Human-Wildlife Conflict: Causes, Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53573/rhimrj.2024.v11n11.002Keywords:
Human-wildlife conflict, conservation, mitigation strategies, human-elephant conflict, human-tiger conflictAbstract
Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) represents one of the most pressing socio-ecological challenges confronting contemporary India, where expanding human populations and recovering wildlife populations increasingly compete for shrinking landscapes. This article provides a comprehensive examination of the causes, consequences, and mitigation strategies for HWC in the Indian context. Drawing upon peer-reviewed research, government data, and empirical case studies published between 2020-2023, we analyze the multifaceted nature of this phenomenon. A systematic review reveals that most HWC-related research has been concentrated in Karnataka, followed by Kerala and West Bengal, with elephants identified as the highest conflict species, followed by wild pigs and leopards (Shameer et al., 2023). Key drivers include habitat fragmentation and loss, agricultural expansion, infrastructure development, and the expansion of wildlife populations into human-dominated landscapes. The consequences extend beyond immediate human casualties and economic losses to encompass psychological trauma, livelihood destabilization, retaliatory wildlife killings, and erosion of public support for conservation. Research from the Nilgiri Biosphere Reserve demonstrates that anthropogenic pressure reducing grass biomass and degrading habitat is the likely root cause of human-elephant conflict, and minimizing it would reduce overall conflict (Baskaran et al., 2023). We evaluate existing mitigation approaches including physical barriers, early warning systems, community-based initiatives, and compensation mechanisms. The analysis highlights the importance of interdisciplinary approaches and multiple stakeholder involvement for effective HWC management (Shameer et al., 2023). We argue that sustainable solutions require moving beyond reactive, species-centric interventions toward integrated landscape planning that addresses both ecological and social dimensions of conflict.
References
[1] Choudhury, A. U. (2017). Human–elephant conflicts in Northeast India. Gajah, 46, 24–34.
[2] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2021). Human–Wildlife Conflict: A Review of Current Approaches and Mitigation Strategies. Rome: FAO.
[3] Gross, E. M., & Miller, J. R. B. (2017). Human–wildlife conflicts in a crowded world. Biological Conservation, 209, 1–4.
[4] Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). (2019). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn, Germany.
[5] International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2023). Guidelines for Human–Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence. Gland, Switzerland.
[6] Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. (2021). Advisory for Management of Human–Wildlife Conflict. Government of India, New Delhi.
[7] Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. (2022). Guidelines for Managing Human–Wildlife Conflict Including Damage to Crops. Government of India, New Delhi.
[8] National Tiger Conservation Authority, & Wildlife Institute of India. (2023). Status of Tigers, Co-predators and Prey in India 2022. New Delhi.
[9] Nyhus, P. J. (2016). Human–wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41, 143–171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085634
[10] Penteriani, V., Delgado, M. M., Pinchera, F., Naves, J., Fernández-Gil, A., Kojola, I., ... & Ordiz, A. (2016). Human behaviour can trigger large carnivore attacks in developed countries. Scientific Reports, 6, 20552. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20552
[11] Redpath, S. M., Bhatia, S., & Young, J. (2015). Tilting at wildlife: Reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx, 49(2), 222–225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605314000799
[12] Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Hoffmann, M., Wirsing, A. J., & McCauley, D. J. (2017). Extinction risk is most acute for the world's largest and smallest vertebrates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(40), 10678–10683. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1702078114
[13] 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00235
[14] Sharma, R. K., Bhatnagar, Y. V., & Mishra, C. (2020). Human–wildlife conflict in India: Patterns, challenges and conservation implications. Current Science, 118(11), 1728–1735.
[15] United Nations Environment Programme. (2021). Making Peace with Nature: A Scientific Blueprint to Tackle the Climate, Biodiversity and Pollution Emergencies. Nairobi. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18356/9789280738377
[16] Wildlife Institute of India. (2023). Recommended Practices for Mitigation of Human–Wildlife Conflict in India. Dehradun.
[17] World Wide Fund for Nature. (2022). Living Planet Report 2022: Building a Nature-Positive Society. Gland, Switzerland.
[18] Zimmermann, A., McQuinn, B., & Macdonald, D. W. (2020). Levels of conflict over wildlife: Understanding and addressing the underlying human dimensions. Conservation Biology, 34(4), 964–973.
[19] Zoological Survey of India. (2022). Faunal Diversity of India: Current Status and Conservation Priorities. Kolkata: Zoological Survey of India.
