An approach for reducing human-wildlife conflicts
A new participatory approach could help managers identify and prioritize actions to reduce conflicts between humans and carniverous wildlife.
Researchers tested the methodology on the human-tiger conflict in the Sundarbans of Bangledash and published their results in the journal Conservation Biology.
As the largest intact mangrove forest in the world, the Sundarbans provide important habitat for the endangered tiger. Of the roughly 2100 Bengal tigers remaining in the wild, approximately 500 are found in the region.
Tiger attacks on humans are very common in the Sunbardans - the study estimated that without any action taken, 240 people will be kiled by tigers in the region over the next 8 years.
According to the study, "When a tiger is detected in a village, it is generally surrounded and bludgeoned to death by hundreds of local people armed with sticks and farm tools."
To reduce the number of killings of humans and tigers, Adam Barlow and fellow researchers developed and tested an action-selection framework.
The method, however, is probably applicable to any human-carnivore conflict. The framework includes the follow 4 steps:
1) Set objectives - Define in terms of human, livestock, and carnivore lives saved over a given time period.
2) Build the conflict profile - Include overview of conflict description with specific information on scale, temporal, spatial, and social characteristics. Note any information relating to causality of the conflict.
3) Identify actions - List all possible mitigating actions. Consult with local stakeholders to ensure potential actions are practical and socially acceptable.
4) Prioritize actions - Rank actions based on estimated number of human, carnivore, and livestock lives saved and cost-effectiveness.
The researchers implemented the framework with a team made up of staff from the Bangledash Forest Department and a conservation NGO, as well as local community members.
In conducting the steps, the team relied on information from meetings with local communities, past research, and experiences, and the expertise of team members.
The team ultimately selected two management actions:
1) The development of a rapid response teams made of Forest Department staff to patrol and warn villages of high-danger areas and respond to attacks; and
2) Collaring and monitoring of individual tigers after they killed two people.
The authors predicted that over the next 8 years, this approach would lead to a reduction in human deaths from 240 to 80 and a reduction in tiger deaths from 24 to 0.
The researchers warn that the outcomes from the framework could suffer from the biases of the team members and they give advice on how to avoid this potential problem.
Personally, I was surprised that the team did not select an action of putting down tigers that killed 2 people given that most tiger attacks come from repeat offenders.
Nevertheless, the framework developed and tested in this study seems like a valuable approach towards reducing human-wildlife conflicts in high-priority conservation areas.
--by Rob Goldstein
BARLOW, A., GREENWOOD, C., AHMAD, I., & SMITH, J. (2010). Use of an Action-Selection Framework for Human-Carnivore Conflict in the Bangladesh Sundarbans Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01496.x
Reader Comments