‘Wildlife officials only care about animals’: Farmers' perceptions of a Ministry-based extension delivery system in mitigating human-wildlife conflicts in the Okavango Delta, Botswana

Noga, Sekondeko Ronnie; Kolawole, Oluwatoyin Dare; Thakadu, Olekae Tsompi; Masunga, Gaseitsiwe

doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.06.003

Cited by 18 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are other biases to consider within the PAC program. For example, it is probable that farmers in the study area are reporting less than expected because the process to receive compensation is considered long, difficult, and inadequate by local communities (Pozo et al 2017a;Noga et al 2018, LeFlore et al 2020. In an area where public transport is not available, people have to report wildlife incidents to the village chief, the police department, DWNP officials, or directly to the DWNP main office within 7 days of the incident occurring (Songhurst 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our study shows the need to adopt a holistic management of HWIs that accounts for multiple species and acknowledges the diversity and needs of people. Current mitigation methods only for elephant conservation in the Okavango delta require considerable effort and financial investment from local farmers (Noga et al 2015(Noga et al , 2018. These methods include planting less palatable crops, building chili fences, setting up crop guards, building beehive fences, and implementing landuse planning techniques (e.g., Noga et al 2015;Pozo et al 2017b;Pozo et al 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After this, an officer from the DWNP has to visit households affected and verify the level of impact they had before the compensation process can be initiated (Noga et al. 2018; LeFlore et al. 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For each incident report, an officer from the DWNP undertakes a visit to the affected person or site and verifies the level of impact (e.g., amount of crop area destroyed and number of animals killed) before initiating the compensation process (Noga et al. 2018; LeFlore et al. 2019).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…People in the eastern panhandle report wildlife incidents to the village chief, the police department, DWNP officials in their villages, or directly to the DWNP office in Seronga within 7 days of the incident (Songhurst 2017). For each incident report, an officer from the DWNP undertakes a visit to the affected person or site and verifies the level of impact (e.g., amount of crop area destroyed and number of animals killed) before initiating the compensation process (Noga et al 2018;LeFlore et al 2019).…”

Section: Reporting Protocol For the Problem Animal Control Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A multispecies assessment of wildlife impacts on local community livelihoods

Pozo

LeFlore

Duthie

et al. 2020

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conflicts between the interests of agriculture and wildlife conservation are a major threat to biodiversity and human well-being globally. Addressing such conflicts requires a thorough understanding of the impacts associated with living alongside protected wildlife. Despite this, most studies reporting on human-wildlife impacts and the strategies used to mitigate them focus on a single species, thus oversimplifying often complex systems of human-wildlife interactions. We sought to characterize the spatiotemporal patterns of impacts by multiple co-occurring species on agricultural livelihoods in the eastern Okavango Delta Panhandle in northern Botswana through the use of a database of 3264 wildlife-incident reports recorded from 2009 to 2015 by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks. Eight species (African elephants [Loxodonta africana], hippopotamuses [Hippopotamus amphibious], lions [Panthera leo], cheetah [Acinonyx jubatus], African wild dogs [Lycaon pictus], hyenas [Crocuta crocuta], leopards [Panthera pardus], and crocodiles [Crocodylus niloticus]) appeared on incident reports, of which 56.5% were attributed to elephants. Most species were associated with only 1 type of damage (i.e., either crop damage or livestock loss). Carnivores were primarily implicated in incident reports related to livestock loss, particularly toward the end of the dry season (May-October). In contrast, herbivores were associated with crop-loss incidents during the wet season (November-April). Our results illustrate how local communities can face distinct livelihood challenges from different species at different times of the year. Such a multispecies assessment has important implications for the design of conservation interventions aimed at addressing the costs of living with wildlife and thereby mitigation of the underlying conservation conflict. Our spatiotemporal, multispecies approach is widely applicable to other regions where sustainable and long-term solutions to conservation conflicts are needed for local communities and biodiversity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Reporting Protocol For the Problem Animal Control Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A multispecies assessment of wildlife impacts on local community livelihoods

Pozo

LeFlore

Duthie

et al. 2020

Conservation Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

How has White‐nose Syndrome Changed Cave Management in National Parks?

Shapiro

Willcox

Verant

et al. 2021

Wildlife Society Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After the introduction of white‐nose syndrome (WNS) to the United States in 2006, managing agencies were quick to implement multiple interventions to prevent the spread of the disease and protect vulnerable cave‐roosting bat populations. One key agency that has dealt with the spread of WNS is the National Park Service (NPS), which has implemented screening and decontamination procedures in caves and adapted educational programs to emphasize the impact of WNS on bats and the ecosystem services they provide. However, despite the close connection NPS has with the public, few studies have focused on the social consequences of rapidly changing cave management plans in response to WNS spread. The primary goal of our study was to understand how WNS has changed bat and cave management in areas managed by NPS and key stakeholder perceptions of these changes. We explored federal and state land managers’ and caving organization leaders’ perceptions towards, and experiences with, bat and cave management at caves managed by the NPS through 15 key informant interviews. Respondents reacted positively to the NPS's use of park‐specific management plans, which they believed successfully balanced the conservation and recreation objectives of the show caves. Additionally, informants agreed on the management challenges NPS currently faces, including a paucity of knowledge about bat populations within the parks, a need for additional resources to effectively manage WNS, and the need to reach more visitors with information on WNS. However, respondents were divided on the effectiveness of the federal government's handling of the spread of WNS, as some caver informants believed that certain approaches were heavy‐handed and placed a burden on those who frequently visit caves for recreation and research. Understanding how WNS has shaped cave management in national parks is crucial for enhancing park visitor experiences and support for bat conservation. © 2021 The Wildlife Society.

show abstract