Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA,
Environ Manage. 2013 Dec;52(6):1320-32. doi: 10.1007/s00267-013-0162-1. Epub 2013 Sep 13.
Crop and livestock losses to wildlife are a concern for people neighboring many protected areas (PAs) and can generate opposition to conservation. Examining patterns of conflict and associated tolerance is important to devise policies to reduce conflict impacts on people and wildlife. We surveyed 398 households from 178 villages within 10 km of Ranthambore, Kanha, and Nagarahole parks in India. We compared different attitudes toward wildlife, and presented hypothetical response scenarios, including killing the problem animal(s). Eighty percent of households reported crop losses to wildlife and 13 % livestock losses. Higher crop loss was associated with more cropping months per year, greater crop variety, and more harvest seasons per year but did not vary with proximity to the PA, suggesting that PAs are not necessarily "sources" for crop raiders. By contrast, complaints of "depredating carnivores" were associated with people-grazing animals and collecting resources from PAs. Many households (83 %) engaged in mitigation efforts. We found that only fencing and guard animals reduce crop losses, and no efforts to lower livestock losses. Contrary to our expectations, carnivores were not viewed with more hostility than crop-raiding wildlife. Households reported greater inclination to kill herbivores destroying crops or carnivores harming people, but not carnivores preying on livestock.Our model estimated probability of [corrected] crop loss was 82 % across surveyed households (highest in Kanha),while the livestock loss experienced was 27 % (highest in Ranthambore). Our comparative study provides insights into factors associated with conflict loss and tolerance, and aids in improving ongoing conservation and compensation efforts.
农作物和牲畜损失是许多保护区周边人们关注的问题，可能会引发对保护的反对。研究冲突的模式和相关的容忍度对于制定减少冲突对人和野生动物影响的政策非常重要。我们调查了印度兰塔伯勒、坎哈和纳加尔霍勒公园 10 公里范围内的 178 个村庄的 398 户家庭。我们比较了对野生动物的不同态度，并提出了假设的应对情景，包括杀死有问题的动物。80%的家庭报告说野生动物造成了农作物损失，13%的家庭报告说牲畜损失。较高的作物损失与每年种植的月份更多、作物品种更多和每年收获的季节更多有关，但与靠近保护区无关，这表明保护区不一定是作物掠夺者的“来源”。相比之下，对“掠夺性食肉动物”的抱怨与人们放牧动物和从保护区采集资源有关。许多家庭（83%）采取了缓解措施。我们发现，只有围栏和守护动物可以减少农作物损失，而没有降低牲畜损失的措施。与我们的预期相反，与掠夺作物的野生动物相比，肉食动物并没有受到更多的敌意。家庭报告说，更倾向于杀死破坏庄稼的食草动物或伤害人类的食肉动物，但不会杀死捕食牲畜的食肉动物。我们的模型估计，在被调查的家庭中，农作物损失的概率为 82%（坎哈最高），而实际经历的牲畜损失为 27%（兰塔伯勒最高）。我们的比较研究提供了与冲突损失和容忍度相关的因素的见解，并有助于改善正在进行的保护和补偿工作。
