Human Dimensions of Wildlife

An International Journal

ISSN: 1087-1209 (Print) 1533-158X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhdw20

History, Location, and Species Matter: Insights for

Human–Wildlife Conflict Mitigation From India

Krithi K. Karanth & Sahila Kudalkar

To cite this article: Krithi K. Karanth & Sahila Kudalkar (2017): History, Location, and Species
Matter: Insights for Human–Wildlife Conflict Mitigation From India, Human Dimensions of Wildlife,
DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2017.1334106

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1334106

Published online: 20 Jun 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhdw20

Download by: [The UC San Diego Library] Date: 20 June 2017, At: 11:15
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE
https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2017.1334106

History, Location, and Species Matter: Insights for Human–Wildlife

Conflict Mitigation From India
Krithi K. Karantha,b,c and Sahila Kudalkarb
a
Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, New York, USA; bCentre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India;
c
Nicholas School of Environment, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Preventing loss of crops, threats to livestock, damage to property, and Compensation; conflict; crop
human injury and death attributed to wildlife are conservation chal- damage; India; livestock
lenges. We surveyed over 5,000 households around 11 reserves in India predation; mitigation;
to examine these issues and mitigation efforts. Crops were lost by 71% of wildlife
households, livestock by 17%, and human injury and death were reported
by 3% of households (losses attributed to 32 species). Households
deployed 12 mitigation measures with nighttime watching, scare devices,
and fencing used the most. A household’s conflict history (>20 years for
livestock loss, 10–20 years for crop loss), proximity to reserves, and crops
grown or livestock owned were associated with higher mitigation use.
There were differences across reserves, with households in Rajasthan least
likely to use mitigation. Crop protection (88%) was more likely than
livestock protection (32%). Investments in conflict mitigation should con-
sider the history, location, species, socioeconomic variations among
households, and differences in regional policies.

Introduction
Human–wildlife interactions resulting in loss of crops and livestock, property damage, and
human injury and death pose significant challenges to global conservation efforts.
Expansion of human activities resulting in fragmentation of shared spaces have elevated
these human–wildlife conflicts (i.e., reported incidents of crop damage, livestock depreda-
tion, property damage, human injury or death attributed to wildlife; Dickman, 2010;
Karanth, Naughton-Treves, Defries, & Gopalaswamy, 2013a; Naughton-Treves, 1998). In
addition, protected reserves house substantial wildlife populations that disperse into
neighboring settlements and cultivated areas, leading to conflict (Fernando et al., 2005;
Karanth, Gopalaswamy, DeFries, & Ballal, 2012; Packer et al., 2013; Woodroffe, Lindsey,
Romañach, Stein, & Ole Ranah, 2005). Reserve boundaries experience a disproportionately
higher number of human–wildlife conflict incidents, turning them into “conflict hotspots”
and imposing significant costs and risks to both people and wildlife (DeFries, Hansen,
Newton, & Hansen, 2005; Karanth et al., 2012, 2013a; Parker & Osborn, 2006). People
cope with losses differently; some have high tolerance for losses, whereas others retaliate
against wildlife species (Dickman, 2010; Goswami & Vasudev, 2017; Inskip &
Zimmermann, 2009; McManus, Dickman, Gaynor, Smuts, & Macdonald, 2014).
Maintaining tolerance for losses experienced by people is critical to long-term species

CONTACT Krithi K. Karanth krithi.karanth@gmail.com Centre for Wildlife Studies, Bangalore, India.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 K. K. KARANTH AND S. KUDALKAR

survival and reserve conservation efforts (Behdarvand et al., 2014; Behr, Ozgul, & Cozzi,
2017; Karanth et al., 2012; Suryawanshi, Bhatia, Bhatnagar, Redpath, & Mishra, 2014).
Management responses to conflict incidents range from reactive strategies (e.g., modification
of human and/or wildlife behavior, post hoc compensation payments) to proactive strategies
such as insurance schemes or relocation of affected communities from wildlife reserves
(Morzillo & Needham, 2015; Treves, 2009). Direct reactive mitigation strategies employ inter-
ventions (e.g., fencing, guarding) that protect crops, livestock, and property, whereas indirect
reactive measures are targeted toward improving tolerance of affected communities through
compensation schemes (Dickman, 2010; Karanth et al., 2012; Karanth, Gopalaswamy, Prasad, &
Dasgupta, 2013b; Morzillo & Needham, 2015). Direct mitigation measures can be species-
specific and may impose significant financial costs on people (Campbell-Smith, Sembiring, &
Linkie, 2012; Naughton-Treves, 1998; Sitati, Walpole, & Leader-Williams, 2005). Some studies
suggest that use of direct nonlethal mitigation techniques derived from traditional practices
coupled with a strong compensatory mechanism may provide effective solutions to managing
conflict (Fernando et al., 2005; Parker & Osborn, 2006).
The effectiveness of mitigation strategies varies and involves tradeoffs. For example, noise
repellants and guarding can reduce crop damage in certain cases (Graham & Ochieng, 2008;
Sitati et al., 2005), whereas others, such as hedge fencing, may simply displace conflict to
neighboring areas (Hill & Wallace, 2012; Treves, 2009) or affect species behavior by disrupting
habitat connectivity (Goswami & Vasudev, 2017). Poisoning or snare traps eliminate problem
animals (Naughton-Treves, 1998), but have adverse consequences for threatened, rare, and
nontargeted wildlife species (Woodroffe et al., 2005). Similarly, better guarding practices,
enclosure design, and animal husbandry practices can deter predators from attacking livestock
(McManus, Dickman, Gaynor, Smuts, & Macdonald, 2015; Packer et al., 2013; Woodroffe
et al., 2005). Novel techniques such as training collars, fladry, and light and sound deterrents
have also been effective in lowering livestock kills, but their effectiveness may reduce over time
as carnivores become habituated to their presence (Miller et al., 2016a). Mitigation approaches
also need to factor in seasonality and activity patterns of wildlife (Goswami & Vasudev, 2017;
Karanth, 2016; Woodroffe et al., 2005).
Investments in mitigation measures may be financially straining on local communities
and increase stress and vulnerability to weaker sections of society (Barua, Bhagwat, &
Jadhav, 2013; Naughton-Treves, 1998; Sitati et al., 2005). In the long term, persistence of
conflict can also negatively affect peoples’ attitudes and perceptions, resulting in hostility
toward wildlife and retaliatory killings that derail conservation efforts (Behdarvand et al.,
2014; Behr et al., 2017; Dickman, 2010; Naughton-Treves & Treves, 2005). Conflict history
(Miller, Jhala, & Schmitz, 2016b) along with cultural and religious beliefs (Kolipaka,
Persoon, De Iongh, & Srivastava, 2015) affect peoples’ perceptions and influence their
willingness to engage in conflict mitigation. Despite substantial investments in deploying
mitigation measures by individuals and institutions, few studies have extensively examined
factors associated with mitigation use, particularly social and environmental factors that
influence decision-making regarding why households choose to employ conflict mitigation
measures (Campbell-Smith et al., 2012; Dar, Minhas, Zaman, & Linkie, 2009; Inskip &
Zimmermann, 2009; Kolipaka et al., 2015).
The choices and decision-making processes toward investing in and deploying mitiga-
tion measures are determined by multiple environmental, household, economic, and
demographic factors (Dickman, 2010; Kolipaka et al., 2015), as well as inherent
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 3

perceptions and attitudes toward conflict (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). The selection of
mitigation measures by farmers is often more dependent on ease of use and cost, than
actual effectiveness (Campbell-Smith et al., 2012; Graham & Ochieng, 2008), which may
explain popularity of certain mitigation measures over others despite relatively poor
performance (Hill & Wallace, 2012; Linkie, Dinata, Nofrianto, & Leader-Williams, 2007;
Webber, Hill, & Reynolds, 2007). Hence, an understanding of factors that drive mitigation
use is essential to improve existing conflict management measures (Dickman, 2010;
Webber et al., 2007).
The juxtaposition of high human densities and persistence of wildlife in India
compared to other tropical countries suggests higher historical tolerance for wildlife
(Karanth et al., 2010; Suryawanshi et al., 2014). It is speculated this outcome is related
to peoples’ cultural attitudes and religious beliefs coupled with strict law enforcement
(e.g., hunting is prohibited under Indian law), resulting in people frequently employing
nonlethal mitigation to protect their crops, livestock, and property (Karanth et al.,
2012, 2013b, 2013a).
We examined socioeconomic, geographic, historical, and environmental factors associated
with household use of preventive mitigation measures against human–wildlife conflict around
11 protected reserves across India (Figure 1). These reserves encompassed different ecological
and biophysical systems from thorny and scrub dry deciduous forests across four reserves in
western India; Sal, moist, and dry deciduous forests across two Central Indian reserves; and a
mixture of tropical dry and moist deciduous along with evergreen forests in five reserves in
southern India. Our work examines how characteristics of human–wildlife conflict and
mitigation strategies differ across such a diverse range of landscapes. In the absence of direct,
reliable measures of household income, we used land and livestock ownership as proxies and
socioeconomic indicators. We predicted that households owning more land and livestock
would be more likely to invest in mitigation efforts. We also expected households that were

Figure 1. Location of selected reserves in India (BRT stands for Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple Wildlife Sanctuary).
4 K. K. KARANTH AND S. KUDALKAR

more prone to conflict incidents (i.e., those located closer to reserve boundaries or with a
history of past conflict) to be more likely to use mitigation measures to protect crops and
livestock. We expected crop and livestock protection efforts to be greater in households with a
higher number of adult male members because it is this demographic who usually engages in
mitigation efforts.
People living around these reserves are a heterogeneous mixture of multiple cultural,
traditional, and religious beliefs, with some communities more tolerant of wildlife than
others. Tolerance to wildlife is also shaped by the species involved, and households employ
different coping strategies for large nocturnal mammals that damage a high variety of
crops (Naughton-Treves & Treves, 2005). We predicted that a household would be more
likely to use crop protection measures against larger herbivores such as wild pig (Sus
scrofa), chital (Axis axis), nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus), chinkara (Gazella bennettii),
and elephant (Elephas maximus) compared to primates, rodents, and other crop damaging
species. We also expected livestock depredation measures to be deployed most against
tiger (Panthera tigris) and leopard (Panthera pardus).

Methods
Study sites
We selected 11 sites surrounding protected reserves across four Indian states—Rajasthan,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Karnataka (Figure 1). Among these, four sites are situated
in the Aravalis of North-west India—Jaisamand, Kumbalgarh, Phulwari-ki-Naal, and
Sitamata. The two sites in Central India were Tadoba-Andhari and Kanha. The five southern
sites in the Western Ghats were Kali (formerly Anshi-Dandeli), Bhadra, Biligiri Rangaswamy
Temple (BRT), Bandipur, and Nagarahole. The total surveyed area covered 16,488 km2 (from
622 km2 around Jaisamand to 3,084 km2 around Kumbhalgarh, Figure 1).
Annual rainfall ranges from 425 mm in Kumbhalgarh to 4000 mm in Kali, and
elevation from 3 m in Kali to 1587 m in Bhadra (Table 1). These reserves support a
diversity of carnivores, herbivores, and primates including conflict prone threatened
species such as tiger, leopard, wolf, dhole, sloth bear, elephant, gaur, sambar, chital, and
nilgai. Human population densities varied from 94 people/km2 around Tadoba-Andhari
to 443 people/km2 around Nagarahole and Bandipur (Table 1). Livestock population
densities range from 69 heads/km2 around Tadoba-Andhari to 445 heads/km2 around
Kali (Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairy, & Fisheries, 2007). Other site details are
listed in Table 1.

Survey design and field data collection

We surveyed 5196 households across these 11 sites between 2011 and 2014 (Table 1). These
households were chosen from a 10km buffer surrounding each reserve by a three-step process.
First, we divided the buffer by a 13km x 13km grid cell. Second, 60% of the villages located
within each grid cell were randomly selected. Third, one to 10 households per village in each
grid cell were opportunistically surveyed based on ease of access and respondent willingness to
talk with the surveyor (Karanth et al., 2012, 2013a). Across all sites, a total of 2855 villages
located in 1283 cells were selected within a 10 km buffer of each reserve. In villages where we
Table 1. Characteristics of selected reserves and sampling design.
State: Rajasthan Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Karnataka
Kumbalgarh Phulwari ki Naal Sitamata Kanha Tadoba- Bhadra Nagarahole Bandipur BRTd
Characteristics WLSa WLS Jaisamand WLS WLS NPb Andhari TRc Kali TR TR NP NP WLS
Area (km2) 610 511 52 423 940 625 1,303 492 644 880 540
Dominant Thorny scrub Thorny scrub Thorny scrub Thorny scrub Sal, moist Tropical dry Tropical evergreen Tropical moist Tropical moist Tropical moist Tropical dry &
vegetation and dry and dry and dry and dry deciduous and dry deciduous & semi- evergreen deciduous and and dry and dry moist deciduous
deciduous deciduous deciduous deciduous deciduous forestf forestg forestsh evergreen forestsh deciduous deciduous and evergreen
foreste foreste foreste foreste forestsh forestsh foresth
Rainfall (mm) 425–775 600–875 600–875 625–900 1000–1500 975–1375 1250–4000 2000–2540 900–1500 625–1250 600–3000
Total Area 3,084 2022 km2 622 km2 778 km2 1159 km2 1374 km2 1859 km2 1807 km2 1391 km2 1313 km2 1079 km2
surveyed km2
Total grids cells 290 196 50 84 218 173 245 174 119 122 119
Grid cells 238 156 48 60 97 107 143 139 107 101 83
surveyed
Villages surveyed 494 350 109 143 201 187 304 316 274 262 215
Total HHi 1047 683 221 283 394 596 468 471 400 370 263
surveyed
Average HH 8 (1–32) 8(1–29) 7(1–26) 7(1–26) 6 (1–26) 5(1–16) 7 (1–55) 5 (1–30) 5 (1–50) 5 (1–60) 6 (1–16)
members
(range)
Literacy rate 58% 47% 36% 48% 61% 79% 73% 80% 75% 58% 56%
Education 76% 80% 74% 82% 39% 54% 50% 63% 58% 47% 64%
<eighth grade
Average livestock 2(0–150) 3(0–18) 2(0–16) 2(0–23) 7(0–131) 4(0–78) 5 (0–38) 4 (0–153) 3 (0–40) 4 (0–35) 3 (0–85)
(range)
Human Udaipur: 262 Udaipur: 262 Udaipur: 262 Udaipur: 262 Mandla: 121 Chandrapur: Belgaum: 356 Chikmagalur: 158 Kodagu: 135 Chamarajanagar: Chamarajanagar:
population 94 180 180
density in Rajsama nd: 255 Chittaurgarh: Balaghat: 184 Uttar Kannada: Devanagere: 326 Mysore: 443 Mysore: 443
adjoining Pali: 164 197 Kabirdha m: 194 140 Shimoga: 207
districts
(persons per
km2) j
Livestock density Udaipur: 197 Udaipur: 197 Udaipur: 197 Udaipur: 197 Mandla: 154 Chandrapur: Belgaum: 445 Chikmagalur: 182 Kodagu: 84 Chamar ajanagar: Chamar
in adjoining 69 194 ajanagar: 194
districts (Total Rajsamand: 243 Chittorgarh: 184 Balaghat: 203 Uttar Kannada: 97 Devanagere: 371 Mysore: 337 Mysore: 337
livestock per Pali: 187 Kabirdh am: 174 Shimoga
km2)k : 203
HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE

Note. aWildlife Sanctuary, bNational Park; cTiger Reserve; dBiligiriranganatha WLS; eSharma (2003), Bhatnagar (2010), Robbins et al. (2007) (Vegetation); IMD website, last 5 years data (Rainfall),
f
DeFries et al. (2010) (Vegetation); IMD website, last 5 years data (Rainfall); gNagendra et al. (2010) (Vegetation); IMD website, last 5 years data (Rainfall); hKaranth, Gopalaswamy et al.
(2013b) (Vegetation); IMD website, last 5 years data (Rainfall); iHouseholds; jCensus of India (2011), kLivestock Census of India (2007)
5
6 K. K. KARANTH AND S. KUDALKAR

conducted multiple surveys, we ensured that surveyed households were located spatially far
away from each other. The surveys were administered by research assistants and trained
volunteers, and surveying techniques were standardized. All surveyors were conversant in
English and the local vernacular language Hindi, Kannada, or Marathi with responses
transcribed into English.
In each household, we interviewed both adult female and male respondents, and in our
overall sample, about 60% of surveyed individuals were male. One member per household was
asked structured and semi-structured questions regarding: (a) demographic characteristics
such as household composition, gender, and literacy; (b) nature and type of conflict incident
(i.e., crop damage/livestock depredation/property damage/human injury, loss of income,
history of recent and past conflict incidents, species involved in conflict incidents); (c)
agricultural and livestock characteristics including major crops grown, area under individual
crops, livestock breeds owned, and feeding practices (e.g., stall-fed/grazing within forest); and
(d) mitigation measures employed by households. It is likely that errors could arise due to
poor recollection of older conflict events, so we processed reported years of conflict data into
decadal periods (i.e., <10 years, 10–20 years, >20 years) to minimize the chance of error. This
minimized uncertainty associated with recollection of older events and standardized
responses such as “12–15 years” or “>30 years.” We could not account for past changes in
land-use or animal husbandry that might have influenced age of conflict. We calculated
distance to wildlife reserve for each surveyed household using QGIS version 2.2.10.0- Pisa
(Quantum GIS Development Team, 2009). We used one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA F)
tests to examine whether sites differed significantly in terms of average annual income loss and
probability of mitigation use. The eta (η) effect size measure was used for classifying these
differences as “low,” “medium,” or “high” (Cohen, 1988).

Variable and model selection

Respondents from each household were questioned about experiencing crop loss and/or
livestock loss in the most recent year, and we recorded all species reported by people.
Reports of incidents with bonnet macaque (Macaca radiata), rhesus macaque (Macaca
mulatta), and hanuman langur (Semnopithecus spp.) were grouped together as “primate
conflict,” as many surveyed households were unable to distinguish the three species and
reported it as “monkey” incident. We used top-ranked crop damaging wildlife species,
namely chital (Axis axis), nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus), elephant (Elephas maximus),
chinkara (Gazella bennettii), primates (M. radiata, mulatta, Semnopithecus spp.), wild pig
(Sus scrofa), and canids (CR) to model the likelihood that a household would use crop
protection measures. Similarly, we modeled the likelihood of using mitigation against
livestock predation as a function of incidents attributed to top-ranked carnivores such as
leopard (Panthera pardus), tiger (Panthera tigris), and canids (LP). Canids such as desert
fox (Vulpes vulpes), Indian fox (Vulpes bengalensis), jackal (Canis aureus), and wolf (Canis
lupus) were often misidentified, so we grouped these species together. Canids were
reported by people for causing both crop damage and livestock depredation. We have
separately looked at canids CR (jackal or fox reported against crop loss) and canids LP
(jackal, fox, or wolf reported against livestock loss). Although we could not independently
verify the identity of carnivore species, we are confident that grouping canids coupled with
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 7

the large sample size minimized the chance of misidentification errors affecting the
validity of results.
Top mitigation measures utilized by people to protect crops, livestock, and property were
recorded at all sites. Although we measured number and type of mitigation measures,
responses were coded as 1 if a household used one or more mitigation measures, and 0
otherwise. This helped to minimize the chance of local factors determining variability in
household preferences from affecting our results. Although we surveyed > 5000 households,
the dataset used for predicting crop loss mitigation was restricted to 3615 households that
either owned agricultural land or cultivated crops on a crop-sharing basis. Similarly, the
livestock loss mitigation was predicted using 3232 households that owned livestock.
We documented the number of crops grown by households reporting crop loss and
number of livestock owned for those reporting livestock loss. We modelled the site as a
predictor to account for potential heterogeneity arising from local site based influences as well
as differences in animal and human densities. We tested for multicollinearity and predictors
with a Pearson’s correlation coefficient > .60 were discarded (Karanth et al., 2012). The
predictors were normalized by subtracting the mean and dividing by two standard deviations
to enable direct comparison of beta coefficients within models (Gelman, 2008).
We defined an a priori set of 15 models for crop loss and 12 models for livestock
depredation. Given that our focal variable of interest was each household’s use of mitiga-
tion (binary yes/no), we applied a logistic regression framework. A Corrected Akaike
Information Criterion (AICc) was obtained for every model (Burnham & Anderson,
2002). The AICc framework is an information theory approach that prioritizes better fit
models, but penalizes over-specified models, thus serves as an indicator of optimal trade-
off between parsimony and fit. Both crop and livestock mitigation models were ranked
based on AICc weights, and the top models in each set that explained > 95% were selected.
Probability estimates for mitigation use were derived by model averaging for each site and
compared across sites.

Results
Household characteristics
A total of 5,196 households across 2,855 villages located in 11 sites were surveyed from
2011 to 2014. Household size averaged 6 people (range = 1–50) and a total of 42% of
household members were younger than 15 years (range = 25% in Bhadra and Kanha to
64% in Phulwari ki Naal). Across the sites, an average of 62% of members of a household
were literate (i.e., had attended school up to eighth grade or beyond; range = 47% in
Phulwari ki Naal to 80% in Bhadra). The percentage of literate males (68%) was higher
than the percentage of literate females (52%) with the highest differences in Rajasthan
(Kumbalgarh, Phulwari ki Naal, Jaisamand, Sitamata) households and the lowest neigh-
boring the southern reserves of Bhadra and Nagarahole.
Agriculture was the primary occupation at all sites. Many respondents owned land
(82%) and few (8%) engaged in crop-sharing practices. The average landholding size
was 4.9 acres (range = 0.002–60 acres, highest in Bhadra, 22.96 acres). We documented
40 major crops grown in these 11 sites, including cereals such as rice, wheat, and
maize; legumes; and cash crops such as mustard and cotton. Livestock were owned by
8 K. K. KARANTH AND S. KUDALKAR

78% of respondents. The average livestock ownership was highest in Kanha (average = 7
animals, range = 1–131). Cows comprised much of livestock (44%) followed by goats
(32%), buffaloes (15%), and sheep (5%). Livestock were grazed inside reserves (43%),
agricultural fields, and communal land. Thirty-eight percent of livestock were stall-fed
(Table 1).

Characteristics of incidents
A total of 72% of the 5196 households reported experiencing some conflict with wildlife,
ranging from 58% in Nagarahole to 84% in Kanha. Crop damage was most frequently
reported by 71% of households (range = 59% in Bhadra to 83% in Kanha). Livestock
depredation was reported by 17% of households (range = 8% in Sitamata to 44% in
Kanha). Few (< 2%) households reported human injury (highest in Kanha at 8%). The loss
of a family member was reported by < 0.5% of surveyed households.
Thirty-two different species were reported in conflict incidents across the 11 sites. Wild pig,
nilgai, and elephant were the top ranked crop damage species, whereas leopard, tiger, and canids
were the top-ranked species reported for livestock depredation. Wild pig related incidents were
the most widespread, with reports from 10 of the 11 sites, followed by nilgai and elephant
reported from five sites each. The average annual loss reported due to crop damage was INR
12,559 (US$ 190) ranging from INR 4426 (US$ 67) in Kanha to INR 24,687 (US$ 374) in
Sitamata (Table 2, 1 US $ = INR 66). The average reported loss differed significantly among
reserves, with the effect size indicating a medium difference (F = 23.51, df = 10, p < .001, η = .25).
Among carnivores, tiger and leopard related conflict incidents were reported in 45% of
the sites where they occurred. The average annual loss due to livestock predation was INR

Table 2. Site-wise reported loss (in Indian Rupees INR) due to crop damage and livestock depredation and
estimated probabilities of mitigation use against crop damage (pCR) and livestock depredation (pLP).
Average crop loss Average livestock loss Average pCR Average pLP
Reserve (Range) (Range) (Range) (Range)
Kumbalgarh INR 10,738 INR 2036 0.91 0.36
(INR 200—INR 1,000,000) (INR 200—INR 100,000) (0.46–0.99) (0.17–0.99)
Phulwari INR 4625 INR 1009 0.70 0.15
(INR 200—INR 500,000) (INR 1200—INR 100,000) (0.22–0.99) (0.08–0.86)
Jaisamand INR 7110 INR 1357 0.92 0.17
(INR 500—INR 100,000) (INR 500—INR 100,000) (0.56–1.00) (0.10–0.87)
Sitamata INR 6763 INR 663 0.85 0.21
(INR 500—INR 100,000) (INR 1500—INR 25,000) (0.37–0.99) (0.13–0.80)
Kanha INR 4426 INR 1487 0.96 0.92
(INR 350—INR 175,000) (INR 200—INR 75,000) (0.76–0.99) (0.82–1.00)
Tadoba- INR 14,183 INR 2708 0.82 0.24
Andhari (INR 1000—INR 250,000) (INR1000—INR 200,000) (0.35–0.99) (0.14–0.81)
Kali INR 9044 INR 1979 0.98 0.23
(INR 500—INR 200,000) (INR 500—INR 100,000) (0.91–0.99) (0.12–0.91)
Bhadra INR 24,687 INR 3266 0.96 0.32
(INR 200—INR 1,000,000) (INR 500—INR 500,000) (0.74–0.99) (0.17–1.00)
Nagarahole INR 21,646 INR 13,948 0.96 0.58
(INR 1000—INR 700,000) (INR 2000—INR 1,000,000) (0.82–0.99) (0.33–0.93)
Bandipur INR 22,015 INR 2854 0.98 0.23
(INR 1000—INR 450,000) (INR1000—INR 250,000) (0.86–0.99) (0.12–0.79)
BRT1 INR 17,144 INR 1411 0.98 0.08
(INR 500—INR 700,000) (INR 1000—INR 70,000) (0.87–0.99) (0.02–0.67)
Note. 1Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple wildlife sanctuary.
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 9

2883 (US$ 44), ranging from INR 663 (US$ 10) in Sitamata to INR 13,948 (US$ 211) in
Nagarahole (Table 2). The average reported loss differed significantly among reserves, with
the effect size indicating medium differences (F = 34.58, df = 10, p < .001, η = .30).

Mitigation use for crop protection

Among the 5,196 households, 70% farmed crops and 68% used mitigation measures to protect
crops (range = 52% at Nagarahole to 83% at Kanha). Mitigation use differed significantly
among reserves, with the effect size indicating medium differences (F = 30.58, df = 10, p < .001,
η = 0.25). Eleven mitigation measures were listed and the top three included nighttime
watching of agricultural fields, use of scare devices, and fencing. Nighttime watching was
used by most respondents in all sites except Phulwari and Bhadra. More than 80% of
respondents used multiple mitigation measures, with an average of two.
We examined factors associated with a household’s likely use of mitigation to protect crops.
As a single top model did not fully explain this, we focused on three top models (cumulative AICc

Table 3. Top-ranked models (cumulative weight > 0.95) and beta coefficients for predicting household
mitigation use against crop damage and livestock depredation.
Mitigation use against livestock
Mitigation use against crop damage depredation
Models 5 4 2 2 3
AICc weight 0.62 0.28 0.10 0.58 0.42
ΔAICc 0 1.61 3.62 0 0.63
Intercept 1.78 (0.42)* 1.78 (0.42) 1.78 (0.42) −1.71 (0.18) −1.72 (0.18)
Years of conflict 1.73 (0.16) 1.73 (0.16) 1.73 (0.16) 1.45 (0.21) 1.44 (0.21)
(0–10 years) Years of conflict 2.21 (0.22) 2.21 (0.22) 2.21 (0.22) 1.58 (0.29) 1.58 (0.29)
(10–20 years) Years of conflict 2.00 (0.18) 2.00 (0.18) 2.00 (0.18) 1.65 (0.28) 1.64 (0.28)
(>20 years) Distance to reserve −0.17 (0.12) −0.17 (0.12) −0.17 (0.12) −0.12 (0.11) −0.11 (0.11)
Number of crops 0.41 (0.13) 0.42 (0.13) 0.42 (0.13) — —
Land area — −0.07 (0.10) −0.07 (0.10) — —
Number of livestock — — — 0.30 (0.11) 0.28 (0.11)
Number of males — — 0.01 (0.11) −0.17 (0.11) —
Leopard-related — — — 1.27 (0.2) 1.28 (0.2)
incidents
Tiger-related incidents — — — 0.07 (0.24) 0.08 (0.24)
Canid-related incidents 0.89 (0.20)1 0.89 (0.20)1 0.89 (0.20)1 1.27 (0.24)2 1.27 (0.24)2
Chinkara-related 0.60 (0.19) 0.59 (0.19) 0.59 (0.19) — —
incidents
Chital-related incidents 0.11 (0.25) 0.11 (0.25) 0.11 (0.25) — —
Elephant-related 0.28 (0.34) 0.29 (0.34) 0.29 (0.34) — —
incidents
Nilgai-related incidents 1.33 (0.17) 1.32 (0.17) 1.32 (0.17) — —
Pig-related incidents 0.65 (0.17) 0.64 (0.17) 0.65 (0.17) — —
Primate-related incidents −0.12 (0.16) −0.12 (0.16) −0.12 (0.16) — —
Kumbalgarh −1.56 (0.44) −1.56 (0.43) −1.56 (0.43) 0.40 (0.2) 0.42 (0.2)
Phulwari ki Naal −2.68 (0.43) −2.68 (0.43) −2.68 (0.43) −1.02 (0.25) −1.00 (0.25)
Jaisamand −1.20 (0.49) −1.20 (0.49) −1.20 (0.49) −0.34 (0.29) −0.31 (0.29)
Sitamata −1.99 (0.46) −1.99 (0.46) −1.99 (0.46) 0.03 (0.26) 0.06 (0.26)
Kanha −0.07 (0.45) −0.06 (0.44) −0.06 (0.45) 3.60 (0.27) 3.62 (0.27)
Tadoba-Andhari −1.81 (0.41) −1.81 (0.41) −1.8 (0.41) 0.17 (0.26) 0.20 (0.26)
Bhadra −0.35 (0.47) −0.3 (0.48) −0.3 (0.48) 0.37 (0.25) 0.39 (0.25)
Bandipur −0.14 (0.54) −0.13 (0.54) −0.13 (0.54) −0.10 (0.29) −0.08 (0.28)
Nagarahole 0.05 (0.52) 0.05 (0.52) 0.05 (0.52) 1.22 (0.34) 1.25 (0.34)
BRT3 −0.48 (0.56) −0.48 (0.56) −0.48 (0.56) −1.95 (0.49) −1.94 (0.49)
Note. *Standard errors in brackets below estimated beta coefficients. ΔAICc is difference between model AICc and lowest
AICc in the top model list. 1Jackal/Fox, 2Jackal/Fox/Wolf, 3Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple.
10 K. K. KARANTH AND S. KUDALKAR

weight > 0.95, Table 3). As predicted, the number of years of conflict experienced (present in all
three top models) was positively associated with mitigation use likelihood (β [SE] = 0–10 years:
1.73 [0.16], 10–20 years: 2.21 [0.22], >20 years: 2.00 [0.18]). Households experiencing
10–20 years of conflict were 1.3 times more likely to use mitigation than those experiencing
recent conflicts. However, households that had experienced conflict for greater than 20 years had
a marginally lower likelihood of using mitigation than those experiencing 10–20 years of conflict.
As expected, households in closer proximity to reserves were more likely to use
mitigation, but there was high uncertainty in the estimates (Table 3). Models also
suggested that mitigation use varied across reserves as expected. Households neighboring
wildlife reserves in Rajasthan (Kumbalgarh, Phulwari ki Naal, Jaisamand, Sitamata) and
around Tadoba-Andhari in Maharashtra were negatively associated with mitigation use,
with people living around Phulwari being the least likely to employ mitigation measures.
Agricultural characteristics such as the total number of crops cultivated was positively
associated with mitigation use, agreeing with our predictions (β [SE] = 0.42 [0.13],
Table 3). Past incidents attributed to wild pig (β [SE] = 0.65 [0.17]), nilgai (β
[SE] = 1.32 [0.17]), canids (β [SE] = 0.89 [0.20]), and chinkara (β [SE] = 0.60 [0.19])
found support in the top model. Households were twice as likely to use mitigation in
response to past nilgai-related crop damage compared to pig-related crop damage. Other
predictors such as area of agricultural land farmed, the number of males in a household,
and conflict incidents with other species were not associated with mitigation use.
We modeled every household’s likelihood of using mitigation measures to protect
crops. Across 3,615 households, the average estimated probability of mitigation use to
protect crops was 0.88 (range = 0.22–0.99). Estimated mitigation use differed significantly
among sites with the effect size indicating a large difference (F = 106.90, df = 10, p < .001,
η = .48). Estimates ranged from 0.703 in Phulwari to 0.982 in Bandipur and Kali (Table 2).

Mitigation use for livestock protection

Across 3,232 households that owned livestock, 19% used mitigation measures to protect
their livestock, with a range of 3% in BRT to 80% in Kanha. Mitigation use differed
significantly among reserves, with the effect size indicating a large difference (F = 146.50,
df = 10, p < .001, η = .49). A total of 12 different mitigation measures were used, with
keeping a closer watch on animals, fencing, and nighttime watching the top three
measures. Owners most frequently kept a closer watch on their domestic animals, ranging
from 2% in BRT to 52% in Kanha. Fewer people (55%) used multiple mitigation measures
to protect livestock compared to crops (range = 1% in BRT to 58% in Kanha).
We modeled factors associated with mitigation use to protect livestock, resulting in two top
models (cumulative AICc weight > 0.95, Table 3). As predicted, the number of years of conflict
was positively associated with use of mitigation (β [SE] = 0–10 years: 1.44 [0.21] and 1.45
[0.21], 10–20 years: 1.58 [0.29], > 20 years: 1.64 [0.28] and 1.65 [0.28]) and present in both top
models. Households experiencing conflict for >20 years had a 13% higher likelihood of using
mitigation than those experiencing recent conflict (<10 years, Table 3).
As predicted, households closer to reserves were more likely to use mitigation, but there
was high uncertainty in the estimates (β [SE] = −0.12 [0.11], Table 3). We also found
differences across reserves with Kanha households most likely and BRT households least
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 11

likely to use mitigation. As with crop damage, households in Rajasthan (Phulwari ki Naal,
Jaisamand, Sitamata) were less likely to use mitigation as compared to other states.
The number of livestock owned was positively associated with mitigation use in our
models (β [SE] = 0.3 [0.11], Table 3). Our prediction that past conflict increased the
likelihood of mitigation use was supported for leopards (β [SE] = 1.27 [0.2]) and canids (β
[SE] = 1.28 [0.2], Table 3), but not tigers. Other predictors were not supported.
Across the 11 sites and 3,232 households owning livestock, the average mitigation use
probability was 0.32 (range = 0.02–1.00). Estimates ranged from 0.08 in BRT to 0.92 in
Kanha (site-specific details, Table 2) and differed significantly among reserves, with the
effect size indicating a large difference (F = 412.40, df = 10, p < .001, η = .75).

Discussion
Our assessment of conflict reporting and application of mitigation strategies by 5,196 house-
holds surrounding 11 wildlife reserves in the Indian subcontinent identified several patterns.
First was the importance of understanding the history of conflict, as we found that households
impacted by wildlife over longer periods were more likely to protect crops and livestock. This
mirrors findings from Kenya (Sitati et al., 2005) and Sri Lanka (Fernando et al., 2005), where
current damage by elephants was associated with past conflict. Miller et al. (2016b) reported
that households experiencing recent livestock depredation are more likely to change grazing
practices. This may occur because households that have experienced conflict in the past may
have already developed a suite of mitigation practices (Karanth et al., 2012) and may be
resistant to trying out additional or novel techniques. Persistence of conflict and losses, despite
widespread use of mitigation, highlights the necessity for effective, species-specific mitigation
(Karanth & Surendra, 2017). Contextualizing human–wildlife interactions over time will go a
long way toward building community support for future interventions.
Second, despite widespread use of 11 protection measures for crops and 12 for live-
stock, many households continued to experience losses. Our work underlines the urgent
need to evaluate whether current mitigation strategies successfully reduce or prevent crop
loss around Indian wildlife reserves. In Assam India, Davies et al. (2011) found that
multiple deterrents (chili fences, spotlights, electric fences) were effective in preventing
crop damage by elephants, but when used in combination with noise, their efficacy was
compromised. In Kenya, early warning combined with guarding (Sitati et al., 2005) were
found to reduce crop damage by elephants even in farms with a history of conflict,
whereas in Sumatra guarding was found to be ineffective against damage by many species
especially pigs and macaques (Linkie et al., 2007). Similarly, in Sri Lanka, Fernando et al.
(2005) reported that using crackers, shouting, and fire-brands were effective when
deployed by groups compared to individuals, and traditional agricultural practices also
helped to minimize conflict. In Sumatra, Campbell-Smith et al. (2012) found that farmers
continued to use ineffective noise deterrents over effective nets to protect their crops from
orangutans. For livestock, stall-feeding livestock, using guard animals, and encouraging
and/penalizing people to stop grazing inside reserves can help minimize livestock losses
(Dar et al., 2009; Karanth et al., 2012; McManus et al., 2015; Spiteri & Nepal, 2008).
Combining techniques such as enclosures and guarding with light/sound deterrents
during high-risk periods might help reduce livestock depredation (Miller et al., 2016a).
These studies, along with Karanth et al. (2013a, 2013b), highlight the need to identify and
12 K. K. KARANTH AND S. KUDALKAR

invest in a few functional mitigation measures aligned with local practices rather than
deploy a multitude of measures.
Third, geographic proximity to a reserve was associated with higher use of mitigation
measures. This was also demonstrated by Naughton-Treves (1998) in Uganda and Linkie
et al. (2007) in Sumatra where households on the edges of reserves were most vulnerable.
Along with Karanth et al. (2012, 2013a, 2013b), these studies suggest that households
located along high-risk conflict-prone edges and transitional areas invest substantial
resources into mitigation efforts. Strengthening intervention in such vulnerable commu-
nities must be a priority. Other studies have examined influence of landscape character-
istics (land use, rainfall, elevation) and found them to be relevant as well (Behdarvand
et al., 2014; Fernando et al., 2005). Overall, integrating geographic and landscape factors to
produce risk-maps will improve conflict management efforts (Behdarvand et al., 2014;
Karanth et al., 2012, 2013b).
Fourth, higher crop and livestock ownership was associated with higher protection
efforts. This could be a function of wealthier households investing more in protection
(Karanth & Nepal, 2012). This increase in protection might also reflect shifts in agricul-
tural practices, recovery of wildlife populations inside some reserves leading to greater
animal dispersal, or higher habitat fragmentation (DeFries et al., 2010; Karanth, 2016)
leading to greater numbers of interactions between people and wildlife.
Fifth, interactions with some species (pig, nilgai, chinkara) for crop damage and
(leopard, canids) for livestock depredation were associated with higher mitigation
efforts. In a parallel assessment, Karanth and Surendra (2017) found differences across
species causing damage and subsequent variations in estimated losses across sites. We
found mitigation likelihood was higher in households that had experienced damage by
nilgai compared to wild pigs and elephant-caused incidents. In contrast, although wild
pigs were the top crop damaging species in 10 of the 11 reserves and listed by >50% of
respondents, they were tolerated or ignored by people (Karanth pers. obs.), likely due to
lower economic losses as compared to nilgai. For instance, pig-related incidents are not
compensated for by existing government schemes in states like Karnataka and Rajasthan
and affected households are forced to ignore economic losses due to crop damage. This
concurs with what others have found that affected people may ignore the most damaging
species and responses of people may be linked to perceptions about species rather than
the damage they inflict (Dickman, 2010; Naughton-Treves & Treves, 2005).
Last, local and regional differences across reserves and states emerged. Households
surrounding reserves in Karnataka (Kali, Bandipur, Bhadra, Nagarahole) and Madhya
Pradesh (Kanha) were most likely to use mitigation to protect crops and livestock.
Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh states have recorded the highest levels of conflict
incidents across India in the past few years. Both states also have detailed compensa-
tion policies and disburse some of the highest compensation amounts in response to
crop damage (Karnataka) and livestock depredation (Madhya Pradesh). Despite gov-
ernmental assistance, we found households investing considerable time and effort into
multiple measures to mitigate conflict. In contrast, we found that households in
Rajasthan were less likely to use mitigation. This may arise due to higher poverty
among households, especially around Phulwari, which are subsequently less able to
invest in mitigation. Moreover, a low awareness of governmental compensation
schemes makes these households especially vulnerable to wildlife impacts on their
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 13

livelihoods. Improved access to compensation and promoting use of nonlethal mitiga-

tion are imperative in this region. Tribes such as the Gonds around Tadoba-Andhari
view the forest as sacred, sometimes to the extent of justifying carnivores depredating
their livestock (Kolipaka et al., 2015). Such resignation to natural forces may partly
explain why some communities are less likely to employ mitigation to protect crops
and livestock.
Kanha experienced disproportionately high levels of livestock depredation, which
could be related to grazing animals inside the reserve (Karanth et al., 2012). Despite
suffering heavy economic losses to carnivores, households around Nagarahole were less
likely to use mitigation as compared to Kanha. This pattern was also observed in BRT
where mitigation use was low despite high losses. Higher prevalence of conflict (i.e.,
percentage of households reporting conflict) may be more important than economic
loss in determining livestock protection efforts, likely because households’ evaluation
of risk is based on conflict incidents in the larger community (Suryawanshi et al.,
2014). Economic losses were significant given similar prevalence of livestock depreda-
tion, as in adjacent Nagarahole and Bandipur. A low investment in mitigation may be
reflective of: (a) low prevalence of conflict, (b) low economic impact on households,
(c) high tolerance toward wildlife, and/or (d) high poverty. Our results indicate high
priority states where novel, locally relevant conservation strategies need to be urgently
implemented to minimize conflict. These reserve-level differences are important to
develop regional conservation policy.
Our study is among the most comprehensive and systematic assessments of crop and
livestock loss around protected reserves in India. Although we examine “perceptions” of
conflict reported by more than 5,000 households, these should be followed up with field
assessments of losses such as by Sitati et al. (2005). Our estimates of probable 88% crop
protection and 32% probable livestock protection are comparable to findings from Nepal
and Central and West Africa, but contrast lower estimates from Pakistan and China (Dar
et al., 2009; Fernando et al., 2005; Spiteri & Nepal, 2008). We found variations across
reserves (and states) both in mitigation efforts deployed by people and procedures
followed by existing government compensation schemes (Karanth & Surendra, 2017).
The ability to develop alternative mitigation measures, improve existing compensation
schemes, or develop insurance policies relies heavily on understanding these complex
human–wildlife interactions (Dickman, 2010; Redpath et al., 2015). We urge that invest-
ments by institutions and individuals toward mitigation efforts be deployed by focusing on
identifying the most vulnerable households and places, and on the species causing the
most damage. We recognize an urgent need for standardization of policies across India
with respect to investing in mitigation efforts (e.g., fences, ditches) and post-incident
related processing of compensation claims. Identifying high-risk areas and vulnerable
households supported with deploying effective mitigation strategies will build tolerance
where it is most needed. Failure to do so will only increase hostility and retaliation against
wildlife (Barua et al., 2013; Karanth et al., 2013a; Linkie et al., 2007).

Acknowledgments
We thank A. Chhatre, R. DeFries, K. U. Karanth, A. Krishna, L. Naughton-Treves, S. K. Nepal, J.
Nichols, J. Shah, and E. Weinthal for advice. We are grateful to 140 volunteers who assisted in field
14 K. K. KARANTH AND S. KUDALKAR

work across 11 reserves. We acknowledge M. Amarnath, N. Ballal, S. Dasgupta, H. Dhanwatey, P.

Dhanwatey, D. V. Girish, M. Johnson, P. Krishnaprasad, N. S. Kumar, V. Kumar, S. Menon, P. M.
Muthanna, N. Patil, R. Patwardhan, Phaniraj, U. Ramakrishnan, A. Srivathsa, A. Srimathi, A.
Surendhra and A. Vanamamalai for support at different sites. We are grateful to Wildlife
Conservation Society (USA and India), Centre for Wildlife Studies, Columbia University, Duke
University, Karnataka Forest Department, Indian Institute of Management Udaipur, Madhya
Pradesh Forest Department, Maharashtra Forest Department, Rajasthan Forest Department,
USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Centre, and officers A. C. Pooviah, B. K. Singh, G. V. Reddy,
H. S. Mohanta, H. S. Negi, H. S. Pabla, J. S. Chauhan, and R. Shukla for their support.

Funding
DST Ramanujan Fellowship, National Geographic Society, NSF Grant Number 1029219 and
Rufford grants (#9527-1) supported this research.

References
Barua, M., Bhagwat, S. A., & Jadhav, S. (2013). The hidden dimensions of human–wildlife conflict:
Health impacts, opportunity, and transaction costs. Biological Conservation, 157, 309–316.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.014
Behdarvand, N., Kaboli, M., Ahmadi, M., Nourani, E., Salman Mahini, A., & Asadi Aghbolaghi, M.
(2014). Spatial risk model and mitigation implications for wolf–human conflict in a highly-
modified agroecosystem in western Iran. Biological Conservation, 177, 156–164. doi:10.1016/j.
biocon.2014.06.024
Behr, D. M., Ozgul, A., & Cozzi, G. (2017). Combining human acceptance and habitat suitability in
a unified socio-ecological suitability model: A case study of the wolf in Switzerland. Journal of
Applied Ecology. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12880
Bhatnagar, C., Kumar, K. V., & Kumar, S. (2010). Summer diet of Indian giant flying squirrel
Petaurista philippensis (Elliot) in Sitamata Wildlife Sanctuary, Rajasthan, India. Journal of the
Bombay Natural History Society, 107(13), 183–188.
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodal inference. A practical
information theoretic approach. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Campbell-Smith, G., Sembiring, R., & Linkie, M. (2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of human-
orangutan conflict mitigation strategies in Sumatra. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49, 367–375.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02109.x
Census of India. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner (ORGCC). (2011). Census
of India: 2011. New Delhi, India.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dar, N. I., Minhas, R. A., Zaman, Q., & Linkie, M. (2009). Predicting the patterns, perceptions and
causes of human–carnivore conflict in and around Machiara National Park, Pakistan. Biological
Conservation, 142, 2076–2082. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.04.003
Davies, T. E., Wilson, S., Hazarika, N., Chakrabarty, J., Das, D., Hodgson, D. J., & Zimmermann, A.
(2011). Effectiveness of intervention methods against crop-raiding elephants. Conservation
Letters, 4, 346–354. doi:10.1111/conl.2011.4.issue-5
DeFries, R., Hansen, A., Newton, A. C., & Hansen, M. C. (2005). Increasing isolation of protected
areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecological Applications, 15, 19–26.
doi:10.1890/03-5258
DeFries, R., Karanth, K. K., & Pareeth, S. (2010). Interactions between protected areas and their
surroundings in human-dominated tropical landscapes. Biological Conservation, 143, 2870–2880.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.010
Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries (DAHDF). (2007). Livestock census of
India. New Delhi, India: DAHDF.
 HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF WILDLIFE 15

Dickman, A. J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: The importance of considering social factors for
effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation, 13, 458–466. doi:10.1111/
acv.2010.13.issue-5
Fernando, P., Wikramanayake, E., Weerakoon, D., Jayasinghe, L. K. A., Gunawardene, M., &
Janaka, H. K. (2005). Perceptions and patterns of human-elephant conflict in old and new
settlements in Sri Lanka: Insights for mitigation and management. Biodiversity and
Conservation, 14, 2465–2481. doi:10.1007/s10531-004-0216-z
Gelman, A. (2008). Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in
Medicine, 27, 2865–2873. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0258
Goswami, V. R., & Vasudev, D. (2017). Triage of conservation needs: The juxtaposition of conflict
mitigation and connectivity considerations in heterogeneous, human-dominated landscapes.
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 144. doi:10.3389/fevo.2016.00144
Graham, M. D., & Ochieng, T. (2008). Uptake and performance of farm-based measures for
reducing crop raiding by elephants Loxodonta africana among smallholder farms in Laikipia
District, Kenya. Oryx, 42, 76–82. doi:10.1017/S0030605308000677
Hill, C. M., & Wallace, G. E. (2012). Crop protection and conflict mitigation: Reducing the costs of
living alongside non-human primates. Biodiversity and Conservation, 21, 2569–2587. doi:10.1007/
s10531-012-0318-y
Inskip, C., & Zimmermann, A. (2009). Human-felid conflict: A review of patterns and priorities
worldwide. Oryx, 43, 18–34. doi:10.1017/S003060530899030X
Karanth, K. K. (2016). Wildlife in the matrix: Spatio-temporal patterns of herbivore occurrence in
Karnataka, India. Environmental Management, 57, 189–206. doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0595-9
Karanth, K. K., Gopalaswamy, A. M., DeFries, R., & Ballal, N. (2012). Assessing patterns of human-
wildlife conflicts and compensation around a Central Indian protected area. PLoS ONE, 7(12),
e50433. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050433
Karanth, K. K., Gopalaswamy, A. M., Prasad, P. K., & Dasgupta, S. (2013b). Patterns of human–
wildlife conflicts and compensation: Insights from Western Ghats protected areas. Biological
Conservation, 166, 175–185. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.06.027
Karanth, K. K., Naughton-Treves, L., Defries, R., & Gopalaswamy, A. M. (2013a). Living with
wildlife and mitigating conflicts around three Indian protected areas. Environmental
Management, 52, 1320–1332. doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0162-1
Karanth, K. K., & Nepal, S. K. (2012). Local residents perception of benefits and losses from
protected areas in India and Nepal. Environmental Management, 49, 372–386. doi:10.1007/
s00267-011-9778-1
Karanth, K. K., Nichols, J. D., Karanth, K. U., Hines, J. E., & Christensen Jr, N. L. (2010). The
shrinking ark: Patterns of large mammal extinctions in India. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
London, B. Biological Sciences, 277, 1971–1979.
Karanth, K. K., & Surendra, A. (2017). Species and sites matter: Understanding human-wildlife
interactions from 5000 surveys in India. In S. Bhagwat (Ed.), Conservation and development in
India: Reimagining wilderness. Oxford, UK: Earthscan-Routledge.
Kolipaka, S. S., Persoon, G. A., De Iongh, H. H., & Srivastava, D. P. (2015). The influence of
people’s practices and beliefs on conservation: A case study on human-carnivore relationships
from the multiple use buffer zone of the Panna Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Human
Ecology, 52, 192–207.
Linkie, M., Dinata, Y., Nofrianto, A., & Leader-Williams, N. (2007). Patterns and perceptions of
wildlife crop raiding in and around Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra. Animal Conservation,
10, 127–135. doi:10.1111/acv.2007.10.issue-1
Livestock Census of India. (2007). Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying, and Fisheries
(DAHDF). (2007). 17th Livestock Census of India. New Delhi, India.
McManus, J. S., Dickman, A. J., Gaynor, D., Smuts, B. H., & Macdonald, D. W. (2015). Dead or
alive? Comparing costs and benefits of lethal and non-lethal human–wildlife conflict mitigation
on livestock farms. Oryx, 49, 687–695. doi:10.1017/S0030605313001610
16 K. K. KARANTH AND S. KUDALKAR

Miller, J. R. B., Jhala, Y. V., & Schmitz, O. J. (2016b). Human perceptions mirror realities of
carnivore attack risk for livestock: Implications for mitigating human-carnivore conflict. PLoS
ONE, 11(9), e0162685. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162685
Miller, J. R. B., Stoner, K. J., Cejtin, M. R., Meyer, T. K., Middleton, A. D., & Schmitz, O. J. (2016a).
Effectiveness of contemporary techniques for reducing livestock depredations by large carnivores.
Wildlife Society Bulletin, 40, 806–815. doi:10.1002/wsb.720
Morzillo, A. T., & Needham, M. D. (2015). Landowner incentives and normative tolerances for
managing beaver impacts. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 20, 514–530. doi:10.1080/
10871209.2015.1083062
Nagendra, H., Rocchini, D., & Ghate, R. (2010). Beyond parks as monoliths: Spatially differentiating
park-people relationships in the Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve. Biological Conservation, 143,
2900–2908.
Naughton-Treves, L. (1998). Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale National
Park, Uganda. Conservation Biology, 12, 156–168. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1998.96346.x
Naughton-Treves, L., & Treves, A. (2005). Socio-ecological factors shaping local support for wildlife:
Crop-raiding by elephants and other wildlife in Africa. In R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, & A.
Rabinowitz (Eds.), People and wildlife: Conflict or coexistence? (pp. 252–277). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Packer, C., Loveridge, A., Canney, S., Caro, T., Garnett, S. T., & Pfeifer, M., . . . Polasky S. (2013).
Conserving large carnivores: Dollars and fence. Ecology Letters, 16, 635–641. doi:10.1111/
ele.12091
Parker, G. E., & Osborn, F. V. (2006). Investigating the potential for chilli Capsicum spp. to reduce
human-wildlife conflict in Zimbabwe. Oryx, 40, 343–346. doi:10.1017/S0030605306000822
Quantum GIS Development Team. (2009). QGIS geographic information system. Open Source
Geospatial Foundation project. Retrieved from http://qgis.osgeo.org
Redpath, S. M., Bhatia, S., & Young, J. (2015). Tilting at wildlife: Reconsidering human-wildlife
conflict. Oryx, 49(2), 222–225.
Robbins, P. F., Chhangani, A. K., Rice, J., Trigosa, E., & Mohnot, S. M. (2007). Enforcement
authority and vegetation change at Kumbhalgarh wildlife sanctuary, Rajasthan, India.
Environmental Management, 40(3), 365–378.
Sharma, S., Sharma, S. K., & Sharma, S. (2003). Notes on mammalian fauna of Rajasthan. Zoos’
Print J, 18(4), 1085–1088.
Sitati, N. W., Walpole, M. J., & Leader-Williams, N. (2005). Factors affecting susceptibility of farms
to crop raiding by African elephants: Using a predictive model to mitigate conflict. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 42, 1175–1182. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01091.x
Spiteri, A., & Nepal, S. K. (2008). Distributing conservation incentives in the buffer zone of Chitwan
National Park, Nepal. Environmental Conservation, 35, 76–86. doi:10.1017/S0376892908004451
Suryawanshi, K. R., Bhatia, S., Bhatnagar, Y. V., Redpath, S., & Mishra, C. (2014). Multiscale factors
affecting human attitudes toward snow leopards and wolves. Conservation Biology, 28, 1657–
1666. doi:10.1111/cobi.12320
Treves, A. (2009). The human dimensions of conflicts with wildlife around protected areas. In M. J.
Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, P. Brown, & D. J. Decker (Eds.), Wildlife and society: The science of human
dimensions (pp. 214–228). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.
Science, 211(4481), 453–458. doi:10.1126/science.7455683
Webber, A. D., Hill, C. M., & Reynolds, V. (2007). Assessing the failure of a community-based
human-wildlife conflict mitigation project in Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. Oryx, 41, 177–
184. doi:10.1017/S0030605307001792
Woodroffe, R., Lindsey, P., Romañach, S., Stein, A., & Ole Ranah,S. M. K. (2005). Livestock
predation by endangered African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in northern Kenya. Biological
Conservation, 124, 225–234. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.01.028