Human casualties are the dominant cost of human–wildlife conflict in India

Abstract

Reducing the costs from human–wildlife conflict, mostly borne by marginal rural households, is a priority for conservation. We estimate the mean species-specific cost for households suffering damages from one of 15 major species of wildlife in India. Our data are from a survey of 5,196 households living near 11 wildlife reserves in India, and self-reported annual costs include crop and livestock losses and human casualties (injuries and death). By employing conservative estimates from the literature on the value of a statistical life (VSL), we find that costs from human casualties overwhelm crop and livestock damages for all species associated with fatalities. Farmers experiencing a negative interaction with an elephant over the last year incur damages on average that are 600 and 900 times those incurred by farmers with negative interactions with the next most costly herbivores: the pig and the nilgai. Similarly, farmers experiencing a negative interaction with a tiger over the last year incur damage that is on average 3 times that inflicted by a leopard and 100 times that from a wolf. These cost differences are largely driven by differences in the incidence of human death and casualties. Our estimate of costs fluctuates across reserves, mostly due to a variation of human casualties. Understanding the drivers of human casualties and reducing their incidence are crucial to reducing the costs from human–wildlife conflict.Most of the tales were about animals, for the Jungle was always at their door. The deer and the pig grubbed up their crops, and now and again the tiger carried off a man at twilight, within sight of the village gates. “Tiger! Tiger!” (Rudyard Kipling, The Jungle Book, Collins Classics, 2010)

Descriptive Spatial Analysis of Human-Elephant Conflict (HEC) Distribution and Mapping HEC Hotspots in Keonjhar Forest Division, India

“…For instance, human casualty hotspots can be prioritized over property or crop damage hotspots when mitigation funds are scarce, as the cost of human casualty precedes cost of property or crop damage (Gulati et al, 2021). Furthermore, outcomes of this study will help forest administrations to develop locationbased strategies and determine suitable locations to implement mitigation plans such as early warning systems, bio or nonlethal fencing, and restoration of wildlife habitats and corridors.…”

Using recent baselines as benchmarks for megafauna restoration places an unfair burden on the Global South

“…Second, MI does not differentiate between species, resulting in a similar burden for species that may have very different impacts on society and requirements for their conservation. This can potentially affect results' interpretation if distribution patterns of the most challenging species to conserve, for example, largest body-sized carnivores and herbivores (Rabinowitz 2005, Thirgood et al 2005, Gulati et al 2021, are strongly biased towards certain countries. This may be true for the current and historical scenarios, where high body mass and large carnivore species are mostly found in Africa and Southeast Asia.…”

Contraceptive efficacy of recombinant porcine zona proteins and fusion protein encompassing canine ZP3 fragment and GnRH in female beagle dogs

“…Human-wildlife conflicts result in a significant loss of crop, livestock, and human life in India. 1 Further, wild as well as domesticated animals may act as vectors for viruses, bacteria and parasites, thus pose a major risk to human health. 2 As an example, dogs are the main vectors that maintain rabies virus circulation within human communities.…”