77.5 % of households had had negative interactions with wildlife. These interactions include crop loss, livestock loss, and human injury. Despite crop and livestock losses faced, 85% of people believed in protecting wild animals, and 73% of people said they would value wildlife more if wildlife didn’t cause negative interaction and any loss to them. Households around Sitamata were more supportive of wildlife than the other reserves under the study. The majority of households (76 %), experienced crop loss – with Jaisamand being the highest (83 %). The majority of the damage was reportedly caused by Nilgai (75 %), jackals (28 %), and wild pigs (28 %). Crop losses were more likely if houses were at a higher elevation, and had more variety of crops. Households across the four reserves (89 %) reported experiencing livestock loss due to wild animal attacks; ranging from 83 % in Kumbhalgarh to 92 % in Phulwari. This was mainly caused by eight species, of which leopards, jackals, and wolves contributed to 56 %, 27 %, and 12 % of the incidents, respectively. Livestock losses were more likely if the houses were on higher grounds, had herds of 6-10 and over 20 livestock, and were closer to the sanctuaries where they go for grazing. Instances of human injury and death were few (0.3-0.6 %) across all the reserves. 

Nearly half of the households had lost 26-50 % of their crop in the past year with an average income loss of Rs 11,000.  Moreover, 89 % of the households reported experiencing more than 10 incidents of crop damage every year. People who faced livestock losses had an average income loss of Rs 4,600. In spite of this, the state of Rajasthan does not have a compensation scheme in place for crop damage. Moreover, 84 % of the households that experienced livestock loss or human injury and death, did not report it to obtain compensation.

Overall, people who had faced crop and livestock losses for 6-10 and over 10 years were the ones who were likely to take measures. A plethora of measures was employed for mitigating crop damage, mainly against wild pigs. This included nighttime watching, the use of lighting and scare devices, fencing, keeping guard animals, and removing bushes and forests. These steps were mostly used by households that were further from the sanctuaries, those who experienced a lot of crop damage over the years, and had family members with more education. Common mitigation measures against livestock losses included watching the livestock closely, and fencing. These measures against livestock predation were most likely to be used by households that had 16-20 livestock in a herd, who faced livestock loss for 1-5 and over 10 years. Unexpectedly, households with educated members were less likely to use mitigation measures against livestock predation.

While there were no reported retaliatory killings of wild animals here, continued cases of economic losses can jumpstart such incidents. The authors suggested an improvement in policies to avoid such scenarios. This was highlighted during the study by the lack of compensation policies for crop damage and the willingness of people (74 %) to cooperate with officials to try specific measures to combat conflict. Putting in place a compensation scheme for crop and property loss, like the majority of the Indian states, can ease the burden of losses for people and foster tolerance towards wildlife. And, in a place like Rajasthan where livestock grazes in high elevations and in wildlife reserves, encouraging people to stall-feed their livestock can reduce cases of predation. Locally relevant interventions which help people to apply for compensation, and sustain their livelihoods can promote tolerance toward wildlife in such shared spaces.

Keywords: Rajasthan, compensation, crop loss, human-wildlife interaction, India, livestock loss, tolerance

 

You can access the original article here.