Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186
DOI 10.1007/s10745-012-9556-6
Human–Tiger Conflict in Context: Risks to Lives
and Livelihoods in the Bangladesh Sundarbans
Chloe Inskip & Martin Ridout & Zubair Fahad &
Rowan Tully & Adam Barlow &
Christina Greenwood Barlow & Md. Anwar Islam &
Thomas Roberts & Douglas MacMillan
Published online: 19 January 2013
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012
Abstract People’s perceptions of the risk posed by wild ani-
mals to human lives and/or livelihoods can influence the rate at
which people intentionally kill these species. Consequently,
human–wildlife conflict (HWC) management strategies may
benefit from the inclusion of actions which reduce risk percep-
tions. This study uses Participatory Risk Mapping (PRM) and
semi-structured interviews to explore local perceptions and the
wider socio-economic context of human–tiger conflict (HTC)
in the Bangladesh Sundarbans area. Of the 24 locally-relevant
C. Inskip (*) : T. Roberts : D. MacMillan
Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of
Anthropology and Conservation, Marlowe Building,
University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NR, UK
e-mail: chloeinskip@gmail.com
T. Roberts
e-mail: T.M.Roberts@kent.ac.uk
D. MacMillan
e-mail: D.C.MacMillan@kent.ac.uk
M. Ridout
School of Mathematics, Statistics and Actuarial Science,
Cornwallis Building, University of Kent,
Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NR, UK
e-mail: M.S.Ridout@kent.ac.uk
Z. Fahad : R. Tully : A. Barlow : C. G. Barlow : M. A. Islam
WildTeam (formerly the Wildlife Trust of Bangladesh),
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Z. Fahad
e-mail: zh.fahad@gmail.com
R. Tully
e-mail: rowantully@gmail.com
A. Barlow
e-mail: adambarlow75@gmail.com
C. G. Barlow
e-mail: chrisgreenwood78@gmail.com
M. A. Islam
e-mail: anwar1955@gmail.com
problems identified by the PRM process, tigers were the only
problem to be cited by >50 % of respondents. The ‘tiger
problem’ was also perceived by villagers to be of relatively
high severity. Negative perceptions of tigers in the Sundarbans
communities are exacerbated by other locally-experienced
poverty-related problems, as well cyclones, floods and soil
erosion. Interactions between the problems experienced by
villagers, including HTC, result in a complex ‘risk web’ which
detrimentally affects lives and livelihoods and ultimately
perpetuates poverty levels in the Sundarbans communities.
This research demonstrates that PRM and in-depth, qualitative
research can enhance understanding of the perceived magnitude
and wider socio-economic context of risks from wildlife and aid
the identification of risk perception management actions which
may help to reduce the number of animals killed by people.
Keywords Panthera tigris . Human–wildlife conflict . Risk
perception . Poverty . Sundarbans
Introduction
Worldwide, many human populations and/or their liveli-
hoods are at risk from carnivores, such as tigers (Panthera
tigris), which attack people, livestock and/or game species
(Thirgood et al. 2005). Individuals of the species perceived
responsible for such incidents are often killed by members
of affected communities,1 a behaviour of concern when the
1
The term ‘retaliatory killing’ is used extensively in the HWC litera-
ture to describe the killing of conflict species. However, this term can
be misleading as it presupposes that animals are killed by people only
in response to conflict incidents such as livestock depredation and
attacks on people. The term does not therefore, recognise the cultural,
social and psychological factors which compound killing behaviour or
the fact that some killings may be preventative, rather than responsive,
in nature. As such the term is not used in this paper.
170
species in question is endangered (Woodroffe et al. 2005).
Previous research indicates that the killing of conflict ani-
mals is not motivated by actual levels of damage caused by
the species, but rather by a complex mixture of social and
psychological factors, including subjective perceptions of
the risk posed by a given species (Cavalcanti et al. 2010;
Dickman 2010; Marchini and Macdonald 2012). An under-
standing of risk perceptions is therefore fundamental to the
development of effective human–wildlife conflict (HWC)
management strategies (Marker et al. 2010; Dickman 2010).
This paper explores villagers’ perceptions of the risk posed
by tigers (P. t. tigris) in communities bordering the
Sundarbans mangrove forest in Bangladesh. First, the per-
ceived magnitude of the ‘tiger problem’ is quantified and
compared with the perceived magnitude of other problems
of concern to the study community. Such problems endan-
ger or impact negatively on villagers’ lives and/or liveli-
hoods and the words ‘problem’, ‘risk’ and ‘issue’ are
therefore used interchangeably throughout the paper.
Second, the interaction between perceived tiger risk and
other locally-experienced problems will be discussed. In so
doing, the ‘tiger problem’ will be placed in context of the
wider ‘issue landscape’ of these communities. Finally, the
implications of this research for the management of human–
tiger conflict (HTC) in Bangladesh will be discussed illus-
trating how knowledge of risk perceptions and the wider
socio-economic context of a conflict scenario can help
practitioners to more effectively address HWC scenarios.
Quantitative assessments of the actual risks from wildlife
(i.e. the observed or verified number of people and/or livestock
attacked by wild animals) are commonplace in the HWC
literature (e.g. Beier 1991; Packer et al. 2005; Holmern et al.
2007; Schiess-Meier et al. 2007) and have traditionally been
used (typically in combination with ecologically-based assess-
ments of conflict incident patterns and trends) to inform man-
agement decisions and identify management actions intended
to reduce HWCs. The premise underlying such HWC manage-
ment strategies has been that a reduction in the ‘real’ frequency
or severity of conflict incidents experienced by people will
engender a proportionate reduction in the rate at which people
kill individuals of the species responsible. However, these
quantitative and often wildlife-centric assessments of conflict
have not considered, nor the resultant management strategies
addressed, the complex socio-psychological factors, including
subjective risk perceptions, which drive human behaviours
including the killing of perceived conflict species. Efforts to
ameliorate HWCs by reducing the ‘real’ frequency or severity
of risk incidents have thus not been wholly successful in
reducing rates of killing behaviour (Dickman 2010).
Social research has shown that people’s subjective percep-
tions of the risk posed by a conflict species do not simply
reflect the actual number of incidents for which a species is
responsible (Naughton-Treves 1997; Riley and Decker 2000;
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186
Marker et al. 2003; Casey et al. 2005; Linkie et al. 2007).
Insight into why subjective risk perceptions differ from objec-
tive, empirical measures of risk comes from extensive research
into perceptions of risk from technological, environmental and
health hazards. Research from these fields has found that
subjective risk assessments are multidimensional and dynamic,
being shaped by the social (Kasperson et al. 1988; Beck 1992)
and cultural (Douglas and Wildavsky 1982) context of the risk,
as well as, an individual’s characteristics (e.g. gender
(Gustafson 1998) and/or occupation (Smith et al. 2001;
Quinn et al. 2003)) and the perceived inherent characteristics
of a given risk (e.g. dread (i.e. worry), voluntariness, familiar-
ity, controllability, number of people exposed to a risk, cata-
strophic potential and fatal consequences) (Slovic 1987). A
much smaller body of literature which specifically explores
risk perceptions of wildlife indicates that personal experience
with the animal species in question, and the nature of that
experience (i.e. whether it was a neutral or negative experi-
ence), can also shape the level of risk associated with the
species (Riley and Decker 2000; Siemer et al. 2009;
Thornton and Quinn 2010).
Factors influencing risk perceptions are complex and
situation-specific making subjective risk assessments liable
to vary between, and possibly within, communities involved
in HWC (Beck and Kropp 2007). If conflict practitioners are
to reduce the rate at which individuals of a conflict species
are killed by people—the conservation goal of all HWC
management strategies—they must incorporate into man-
agement strategies actions which effectively reduce percep-
tions of risk. To do this, practitioners must, through in-depth
social research garner an understanding of a conflict com-
munity’s perception of the conflict they experience as well
as the situation-specific social, cultural and personal factors
which cause risk perceptions to diverge from empirical
measures of conflict risk. There are several social research
methods and tools which have been developed to explore
risk perceptions, identify the factors which shape risk per-
ceptions and, aid the selection of appropriate risk perception
management actions. This study assesses the suitability of
Participatory Risk Mapping (PRM; Smith et al. 2000), an
approach novel to the study of HWCs, together with semi-
structured interviews to explore the relative magnitude and
the socio-economic context of perceived tiger risk in, as
well as the developmental and humanitarian implications
of HTC for, Sundarbans border villages.
Study Site
The Sundarbans mangrove forest (10,263 km2) is the largest
single tract of mangrove forest in the world (Iftekhar and
Islam 2004) situated in the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta span-
ning the border between south-western Bangladesh
(6,017 km 2 ) and India (4,246 km 2 ). The Bangladesh
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186
Sundarbans (from now on referred to as ‘the Sundarbans’;
Fig. 1) is a Class 3 Tiger Conservation Landscape of Global
Priority (Sanderson et al. 2006) and is home to one of the
world’s largest remaining tiger populations, estimated at
300–500 individuals (Ahmad et al. 2009; Barlow 2009).
There is no human habitation (apart from forest guard
posts) within the Sundarbans. However, 8 ‘upazilas’ (sub-
districts) with a total human population size of over 1.7
million border the northern and eastern forest boundaries
(Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, 2001) and 76 villages are
directly adjacent to the forest boundary. As village proxim-
ity to the Sundarbans increases, the type and number of
income generating activities available to villagers becomes
increasingly restricted and up to 78 % of households situat-
ed between 0 and 2 km from the forest boundary are depen-
dent on the natural resources within the Sundarbans for
income (Murtaza 2001). Male villagers typically have more
than one income source reflecting the unpredictability of
village-based work or seasonal patterns in natural resource
collection. Typical forest-based income sources include:
fishing; crab, shrimp fry, golpata (Nypa fructicans) or honey
collection; and wood cutting. Village-based income sources
typically include day labour, shop or tea stall ownership,
shrimp farm ownership or employment on shrimp farms and
agriculture. Women may also collect natural resources, carry
out domestic work in other villagers’ homes or make or
mend clothing. Dependency on the Sundarbans for natural
resources including food items, fire wood and livestock
fodder for household consumption is also extremely high
(Ahmad et al. 2009). Villagers’ houses are typically con-
structed of natural materials such as wood, golpata and
mud; corrugated iron and brick dwellings are rare.
The Sundarbans area suffers what is arguably the highest
rate of attacks on humans by tigers in the world (Barlow
2009). Forest Department (FD) records suggest that on
average 20–30 people are killed each year by tigers in the
Sundarbans. However, the real figure is likely to be higher
than this as attacks do not tend to be reported to the FD if the
person involved was in the forest without a permit (illegally)
(Khan 2004; WildTeam unpubl. data). Villages located
around the border of the Sundarbans also experience high
levels of livestock depredation (Rahman et al. 2009) and FD
data suggest that at least 3 tigers per year are killed as a
result of conflict in the Sundarbans (Barlow 2009). As with
the data concerning attacks on humans, some tiger deaths
may go unreported and FD records may therefore underes-
timate the total number of tigers killed each year.
Methods
All the data were collected from villages bordering the
Sundarbans (Fig. 1). Qualitative data concerning HTC and
171
the wider issue landscape of study villages were collected
via 54 semi-structured interviews in four case study villages
and two further villages where tigers had recently been
killed by villagers (January and September 2010)
(Table 1). Case study villages were selected from the 76
Sundarbans-border villages based on two criteria: presence
of a Village Tiger Response Team (VTRT; set up by local
NGO WildTeam) and location. VTRT presence was impor-
tant because the 6–7 villagers which make up these teams
could act as ‘gatekeepers’ to the villages, and were deemed
the most efficient way to identify and make contact with
members of each village who had been affected by tigers (at
the time of the study 29 border villages had VTRTs). Village
location was also important due to spatial variation in HTC
incidents in and around the Sundarbans (Rahman et al.
2009; Neumann-Denzau and Denzau 2010). As the
Sundarbans is split into four administrative ranges from
west to east, one VTRT village per range was selected
(Fig. 1). While villagers directly affected by tigers were
identified with the help of the VTRTs, villagers with no
direct experience with tigers were identified using a conve-
nience sampling strategy and villagers with knowledge or a
particular skill of relevance to the study were identified
using a snowball sampling strategy. Villagers’ accounts of
their experiences with tigers were verified through discus-
sions with VTRT members and other villagers.
Following the qualitative data collection, a structured ques-
tionnaire survey was developed, piloted and then administered
in 10 villages (n0385; Table 2). Survey villages were selected
from the un-sampled VTRT villages (i.e. those that had not
been case study villages; n025). Five villages were selected
from both the West and East Forest Divisions which bisect the
Sundarbans, again to ensure that survey village location varied
(Fig. 1). Respondents were selected using a purposive
(targeted) sampling strategy which ensured that people rele-
vant to the study were surveyed (i.e. people injured by a tiger,
those who had had a household member injured or killed by a
tiger, those who had suffered livestock depredation by tigers,
and those with no direct experience with tigers). Surveys were
carried out with household heads (typically men) and, to
ensure that a sufficient number of women were interviewed,
the household head’s wife was also interviewed in a propor-
tion of survey households (Table 2).
As well as collecting socio-demographic data the ques-
tionnaire explored respondents’ experience with tigers, their
perceptions of the HTC scenario and household use of, and
income from, natural resources in the Sundarbans. The
questionnaire also included a PRM section comprising open
questions about the problems the respondent and their
household members face living close to and working close
to or within the Sundarbans. To avoid leading the respond-
ents, the PRM section of the questionnaire preceded all
questions concerned specifically with tigers and HTC.
172 Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186

Fig. 1 The Bangladesh Sundarbans mangrove forest and study vil-
lages. The country level map shows the location of the Sundarbans
(grey shaded area) in Bangladesh (the districts of Bangladesh are also
shown). The detailed map shows the location of the case study, addi-
tional piloting, and questionnaire survey villages, as well as of the two
villages where tigers were killed by villagers in 2010 (TK villages).
The 8 ‘upazilas’ (subdistricts) which border the Sundarbans (labelled),
the 4 Sundarbans ranges (Satkhira, Khulna, Chandpai, and Sarankhola)
and the 3 wildlife sanctuaries within the Sundarbans are also shown.
Note that the West Forest Division comprises Satkhira and Khulna
ranges while the East Forest Division comprises Chandpai and Sarank-
hola ranges

Table 1 Semi-structured interviews carried out in case study (CS) villages

CS village Sundarbans range GPS coordinates Date(s) visited Number of interviews with respondent groups Total

Male Female AHF AHNF LD NC

Sarankhola Sarankhola 22.208°N 22.10.10–04.11.10 12 4 3 2 2 9 16

89.814°E
Joymoni Khulna 22.370°N 23.11.10–03.12.10 11 4 3 2 4 6 15
89.646°E
Kalabogi Chandpai 22.403°N 15.12.10–24.12.10 7 5 3 2 0 7 12
89.468°E
Jorshinga Khulna 22.247°N 25.12.10 4 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4
89.345°E
Mirgang Satkhira 22.196°N 12.01.11–24.01.11 4 3 3 1 1 2 7
89.140°E
Abad Chandipura Satkhira 22.291°N 24.01.11 1 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1
89.178°E

AHF household affected by a fatal tiger attack on a household member; AHNF victim of a non-fatal tiger attack; LD household affected by livestock
depredation by tiger; NC member of a household not directly affected by the aforementioned HTC incident types
a
Villages where a tiger had recently been killed (not full case study sites): Abad Chandipur: January 2010; Jorshing: September 2010
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186 173

Table 2 Questionnaires completed in survey villages

Survey village Sundarbans Forest GPS coordinates Date(s) visited Number of interviews with respondent groups Total
Division
HH Spouse AHF AHNF LD NC

Tengrakhali West 22.213°N 10.05.11–12.05.11 27 12 10 9 10 10 39

89.113°E
Dhakkin Kadamtola West 22.228°N 13.05.11–15.05.11 27 12 10 9 10 10 39
89.183°E
Munshiganj West 22.270°N 15.05.11–16.05.11 22 9 10 11 0 10 31
89.199°E
Horihorpur West 22.263°N 19.05.11–20.05.11 16 7 3 10 0 10 23
89.353°E
4 No Koyra West 22.346°N 17.05.11–18.05.11 21 9 10 10 0 10 30
89.332°E
Katakhali East 22.409°N 01.06.11–02.06.11 34 10 10 3 21 10 44
89.667°E
Jewdhara East 22.413°N 03.06.11–04.06.11 22 10 10 2 10 10 32
89.712°E
Uttar Rajapur East 22.347°N 22.05.11–25.05.11 40 19 17 10 22 10 59
89.763°E
Sonatola East 22.270°N 26.05.11–28.05.11 25 12 10 10 7 10 37
89.800°E
Chalitabunia East 22.209°N 28.05.11–31.05.11 35 16 10 11 20 10 51
89.712°E
TOTAL 269 116 100 85 100 100 385

HH household head (17 HH were female (i.e. ‘tiger widows’)); Spouse male household head’s wife; AHF household affected by a fatal tiger attack
on a household member; AHNF victim of a non-fatal tiger attack; LD household affected by livestock depredation by tiger; NC member of a
household not directly affected by the aforementioned HTC incident types

The PRM process comprised two stages. First, interview-
ees were asked to describe the problems that they and their
household members experience living in close proximity to,
and working within or close to, the Sundarbans. Specifically,
respondents were asked to list all of the problems that caused
them to worry about: a) their safety and well-being while in
the village or at work; b) the safety and well-being of their
household members; c) the livestock they own; d) their work
or income; and, d) their home and the things they own. These
open questions were carefully constructed to encourage peo-
ple to think about the broad spectrum of problems (both risks
and issues of concern) villagers had spoken about during the
semi-structured interviews. However, respondents were as-
sured that they could cite as many, or as few, problems as
was appropriate for their circumstances. Choosing correctly
the local words used in PRM questions is important to the
success of the approach (Smith et al. 2000) and, in this
context, the Bengali words ‘somosa’ and ‘duschinta’ were
the most appropriate translation of the English words ‘prob-
lem’ and ‘worry’ respectively. Second, respondents were
asked to rank in order of severity the problems they had cited;
tied rankings of two or more problems were allowed.
Problems listed by respondents were translated into
English and then classified into 25 categories (Table 3). The
number and labelling of categories in the classification
scheme was based on participants’ categorisation of problems,
an approach necessary if a study is to establish which partic-
ular aspects of interconnected problems and/or broad issues
such as ‘poverty’ are of concern to respondents (Smith et al.
2000; Doss et al. 2008). During the categorisation process, 3
respondents were removed from the data set due to the ambi-
guity of at least one of their reported risks. Incidence and
severity scores were therefore calculated from the remaining
382 respondents (male: 251; female: 131).
The incidence, I, is the proportion of respondents citing a
certain problem and therefore ranges from 0 (no one citing the
problem) to 1 (all respondents citing the problem). The pro-
portion of people citing ‘Tigers’ as a problem was compared
to the proportion of people citing other problems using
McNemar’s exact test. Calculation of problem severity is
more complex as respondents may have listed different numb-
ers of problems. For example Respondent A may have listed
three problems and will have ordinal rankings ranging from 1
to 3, while Respondent B may have listed six problems and
will have ordinal rankings ranging from 1 to 6. Smith et al.
(2001) present a simple index method for calculating a prob-
lem severity score which standardises interval lengths across
respondents citing different numbers of problems. As the
problems cited by respondents in this study were ranked in
ascending numerical order (i.e. the problem deemed most
174 Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186

Table 3 Description of problem categories

Type Problem category Description

Natural Tigers Attacks on people and/or livestock in the village and/or forest; tigers entering villages
Other animals Attacks on people and/or livestock by other animals (crocodiles, wild boar, snakes, dogs)
Water Access to clean, non-saline water for domestic use and agriculture; impact of saline water on
crop or livestock fodder production.
Land Access to (enough) land for house construction and agriculture
Fish Declining fish stocks (reducing incomes from fishing)
Weather Effects of and inadequate/lack of protection measures from natural disasters (cyclones, storms
and floods); threats posed by sea storms while fishing
Livestock fodder Lack of livestock fodder in village
Soil erosion Damage to property caused by soil erosion along river banks
Financial Shrimp farms Disease affecting fish and shrimp in farms; flooding of shrimp farms with saline water
at high tide
Income and Assetsa Not enough income to: support family (i.e. to provide food, clothes, health care, education, buy
livestock, build toilet, and/or repair home); set up a business; be able to marry daughters
well (provide dowry); buy/build own home; to provide security (for children); buy
pesticides for crops; recover from impacts such as cyclones; pay back loans
Employment Few employment opportunities within village (either for respondent or their family members
(including their children)) and the impact that lack of employment has on their
quality of life
Resource restrictions Restrictions to the types of permits available for legal collection of resources from the
Sundarbans and the related impact on income
Food costs Increasing food costs
Human Age, health and injury The impact of disease, injury or old age on ability to work (income); worry caused by
disease, injury or old age, or fertility issues
Social Political problems and corruption Corruption in political systems and Forest Department; harassment by political members
of community
Law enforcement Poor law enforcement
Thieves Losses to thieves; the impact of thieves on livelihoods
Health care Access to, or cost of, health care
Pirates Payments to, kidnapping or physical harm by, pirates in Sundarbans
Education Access to, cost or quality of, education
Veterinary care Access to, or cost of, veterinary care
Physical House Poor condition/construction/location of house which makes the house vulnerable to soil
erosion, storms and floods, thieves, wild animals; size of house inadequate
Roads and transport Poor road infrastructure and transport
Electricity Lack of electricity supply
Miscellaneous (MISC Other) Includes: children associating with ‘undesirable’ villagers; a family member’s unhappiness
in their marriage; fear of drowning; discrimination against minority religions; no market in
village; disputes with neighbours; high tides.

Problem categories grouped according to type (Quinn et al. 2003). Each of the problems in the Miscellaneous category were cited by only one
respondent and were not included in the Risk Map analysis
a
Income and Assets could be further disaggregated but, as HTC was the key focus of this study, further detail here was not deemed necessary

severe by a respondent was assigned the rank 1; the problem
deemed next most severe was assigned the rank 2 etc.; two or
more problems deemed to be of equal severity by a respondent
(tied ranks) were assigned the mean of their ordinal ranks) the
formula presented by Smith et al. (2001) was altered to:


Sij ¼ m þ 1  rij =m where Sij is the severity index score for
respondent i and problem j; m is the maximum number of
problems listed by any respondent; and rij is the rank given to
problem j by respondent i. This alteration ensured that the
severity index, Sij, ranged from 0 (problem not cited by
respondent) to 1 (problem cited as most severe by respon-
dent). Mean severity, S, was then calculated for each problem
by averaging severity scores for all those respondents in the
study population that cited a particular problem (i.e. for all Sij
values >0). A risk map was then produced by plotting S
against I. Severity scores for ‘Tigers’ were compared to se-
verity scores for other problems using an unpaired Welch two-
sample t-test.
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186
Results
Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Interviewees
and Survey Respondents
Between 7 and 16 people were interviewed in each case
study village; one person was interviewed in Abad
Chandipur and 4 people were interviewed in Jorshing (the
two villages where stray tigers had been killed in 2010)
(Table 1). In total, 39 men and 16 women were interviewed.
For 9 interviewees, at least one of their household members
had been killed by a tiger; 7 interviewees had themselves
been injured by a tiger; 7 had experienced livestock depre-
dation by tiger; and 24 had no direct household level expe-
rience with tigers (Table 1). Interviewees were between 15
and 85 years of age and were of Islamic (70 %), Hindu
(28 %) or Christian (2 %) faith.
As a consequence of the sampling strategy which tar-
geted household heads, 65 % of questionnaire survey
respondents were male while 35 % were female (Table 2).
Of the women interviewed, 13 % were household heads (i.e.
‘tiger widows’). Respondents were between 18 and 82 years
of age. Typically, respondents had either never been to
school (36 %) or had been to school for less than 5 years
(37 %). Only 22 % of respondents had attended school for
6–10 years while 5 % had gone to college. Questionnaire
respondents were either Muslim (84 %) or Hindu (16 %) but
the villagers’ qualitative narratives indicate that Hindu and
Muslim villagers are united in beliefs about a number of
deities and spiritual figures specifically associated with the
Sundarbans. Respondents’ average monthly household in-
come ranged from BDT 1,000–30,000 (US$ 12–366). The
households of 52 % of respondents owned large livestock
(mean 5; range 1–26) which are typically attacked by tigers
in this area (i.e. buffalo, cattle, sheep, goats and dogs). The
majority of respondents were from households where at
least one household member earned income by collecting
natural resources in the Sundarbans (58 %), while 75 %
respondents were from households which consume forest
resources (e.g. fuel wood).
Risk Map
The incidence, I, and mean severity, S, scores for all listed
problems are presented in the Sundarbans’ risk map (Fig. 2)
and Table 4. The problem most commonly reported by
respondents was ‘Tigers’ (i.e. HTC incidents); this was the
only problem to be cited by more than 50 % of respondents
(I00.52) and therefore the only problem situated on the right
side of the risk map. Significantly more respondents cited
tigers as a problem than all other problems (McNemar test)
except ‘Income and Assets’ (n0205, p00.16). ‘Tigers’ also
received a relatively high severity score (S00.82). ‘Income
175
and Assets’ (I00.46; S00.89) and ‘Employment’ (I00.44;
S00.89) were the second and third most commonly reported
problems and both were perceived to be of significantly greater
severity than the tiger problem (t0−4.64, df0361, p<0.001;
and t0−4.18, df0349, p<0.001 respectively). ‘Water’ (I00.32;
S00.79), ‘Weather’ (I00.23; S00.73), ‘Pirates’ (I00.20;
S00.77) and ‘Education’ (I00.18; S00.80) were also relatively
commonly reported problems. ‘Weather’ (t04.35, df0154,
p<0.001) and ‘Pirates’ (t02.52, df0123, p<0.05) had signifi-
cantly lower severity scores than that for ‘Tigers’, while the
severity scores for ‘Water’ (t01.57, df0226, p00.12) and
‘Education’ (t01.19, df0108, p00.24) did not differ signifi-
cantly from that for ‘Tigers’. There were several risks which
were of high severity, but that were perceived as a problem by
only a few respondents, a pattern similar to that found in other
PRM studies (Smith et al. 2000; Quinn et al. 2003; Baird et al.
2009). For example, ‘Resource Restrictions’ (S00.95) received
the highest severity score of all problems, but was only cited as
a problem by three respondents. All mean severity scores were
greater than 0.5; this is a consequence of the fact that the
maximum number of problems reported by any individual
was seven, but most individuals reported four or fewer prob-
lems. The lowest severity score amongst the problems cited
was ‘Thieves’ (S00.61).
Placing Tigers in the Context of the Wider ‘Issue Landscape’
of Sundarbans Villages
Collectively, the problems documented in the risk map
(Fig. 2) can be conceptualised as the ‘issue landscape’ for
the Sundarbans community which comprises all of the prob-
lems villagers’ believe impact negatively on their lives and
livelihoods. Analysis of qualitative data indicates that vil-
lagers’ perceptions of tiger risk can be directly influenced by
one or more of the following problems which occur in this
landscape: ‘Employment’, ‘Income and Assets’, ‘Weather’,
‘Health Care’, ‘Soil Erosion’, ‘Electricity’, ‘Education’ and
‘House Construction’. These problems shape perceptions of
tiger risk by influencing: the perceived probability or poten-
tial severity of encounters with tigers; resilience to the
negative impacts of interactions with tigers; the ability to
mitigate tiger risk events; or, a combination of these (Fig. 3).
In most instances, these problems (are perceived to) exacer-
bate the risk from tigers; only occasionally do they act in the
opposite fashion. Furthermore, several of the other problems
in the risk map, including ‘Roads and Transport’, ‘Pirates’,
‘Corruption’ and ‘Land’ are likely to have an indirect influ-
ence on perceptions of tiger risk due to their interaction with
the problems which affect perceptions of tiger risk directly
(see below). Due to the perceived interactions between the
tiger problem and other locally experienced problems, it is
apparent that for the Sundarbans community, ‘Tigers’ are
not a discrete problem; instead they are a component of the
176
1.0
Fig. 2 The Sundarbans’ risk
map. I incidence: the proportion of
respondents citing each problem;
S severity: the mean severity score
0.9
for all respondents who cited each
problem (i.e. where Sij > 0). The
mean severity score is a linear
function of mean rank assigned to
0.8
the problem, given that the
Severity, S
problem was cited at all. The
j c
right-hand axis shows the
equivalent mean rank values. As
0.7
far as possible, problems are
labelled on the risk map,
otherwise: a: Political problems
and Corruption; b: Other animals;
0.6
c: Soil erosion; d: Electricity; e:
Livestock fodder; f: Shrimp farms;
g: Law enforcement; h: House
construction; i: Fish; j: Veterinary
0.5
care. See Table 2 for descriptions
of problem categories
0.00
complex, interrelated and situation-specific ‘risk web’
which affects the lives and livelihoods of villagers (Fig. 3).
Perceived Drivers of HTC Incident Probability
Employment
The issue which, in villagers’ opinions, is the most significant
driver of the tiger problem in this area is the lack of employ-
ment opportunities in villages (’Employment’) as it results in
extensive dependency on the Sundarbans’ natural resources
for income. Villagers regularly spoke of their inability to
support themselves and their families by means other than
natural resource collection, for example: “The situation here
is such that if people don’t go to the jungle, then they’ll die of
starvation…We can’t earn a living without the jungle…We
have no other way than the jungle.” Entering the
Sundarbans to carry out activities such as shrimp fry, crab,
golpata (Nypa fruticans) and honey collection, fishing and
wood cutting increases the likelihood that a person will en-
counter, and therefore be attacked by, a tiger. Indeed, 90 % of
reported attacks on people occur inside the forest (Barlow et
al. 2010) and, those who enter the forest “…know that it is not
certain that they will return from the Sundarbans safely. Some
might be killed by tigers or pirates. Some might be killed by a
snake. People go to the Sundarbans as they have no alterna-
tive.” People enter the forest “defying the threat of the tiger” so
that they can provide shelter, food and clothes for their fam-
ilies and education for their children.
Most respondents (82 %) believe that the community’s
dependence on the Sundarbans also results in the degrada-
tion of the forest and, this degradation is perceived by many
villagers to increase the likelihood of HTC incidents by
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186
1
Resource restrictions
Food costs
Employment Income & Assets
i
f Age, health & injury
2
a
g Land Tiger
Education
Average rank
Water
Health care
b Pirates
Weather
h
3
d
e Roads & Transport
Thieves
4
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Incidence, I
affecting tiger behaviour. For example, forest degradation
is perceived by many to increase the probability of tigers
moving out of the forest and into villages (stray tiger inci-
dents): “If people from the village didn’t go to the jungle
then [tigers] will not come into the village; there is nothing
in the jungle, that’s why [tigers] come into villages.”
Furthermore, poaching of spotted deer (Axis axis) (a princi-
ple prey species for tigers) is common in the Sundarbans
(Mohsanin et al. 2012) and villagers often stated that there
was a “food shortage” for tigers in the Sundarbans. The
(perceived) depletion of tigers’ natural prey base is believed
to increase the likelihood of a tiger attacking people and/or
livestock. For example: “the number of tigers is decreasing,
[yet] the number of attack incidents is increasing. Man is
killing deer and cutting wood in the forest which is reducing
the abode and food of the tigers. So, people are being
attacked in the forest.”
To further complicate the scenario, the number and type
of village-based jobs available is, according to villagers,
restricted by one or more of the other problems documented
in the risk map including ‘Water’, ‘Roads and Transport’,
‘Land’ and ‘Corruption’. These peripheral problems are
therefore likely to have an indirect influence on perceptions
of the tiger problem. For example, throughout the
Sundarbans area water salinity (‘Water’) is increasing,
bringing about changes in land use practices (‘Land’) and
reducing the number of agricultural jobs available in vil-
lages. The increase in salinity, attributable to dams con-
structed on rivers in India which have restricted the flow
of freshwater to the Sundarbans and to the growth of shrimp
aquaculture in the area (Sen 2010), has had a negative
impact on many villagers by reducing the local production
of rice and other crops and the associated employment:
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186 177

Table 4 Incidence and severity scores for problems cited by respond- during the monsoon season or following a flood. Finally,
ents during Participatory Risk Mapping
‘Corruption’ renders certain jobs unobtainable for those
Problem/Issue Incidence, I Severity, S villagers who cannot afford the bribes necessary to secure
these job opportunities.
Tigers 0.518 0.821
Income & assets 0.463 0.895 Weather
Employment 0.442 0.888
Water 0.317 0.792 As well as impacting negatively on employment opportuni-
Weather 0.233 0.734 ties, ‘Weather’ can have a more direct influence on the
Pirates 0.196 0.768 perceived level of risk from tigers. Many people believe
Education 0.178 0.795 that recent cyclones ‘Sidr’ (November 2007) and ‘Aila’
Health Care 0.134 0.779 (May 2009) have altered the Sundarbans ecosystem in a
Roads & Transport 0.131 0.676 manner which has increased the probability of tiger attacks.
Land 0.092 0.822 For example, a common belief is that changes in natural
Age, health & injury 0.073 0.865 prey abundance or distribution following these cyclones
Political problems & corruption (a) 0.047 0.837 have prompted tigers to seek alternative prey (i.e. people
Other animals (b) 0.039 0.771 and/or livestock): “[In the past we would] see deer and pig.
Soil erosion (c) 0.039 0.757 Now, we do not see them. After Aila they might have gone
Electricity (d) 0.039 0.705 deep inside the forest. So the tiger is not getting deer [in the
Livestock fodder (e) 0.037 0.684 forest] and it comes to the village [in search of food].” An
Shrimp farms (f) 0.034 0.857 alternate hypothesis is that cyclones have altered the distri-
Thieves 0.024 0.611 bution of tigers in the forest. For example, some people
Law enforcement (g) 0.021 0.830 believe that the southern part of the Sundarbans, which
House construction (h) 0.021 0.714 borders the Bay of Bengal, has become “…submerged in
Fish (i) 0.018 0.878 water…” forcing the tigers from this area to move north-
Food costs 0.016 0.905 wards and therefore closer to villages.
Resource restrictions 0.008 0.952
Veterinary care (j) 0.008 0.762 Minor Problems: Electricity, Education, House Construction
and Soil Erosion
Problems/issues are listed in descending order based their incidence
score. I incidence: the proportion of respondents reporting an issue; S Although less commonly reported than the influence of
severity: the mean severity score for all respondents who cited each
problem (i.e. where Sij>0). Letters in brackets correspond with the ‘Employment’ and ‘Weather’, other locally-felt problems
labelling in the Risk Map (Fig. 2) are linked by some villagers to the probability of certain
HTC incidents. For example, lack of electricity supply
(‘Electricity’) in villages is perceived to render villages
“The poor have neither land nor shrimp farm. When the more vulnerable to ‘stray tiger’ incidents. This is because
lands were used for [rice] cultivation, poor people could many villagers believe that tigers are ‘scared’ of electric
cultivate lands and live on that. A shrimp farm does not lighting. Bright lights (flares or other pyrotechnics and/or
need many workers; only five workers can run a shrimp powerful torches) have been used to repel tigers from areas
farm [while] many people were needed to cultivate the same of human habitation in Russia (Goodrich 2010) and the
area of land. So, the rich are becoming richer while the Bangladesh Sundarbans (A. Haque, pers comm) and
poor people in search of food are going into the Sundarbans there is anecdotal evidence from the villages bordering
and being attacked by tigers”. the Indian Sundarbans that the provision of solar pow-
Furthermore, employment concerns are heightened by ered lighting reduces the number of stray tiger incidents
other water-related problems such as salt water intrusion (Ahmed 2011). The belief held by villagers that “…If the
from shrimp farms, as well as bad weather and, in some electricity comes there will be light everywhere and the
areas, soil erosion which degrade agricultural land through problem of the tiger will diminish…” seems therefore to
inundation with saline water. Floods and cyclones also be quite logical.
destroy shops and tea stalls in villages and cause the loss When a tiger does enter a village, the poor construction
of income-related assets such as sewing machines which of houses renders people more vulnerable to attack: “…Two
further reduces village-based employment opportunities. months ago a tiger came into the village. The tiger ate two
Additionally, the employment opportunities are also ham- goats from the neighbouring house. All were told to be on
pered by the incredibly poor road conditions particularly alert and remain in their house. We could not sleep all night
178 Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186

Pirates; Corruption WATER; Roads & Transport

TIGERS; Roads TIGERS; WEATHER
Land; Soil Erosion Land; Corruption
WEATHER; WATER Education

INCOME & ASSETS EMPLOYMENT

Lack of money results in poor Lack of employment opportunities
construction of houses &/or livestock results in dependence on natural
pens (ability to mitigate AH & LD resources, including wild animals,
restricted). Lack of money/assets bringing people into contact with
makes payment of medical costs or tigers, reducing tiger’s natural prey
replacing livestock difficult (decreases and/or degrading tiger habitat
resilience to AH/LD incidents). AH/LD (increased probability of AH and
can reduce HH income/assets (HH less ST) . AH can reduce the number of
able to mitigate or has reduce opportunities available to victims
resilience to future shocks). (injuries/fear).

ity
Re bil
sil oba
ie
nc t Pr
Education e en Soil Erosion
&
M ncid
itig r :I
Poor quality/access to or a lack of e Can increase khal size (decrease
at
io Driv
schools leaves villagers without n the frequency of ST) but also
skills and dependent on the on causes damage to property
itigati
Sundarbans for income; children of
ie n c e&M (including houses & livestock
tiger victims may leave school to Driver: Resil id ent pens)/agricultural land and/or
Inc r: In c
work (increased probability of Proba ident
bility
TIGERS Drive ability increases demands on HH finances
encountering a tiger) Prob (decreased HH resilience)
y
lit
bi

Dr
ba

ive
ro

r: Income & Assets

tP

Re In
cid
en

TIGERS sil
id

ie en
nc

Roads & Transport nc tS

:I

e ev
Dri
er

Soil Erosion er No local health care increases

riv

ity
ver

distances travelled for treatment

D

rity

Re

: In

(increased chance of death (AH));

eve

sili

cid

Villages lack electricity (increased poor healthcare may increase

&S

en

en

probability of ST);ability to detect recovery times (decreased

ce

tP
ility

threats at night also impaired. resilience (AH))

&M

rob
bab

itig

ab

Electricity Health Care

Pro

ility
atio
ent

n
cid
: In

Income & Assets Income & Assets

ver

Roads & Transport

Dri

Cyclones/floods kill tiger prey or

cause prey/tigers to migrate to
different areas of the forest (either
Poor construction of houses increasing or decreasing
renders the people inside AH/LD/ST); damages/destroys
vulnerable to tigers (increased houses and livestock pens (HH less
probability of AH during ST; able to mitigate or has reduced
increased severity of ST) resilience to future shocks).

House Construction WEATHER

Income & Assets

Soil Erosion Income & Assets

Fig. 3 The Sundarbans’ Risk Web. The tiger-focussed risk web depicts
the perceived interactions between tigers and other locally-experienced
problems. The perceived interactions documented in the risk web were
identified during the analysis of the qualitative data collected via semi-
structured interviews. HH household; AH attack on a human; LD livestock
depredation; ST stray tiger incident. CAPITALS indicate the 5 threats most
commonly reported by villagers (see Fig 2). The weight of an unbroken
arrow indicates how commonly the perceived relationship between a
problem and ‘Tigers’ was reported by interviewees. Black (unbroken)
arrows indicate that a problem is perceived to have a direct negative
influence on the tiger problem. Grey (unbroken) arrows indicate that a
problem is perceived to have a direct but mixed influence (i.e. positive or
negative depending on location and/or individual) on perceptions of the
tiger problem. Grey dotted arrows indicate the reciprocal influence of the
tiger problem on other locally-experienced problems. Black dotted arrows
indicate interactions between all other problems in the risk web
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186
due to our fear of the tiger. Our house was not protected
enough. There was not even a door in our house.” Some
villagers also noted how poor access to schools (‘Education’)
prohibits their children gaining the education they need to get
jobs outside the Sundarbans. These children are likely to
become dependent on the Sundarbans for income and therefore
there is a greater probability of them encountering, at some
point in their life, a tiger in the forest. Conversely, while soil
erosion can indirectly increase the perceived probability of
tiger incidents (as discussed above), in certain areas where it
acts to increase the width of ‘khals’ (small rivers which typi-
cally separate a village from a forest), it may also be a direct
positive influence on HTC probability by reducing the number
of tigers that cross the affected khal and enter a village.
Perceived Drivers of HTC Incident Severity
Health Care and House Construction
Problems such as ‘Health care’ and ‘House construction’
influence the perceived severity of attacks on people and stray
tiger incidents respectively. For example, “When a man is
attacked by a tiger, he cannot get proper [medical] treatment
here. He has to be taken by trawler to the hospital elsewhere.
The person might die on the way to hospital.” Lack of medical
care in villages therefore increases the (perceived) probability
of a person dying following a tiger attack, increasing the risk
associated with these incidents. Similarly, as mentioned pre-
viously, people’s houses do not provide protection from tigers.
This increases the (perceived) probability of a person being
attacked in a village and heightens the potential severity of
stray tiger incidents.
Problems Which Reduce Resilience to and/or Capacity
to Mitigate HTC Incidents
Income and Assets
Poor income and few valuable assets decrease a household’s
ability to mitigate and limit their financial resilience to tiger
attacks on household members and/or their livestock. For
example, low income restricts villagers’ ability to build
houses that would provide greater protection from tigers.
Similarly, livestock pens do not protect domestic animals
from tigers causing concern for many livestock owners: “I
am a bit worried about my livestock because a tiger could
come [into the village] at any moment because the forest is
close by. It could come at any moment and take a cow or
goat. To protect them I need to build stronger sheds but I
can’t because of money.” Furthermore, low incomes make
paying for medical treatment for a household member in-
jured by a tiger extremely difficult. Medical treatment for
one tiger victim costs affected households an average of TK
179
53,923 (US$ 657) which equates to nearly a year’s income
for the average survey household (TK 58,920 (US$718))
and, for many, it is only possible to make these payments by
using household savings, taking out loans, selling land and/
or accepting donations from wider family members and/or
other villagers.
As with all of the problems which influence tiger risk
perceptions, there are several peripheral problems which
affect household capacity to generate income and ability to
acquire assets and which may, therefore, indirectly influence
risk perceptions about tigers. Perhaps the most significant
peripheral problem here is ‘Pirates’, organised, armed
groups of men who control territories in the Sundarbans
and who further limit many villagers’ incomes by demand-
ing payment from forest resource users to enter the forest;
confiscating for their own gain the natural resources collect-
ed by villagers; demanding ransoms for villagers they have
kidnapped; and even murdering villagers. (Some villagers
also hold pirates responsible for deer poaching in the forest
and therefore the declining number of wild prey available
for tigers.) Other problems of relevance to income and assets
include: poor road conditions which limits the transport of
natural resources to distant, larger markets where they could
be sold at a higher price than in local markets; corruption,
this time in the form of bribes paid by villagers to the Forest
Department, in addition to their permit fees, in order to be
able to collect natural resources; poor access to land; and
natural disasters and soil erosion which through damage to
property can increase demands on an already limited income
and, through loss of income-related assets, limit household
earning potential.
Reciprocal Risk Relationships
As shown in Fig. 3, the relationship between the tiger
problem and other problems in the Sundarbans risk web
may be reciprocal i.e. the tiger problem may also (be per-
ceived to) influence the probability or severity of risk events
associated with other problems, reduce household resilience
to these events and/or reduce ability to mitigate these events.
For example, by reducing household ability to generate
income (due to a reduction in, or complete loss of, a victim’s
income or the loss of livestock) or increasing pressure on
household budgets (due to payments for medical treatment,
replacement animals or to repair damage to a house or
livestock pen), tiger attacks on people or livestock can have
a direct, negative impact on an affected household’s ability
to mitigate and/or their resilience to future risk events (e.g.
‘Weather’ (cyclones and floods), ‘Soil Erosion’, ‘Pirates’,
additional tiger incidents). Furthermore, to pay medical
costs, households often rely on donations from wider family
members (i.e. those who do not live in the affected house-
hold) and/or other villagers. Reliance on other community
180
members to cover these costs means that the financial
impacts of tiger attacks can be widely felt and may leave
additional parties more vulnerable to future shocks. Due to a
reduction in household income following a tiger attack,
children of victims may be forced to leave school as their
parent(s) can no longer afford school fees and equipment
costs. These children have to take up work to boost the
household income, for example catching shrimp fry, fishing
or doing domestic chores in other villagers’ households.
Without an education, future employment opportunities
available to such children will be reduced and it is likely
that most will become dependent on the Sundarbans for
income, and subsequently more vulnerable to tiger attack.
Similarly, employment opportunities for people injured by
tigers may be reduced as their injuries may render them
physically unable to carry out certain types of work or fear
of another attack may prevent them from returning to the
forest for work. Finally, because HTC incidents or their
severity are a perceived consequence of issues such as the
lack of employment opportunities in villages, poor house
construction or medical care, these issues may assume a
heightened significance for this community.
Discussion
The Risk Web and the Magnitude of the Perceived Tiger
Problem
This research provides useful insight into the locally per-
ceived magnitude and the socio-economic context of HTC
in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. No previous PRM studies
have found a single, named wild animal species to be of
concern to the study communities. However, tigers are the
problem most commonly reported by respondents in the
Bangladesh Sundarbans. While the lack of specific species
in other PRM studies may be an artefact of the PRM cate-
gorisation process (i.e. multiple species may have been
grouped under a more general HWC category), the relative
positioning of general HWCs in the risk maps from other
PRM studies confirms the prominence of the tiger problem
in the Sundarbans. For example, crop pests (mammals and
insects) were the sixth most commonly cited problem in
rural communities in semi-arid Tanzania (Quinn et al.
2003), while crop destruction by wildlife was the ninth most
commonly reported problem in communities of the semi-
arid lands of Kenya and Ethiopia (Smith et al. 2000).
Threats from wildlife to crops, livestock and people were
respectively the fourth, sixth and seventh most commonly
cited problems in communities living close to Tarangire
National Park, Tanzania, while only crop pests were men-
tioned in communities living further from the park border
(Baird et al. 2009). The severity scores assigned to these
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186
HWCs varied between studies but were also generally lower
than the severity scores assigned to tigers in the Sundarbans.
This disparity not only indicates the relative magnitude of
the tiger problem in the issue landscape of the Sundarbans
border villages, but also that perceived risks from wildlife
are likely to vary significantly between communities or
conflict scenarios (Baird et al. 2009).
Exploration of the wider socio-economic context of HTC
in Sundarbans villages provides insight into why tigers
feature so prominently in the Sundarbans issue landscape.
The (perceived) probability or severity of HTC incidents,
people’s (perceived) resilience to or their (perceived) ability
to mitigate HTC incidents are all influenced by numerous
other problems experien ced b y the community.
Furthermore, HTC may (be perceived to) render people
more vulnerable to, or less able to cope with, the negative
consequences of other problems and therefore has the po-
tential to heighten the risks associated with these problems.
HTC is not therefore seen by Sundarbans villagers as a
discrete problem. It is risk that is associated with many of
the other most significant (i.e. most commonly reported)
problems in the area and, through the (perceived) interac-
tions with these other problems, tigers have become a per-
vasive negative presence in the community’s issue
landscape and one of its most prominent concerns.
The Sundarbans risk map (Fig. 2) documents numerous
issues characteristic of endemic poverty (e.g. low incomes
and few assets, dependence on natural resources for house-
hold consumption and/or income, poor infrastructure and
services, lack of clean water, basic living conditions) many
of which are relatively commonly reported by respondents.
All but two (‘Weather’ and ‘Soil Erosion’) of the problems
that appear in the tiger-focused risk web presented here
(Fig. 3), are a direct result of poverty. However, ‘Weather’
(i.e. floods and cyclones) and ‘Soil Erosion’ also act to
exacerbate or maintain poverty levels in the area by destroy-
ing or damaging property, crops and infrastructure and/or
degrading agricultural land. Due to the (perceived) interac-
tions between HTC incidents and these poverty-related
issues, the risks associated with tigers are driven by and
contribute to poverty-levels in the area. Tigers are therefore
a key factor in the self-perpetuating and inescapable cycle of
poverty to which the Sundarbans communities are subject
and, as such, HTC is not only an issue of conservation
concern but also one of significance to the developmental
and humanitarian prospects of these communities.
Comparison of the Sundarbans risk map with the prob-
lems documented in other PRM studies (Smith et al. 2000;
Quinn et al. 2003; Baird et al. 2009) shows, unsurprisingly,
that poverty-related issues such as water, disease, health
care, food, and education are commonplace in issue land-
scapes for poor communities. As HWC tends to dispropor-
tionately involve poor, rural communities, many of the
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186
issues documented in the Sundarbans risk map may there-
fore also be of relevance in other conflict scenarios.
However, as with wildlife risks, the proportion of respond-
ents reporting and the severity assigned to poverty-related
issues can be highly variable between locations and com-
munities; researchers must therefore take a situation-specific
approach to identifying and prioritising sources of risk in
their HWC communities.
Interestingly, while corruption in the Forest Department
(FD) was cited by a handful of survey respondents as
affecting negatively their livelihoods, the inability of the
FD to protect villagers from tigers was not cited by survey
respondents as a problem during PRM. However, the qual-
itative data suggest that villagers’ perception that FD staff
lack the inclination or capacity to respond effectively to
stray tiger incidents may also exacerbate the perceived like-
lihood of harm to villagers or livestock during such inci-
dents and thus encourage the killing of stray tigers by
villagers. How villagers’ perceptions of the FD impact on
tiger-related risk perceptions and villager’s responses to
conflict incidents therefore warrants further investigation.
Implications for HTC Management
Reducing the perceived risk from a conflict species is funda-
mental to effective HWC management and to achieving the
conservation goal of reducing the rate at which people kill
individuals of that species. To be effective, risk management
actions must target the situation-specific drivers of risk per-
ception in a given conflict scenario as well as the physical
risks themselves. In the Sundarbans, a lack of employment
opportunities and income and assets; poor education, health
care and house construction; and, soil erosion and natural
disasters all directly shape subjective perceptions of risk from
tigers. These are the issues that must be addressed if risk
perceptions are to be managed. From a management
perspective, the risk web is informative because it documents
clearly how each these problems influences perceived tiger
risk and suggests that to be effective, actions designed to
reduce perceived risk must influence in a positive manner
one or more of the following: perceived probability of
an incident; perceived severity of an incident; perceived
resilience to and/or the perceived ability to mitigate incidents.
Traditionally, approaches for reducing conflict between
people and wild cats have focussed on limiting interactions
between people and wild cats, or mitigating the impacts of the
wild cat behaviour on conflict communities. Resettlement of
villages, improved livestock guarding and husbandry, translo-
cation or lethal control of problem animals, deterrents, barriers
and compensation are therefore relatively common manage-
ment or mitigation approaches (Inskip and Zimmermann
2009). However, what this exploration of the wider social
context of HTC in the Sundarbans shows is that while some
181
of these may serve the dual purpose of reducing actual conflict
incidents and risk perceptions (e.g. strengthening livestock
pens; Table 5), there may also be wider suite of actions
available to practitioners that will yield positive results when
used to tackle risk perceptions. For example, all of the per-
ceived drivers of conflict risk in the Sundarbans are, in some
capacity, poverty related. As HTC limits or reduces the com-
munity’s capacity to improve quality of life, and as poverty
increases the (perceived) risk from tigers, a conflict manage-
ment strategy for the area which incorporates actions or
approaches to address these underlying poverty-related issues
will not only improve quality of life but also reduce the
perceived levels of risk from tigers. Examples of actions that
could be used in the Sundarbans to promote positive changes
in risk perceptions are detailed in Table 5. The acceptability
(i.e. to stakeholders groups), likely impact and cost-
effectiveness of the suggested risk perception management
actions must, however, be carefully assessed prior to imple-
mentation and suitable actions prioritised based on the results
of this assessment (Barlow et al. 2010).
An understanding of the Sundarbans communities’ wider
issue landscape is, from a conflict management perspective,
insightful in another way: it makes apparent at least some of
the potential challenges to implementing conflict and risk
perception management actions in the area. Knowledge of
such challenges prior to the implementation of management
actions will help practitioners develop appropriate and realistic
actions that are more likely to achieve long-term success. For
example, in the Sundarbans community, a lack of employment
opportunities outside the forest is the strongest (perceived)
driver of conflict incident probability. Livelihood development
initiatives which provide reliable and competitive employment
opportunities for villages are therefore urgently required and
will help address both the real and perceived risk of tigers
attacking people. However, knowledge of the issue landscape
of the Sundarbans community, suggests that challenges such as
a lack of infrastructure (roads, electricity etc.), corruption, the
increasing salinity of water and subsequent degradation of
agricultural land and the risks associated with and the unsus-
tainable nature of natural resource collection, will either limit
the number of viable alternative incomes for the community
and/or will hamper the implementation and longevity of such
schemes. This indicates that that not only the problems that
directly impact on perceived risk from tigers but also the
peripheral problems in the tiger risk web (e.g. corruption,
pirates, water salinity, and poor road infrastructure) also need
to be addressed if certain drivers of conflict are to be addressed
and long-term conflict resolution is to be achieved. Potential
challenges to the other risk management options for the
Sundarbans are summarised in Table 5.
The nature, complexity and magnitude of the problems
that need to be tackled if risk perceptions are to be reduced
in the Sundarbans, as well as the number of challenges that
Table 5 Potential risk perception management actions for the Bangladesh Sundarbans
182

Potential Problem Action objective (s) Impact on HTC and risk Wider poverty-related impact Implemented/Successful? Potential challenges/obstacles
management addressed perceptions
action

Livelihood Employment Develop and promote Reduce the (perceived) Develop skills and Yes; Handicraft schemes experiencing High initial costs; identifying, culturally
development (dependence viable alternative probability of attacks capacity; improve success in Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan and appropriate and situation specific,
schemes/economic on the livelihoods for on people by reducing employment options; Pakistan (Jackson et al. 2010); viable alternative livelihood options;
incentives for tiger Sundarbans) villagers and develop the number of people potentially increase ‘Himalayan Homestays’ eco-tourism poor infrastructure; corruption;
conservation capacity and skills in who enter the Sundar wages initiative experiencing success in community uptake and long-term
order to reduce bans for work; and im northern India (Jackson et al. 2010); involvement in initiatives; other
dependence on the prove tiger prey base the ‘Bushblok’ scheme is providing challenges will be initiative specific
Sundarbans by reducing deer poach local jobs while the ‘Cheetah-Coun (e.g. see Jackson et al. 2010 for a dis
ing by providing an try Beef’ initiative should improve cussion of the pitfalls for ecotourism
alternative income income for cheetah-friendly farmers and cottage industry)
source for poachers in Namibia (Marker et al. 2010); the
Lion Guardians scheme is providing
an additional income for Maasai
warriors who monitor and protect
lions (Living with Lions 2012)
Reducing deer Employment Reduce local and Reduce (perceived) N/A Yes; conservation and wildlife Reducing livelihood options for
poaching (dependence national demand for levels of deer poaching poaching/trade education strategies villagers (poachers would need
(education and law on Sundarbans) deer meat; reduce and therefore reduce widely implemented but rarely alternative income sources); cultural
enforcement) levels of poaching the (perceived) proba evaluated (Ferraro and Pattanayak drivers of deer meat consumption
bility of AH and LD 2006) (e.g. deer meat considered a delicacy)
Alternative fuel Employment Identify viable Reduce the (perceived) Potentially improve Yes; Improved biomass stoves trialled Costs of stoves; stoves alone may not
sources/ (dependence alternative fuel probability of attacks conditions within in many locations with varying reduce fuel wood consumption;
efficient stoves on Sundarbans) sources and/or stoves on people by reducing households by success rates (Barnes et al. 1994; finding a reliable, affordable,
for use in Sundarbans the number of people reducing smoke Wallmo and Jacobson 1998); sustainable alternative to fuel wood
villages to reduce rates who enter the Sundar produced when ‘Bushblok’ scheme in Namibia from the Sundarbans; uptake of
of fuel wood bans to harvest cooking intended to “replace unsustainable stoves or alternative fuels by villagers
collection resources for HH firewood harvest” (Marker et al.
consumption 2010)
Boat-based Mobile Health Care Improve initial and long- Reduce the (perceived) Provide regular, reliable A network of floating hospitals, Cost of set up and maintenance of
Medical Teamsa term health care provi likelihood of death health care service to satellite (boat-based) clinics, equipment and long-term funding
sion for victims of tiger following non-fatal Sundarbans border community medics, health camps and provision of supplies; attracting
attacks and improve the tiger attack; improve villages to help reduce and river ambulances successfully staff with relevant medical skills and
survival rate associated coping and resilience the number of people established for river bank and qualifications; providing competitive
with a tiger attack. (reduce the time and seriously affected by or ‘char’ (nomad island) communities staff salaries
financial cost of who die from easily in northern Bangladesh; a floating
long-term treatment curable/preventable hospital is planned for Bangladesh’s
following tiger attack) diseases; also treat coastal belt (Friendship 2012)
injuries from other wild
animals (e.g. snakes,
crocodiles) and domestic
animals (dogs)
‘Tiger-proofing’ Income and assets Provide materials and Reduce (perceived) Reduce financial and Yes; appropriately constructed Cost and source of materials;
Livestock Pens develop the skills vulnerability of asset losses to livestock livestock pens successful in a maintenance cost; cyclones and
necessary to improve livestock to owners which will number of locations (Jackson and floods which damage pens; uptake of
structure of pens depredation increase HH resilience Wangchuk 2001; Ogada et al. 2003; appropriate pen construction methods
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186

to other shocks; Woodroffe et al. 2007)

Table 5 (continued)

Potential Problem Action objective (s) Impact on HTC and risk Wider poverty-related impact Implemented/Successful? Potential challenges/obstacles
management addressed perceptions
action

(initially in villages protection of smaller

with higher LD rates) livestock from other
predators
Raising awareness Income and assets Financial support for Improve (perceived) Reliance on family/other Yes; compensation schemes Bureaucratic issues with payments;
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186

of existing affected family to ability to cope villagers for money to implemented in many locations corruption
Government improve HH resilience following AH/LD cover medical/ with mixed success (Nyhus et al.
compensation to AH/LD incidents. incidents household costs 2005); tend to suffer from
scheme and (replacement livestock; following AH bureaucratic problems; unrealistic
providing repair damage; incident reduced— compensation amounts;
application medical/funeral costs; wider impact reduced prohibitively complex application
assistanceb repair damage to procedures (Mishra 1997;
livestock pens/houses) Madhusudan 2003; Jackson and
Wangchuk 2004)
‘Tiger-proofing’ House Provide materials and/or Reduce (perceived) risk Possibly improve No Cost and source of materials;
Houses Construction skills to improve to people during property security maintenance cost
(Income and structure of houses ST incidents from thieves
Assets) (e.g. provide doors)
providing greater
protection for villagers
from stray tigers
Provision of solar Electricity Provide solar lighting to Reduce (perceived) Improve village-based Yes; anecdotal evidence of success Maintenance cost; theft of equipment;
electricity HH in border villages probability livelihood options; re from villages in the Indian jealousy if not provided to all HH;
to villages (initially HH closest to of ST incidents duce fear of walking Sundarbans (Ahmed 2011) loss of/damage to equipment in
the forest) to in the village at night cyclones/floods etc.
discourage tigers from
entering villages
Increase Village Not problem Create VTRTs in all Reduce the (perceived) FTRTs provide Yes; the VTRTs and FTRT established Provision of boats and equipment (e.g.
Tiger Response specific border villages; create probability of people employment by the Wildlife Trust of Bangladesh tiger immobilisation kits and radio
Teams (VTRT) and three more FTRTs and/or livestock being opportunities for and the Forest Department have collars); provision of training
Forest Tiger (one per Sundarbans attacked when tigers villagers; capacity been instrumental in returning to the
Response Teams range) to decrease the enter villages building (through the forest a number of tigers that have
(FTRT) in the (perceived) severity of education and skills entered villages (Rahman et al.
Sundarbans area stray tiger incidents training of teams) 2012)
for villagers and tigers
Education/ Not problem Deliver information Reduce the (perceived) N/A Yes; risk communication strategies Social norms/cultural motivators for
Awareness Raising specific designed to alter probability and/or widely implemented but relevant behaviours e.g. crowd
Initiatives perceptions of the risk severity of HTC effectiveness may be reduced due to formation
posed by tigers and/or incidents the subjective nature of risk
promote uptake of perceptions and because of lay
other relevant risk people’s difficulties in
management actions. understanding probabilistic
Advise people about processes (Slovic 1987; Fischhoff
how to avoid/reduce 1995). Strategies may therefore be
probability of negative more beneficial if they focus on
encounters with tigers encouraging uptake of management
actions and altering local
183
184 Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186

A Government compensation scheme for people affected by wildlife (livestock depredation and/or attacks on people) was launched in 2010 but the majority of questionnaire respondents (>80 %)
actions may also address the frequency or severity of ‘real’ conflict incidents (HTC impact) and/or poverty levels in the Sundarbans area. All potential actions would need to be thoroughly

A boat-based, mobile medical team could collaborate with tiger response teams (particularly FTRTs) to respond to incidents in the village or forest when a person has been attacked to provide initial

were not aware of the scheme and, as illiteracy rates are high in Sundarbans villages, applying for compensation would be difficult for many. The amount of compensation awarded to households
affected by wild animal attacks is set as: TK 100,000 if a household member is killed by a wild animal; TK 50,000 if a person is injured by a wild animal (handicapped); and, a maximum of TK
25,000 for livestock killed by a wild animal. To date, 10 households have received compensation from the Government following HTC incidents (WildTeam, pers comm). Note that other problems
The potential actions that, by addressing certain locally-experienced problems which (are perceived to) exacerbate HTC, could be used to manage risk perceptions associated with tigers. These
will probably need to be overcome if risk management
actions are to be successful, indicate that there will be no
‘quick fixes’ for perceptions of risk in the Sundarbans
Potential challenges/obstacles

community. Addressing risk perceptions will require long-

term commitment and long-term, significant funding.
Furthermore, it will require not only the active participation
and engagement of the local community (for example for the
development and uptake of alternative livelihood schemes),
but also the development of collaborative partnerships be-
tween conservation NGOs, NGOs which specialise in pov-

such as institutionalised corruption and pirates will have to be tackled as part of a long-term conflict management (and poverty-reduction) strategy for the area
erty alleviation and community development and the local
and national institutions, including religious leaders, the
behaviours which exacerbate
conflict scenarios e.g. crowd

Forest Department and wider Government, whose involve-

formation during stray tiger

ment and support will be necessary to tackle issues on this

Impact on HTC and risk Wider poverty-related impact Implemented/Successful?

scale. Furthermore, while risk perception management will

medical treatment to victim(s); accompany victims to hospital; supervise the recovery and long-term treatment of tiger victims in the village

contribute to reducing rates at which conflict species, such

as tigers in the Sundarbans, are killed, such actions will be
of little value if they are not used in combination with other
incidents

conflict management actions to address for example the

attitudes and social norms which also drive killing behav-
iour (St John et al. 2010; Marchini and Macdonald 2012)
and/or reduce actual rates of attacks on people and livestock.

Conclusion
researched, assessed and piloted to ensure suitability to the Sundarbans community and issue landscape

From a conservation perspective, the ultimate goal of HWC

management is a significant reduction in the killing of wild
animals which (are perceived to) impact negatively on human
life and/or livelihood. People’s killing behaviour is governed
not by the frequency or severity of conflict incidents experi-
enced by a community, but by a complex combination of
perceptions

perceptions, beliefs, attitudes and social norms (Ajzen and

Fishbein 1980). The abatement of killing behaviour will there-
fore only be achieved if the human dimensions and social
context of HWC situations are well understood and appropri-
HH household; AH attack on human; LD livestock depredation

ately managed. The actions necessary to manage effectively

Action objective (s)

the human dimensions of a given conflict will be situation

specific but, as highlighted by situation in the Bangladesh
Sundarbans, poverty alleviation is likely to be a necessary
component of HWC resolution strategies in many poor, rural,
marginalised communities. Recognition of the importance of
HWCs to the development and humanitarian prospects of
such communities will facilitate the cross-discipline collabo-
rations necessary to develop long-term, holistic conflict man-
addressed
Problem

agement strategies, capable of not only addressing the rate of

conflict incidents but of also affecting risk perceptions asso-
Table 5 (continued)

ciated with the conflict species in question.

It is well established that subjective risk perceptions show
little congruence with objective, empirical measures of risk
management

(Arnoldi 2009). It is important therefore for practitioners to

Potential

action

be able to establish and monitor the perceived level of risk

associated with conflict species. This paper indicates that in
b
a
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186
this respect PRM is a valuable and an insightful tool. First,
PRM’s inductive approach to data collection allows not only
the perceived magnitude of wildlife risk to be quantified (in
terms of both incidence and severity), but also allows the
relative importance of wildlife-related problems in a given
community to be discerned through comparison with the inci-
dence and severity of other locally-experienced problems.
Although a handful of studies have attempted to contextualise
HWC risk through comparison with empirical measures of
livestock loss resulting from risks such as drought, disease or
theft (Mazzolli et al. 2002; Mizutani et al. 2005; Schiess-Meier
et al. 2007), or human deaths attributable to environmental
hazards or other wild animals (Beier 1991), none have provid-
ed a socially-relevant assessment of the significance of an
HWC scenario. This paper therefore uses PRM to establish
for the first time the magnitude of perceived risk from a wild
animal species relative to the other problems of importance to a
conflict community. Second, PRM is a relatively simple,
quick, and easily replicable technique. These attributes render
PRM suitable for the longitudinal studies necessary for explor-
ing temporal variation in risk perceptions (Doss et al. 2008)
and for monitoring the long-term effectiveness of risk percep-
tion management actions. Such attributes also mean that PRM
is suitable for data collection in communities with varying
levels of literacy. It is therefore easily transferrable between
conflict communities and will provide reliable inter-
community comparisons of the relative magnitude of per-
ceived wildlife risks.
This research also demonstrates the ability of in-depth
qualitative research to enhance practitioners’ understanding
of the wider socio-economic context of and the social-level
drivers of wildlife risks. While a very few studies provide
insight into the individual-level characteristics which can
shape perceptions of wildlife risk (Riley and Decker 2000;
Siemer et al. 2009; Thornton and Quinn 2010), this paper
identifies the perceived socio-economic drivers of an HWC
scenario and demonstrates clearly how knowledge of these
drivers can inform HWC management strategy. In combina-
tion, PRM and qualitative research are therefore valuable
tools for enhancing understanding of and identifying actions
to address the wildlife-related risk perceptions which can
influence killing behaviour.
References
Ahmad, I. U., Greenwood, C. J., Barlow, A. C. D., Islam, M. A.,
Hossain, A. N. M., Khan, M. M. H., and Smith, J. L. D. (2009).
Bangladesh Tiger Plan 2009–2017. Bangladesh Forest Depart-
ment, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of the
People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Ahmed, A. (2011). Lighting Lives in the Sundarbans. http://
wwf.panda.org/?uNewsID0201051 [accessed 13 March 2012].
185
Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and pre-
dicting behaviour. Prentice Hall, Inc. New Jersey, USA.
Arnoldi, J. (2009). Risk. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Baird, T. D., Leslie, P. W., and McCabe, J. T. (2009). The Effect of
Wildlife Conservation on Local Perceptions of Risk and Behav-
ioral Response. Human Ecology 37: 463–474.
Barlow, A. C. D. (2009). The Sundarbans tiger: adaptation, population
status and conflict. PhD Thesis. University of Minnesota, USA.
Barlow, A. C. D., Greenwood, C. J., Ahmad, I. U., and Smith, J. L. D.
(2010). Use of an Action-Selection Framework for Human-
Carnivore Conflict in the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Conservation
Biology 24: 1338–1347.
Barnes, D. F., Openshaw, K., Smith, K. R., and Van Der Plas, R.
(1994). What makes people cook with improved biomass stoves?
A comparative international review of stove programs. World
Bank Technical Paper Number 242. Energy Series.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society—Towards a New Modernity. Sage,
London.
Beck, U., and Kropp, C. (2007). Environmental risks and public
perceptions. In Pretty, J., Ball, A. S., Benton, T., Guivant, J. S.,
Lee, D. R., Orr, D., et al. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Environ-
ment and Society. Sage, London, pp. 601–611.
Beier, P. (1991). Cougar Attacks on Humans in the United States and
Canada. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19: 403–412.
Casey, A. L., Krausman, P. R., Shaw, W. W., and Shaw, H. G. (2005).
Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Mountain Lions: A Public
Survey of Residents Adjacent to Saguaro National Park, Arizona.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10: 29–38.
Cavalcanti, S. M. C., Marchini, S., Zimmermann, A., Gese, E. M., and
Macdonald, D. W. (2010). Jaguars, livestock, and people in Bra-
zil: realities and perceptions behind the conflict. In Macdonald, D.
W., and Loveridge, A. J. (eds.), Biology and Conservation of Wild
Felids. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 383–402.
Dickman, A. J. (2010). Complexities of Conflict: The Importance of
Considering Social Factors for Effectively Resolving Human-
Wildlife Conflict. Animal Conservation 13: 458–466.
Doss, C., Mcpeak, J., and Barrett, C. B. (2008). Interpersonal, Inter-
temporal and Spatial Variation in Risk Perceptions: Evidence
from East Africa. World Development 36: 1453–1468.
Douglas, M., and Wildavsky, A. B. (1982). Risk and Culture: An Essay
on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. Uni-
versity of California Press, USA.
Ferraro, P. J., and Pattanayak, S. K. (2006). Money for Nothing? A Call
for Empirical Evaluation of Biodiversity Conservation Invest-
ments. PLoS Biology 4: e105.
Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged:
Twenty Years of Process. Risk Analysis 15(2): 137–145.
Friendship (2012). Health Care, nutrition and population. http://friendship-
bd.org/page/healthcare [accessed 1 March 2012].
Goodrich, J. (2010). Human-Tiger Conflict: A Review and Call for
Comprehensive Plans. Integrative Zoology 5: 300–312.
Gustafson, P. E. (1998). Gender Differences in Risk Perception:
Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives. Risk Analysis
18: 805–811.
Holmern, T., Nyahongo, J., and Røskaft, E. (2007). Livestock Loss
Caused by Predators Outside Serengeti National Park, Tanzania.
Biological Conservation 135: 518–526.
Iftekhar, M. S., and Islam, M. R. (2004). Managing Mangroves in
Bangladesh: A Strategy Analysis. Journal of Coastal Conserva-
tion 10: 139–146.
Inskip, C., and Zimmermann, A. (2009). Human-Felid Conflict: A
Review of Patterns and Priorities Worldwide. Oryx 43: 18–34.
Jackson, R., and Wangchuk, R. (2001). Linking Snow Leopard Con-
servation and People-Wildlife Conflict Resolution: Grassroots
Measures to Protect the Endangered Snow Leopard from Herder
Retribution. Endangered Species Update 18: 138–141.
186
Jackson, R., and Wangchuk, R. (2004). A Community-Based Ap-
proach to Mitigating Livestock Depredation by Snow Leopards.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9: 307–315.
Jackson, R. M., Mishra, C., McCarthy, T. M., and Ale, S. B. (2010).
Snow leopards: conflict and conservation. In Macdonald, D. W.,
and Loveridge, A. J. (eds.), Biology and Conservation of Wild
Felids. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 417–430.
Kasperson, R. E., Renn, O., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R.,
Kasperson, J. X., and Ratick, S. (1988). The Social Amplification of
Risk: A Conceptual Framework. Risk Analysis 8: 177–187.
Khan, M. M. H. (2004). Ecology and Conservation of the Bengal Tiger
in the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest of Bangladesh. PhD Thesis.
University of Cambridge.
Linkie, M., Dinata, Y., Nofrianto, A., and Leader-Williams, N. (2007).
Patterns and Perceptions of Wildlife Crop Raiding in and Around
Kerici Seblat National Park, Sumatra. Animal Conservation 10:
127–135.
Living With Lions (2012). Lion Guardians. http://www.lionconservation.org/
lion-guardians.html [accessed 4 April 2012].
Madhusudan, M. D. (2003). Living Amidst Large Wildlife: Livestock
and Crop Depredation by Large Mammals in the Interior Villages
of Bhadra Tiger Reserve, South India. Environmental Manage-
ment 31: 466–475.
Marchini, S., and Macdonald, D. W. (2012). Predicting ranchers’
intention to kill jaguars: case studies in Amazonia and Pantanal.
Biological Conservation.
Marker, L. L., Mills, M. G. L., and Macdonald, D. W. (2003). Factors
Influencing Perceptions of Conflict and Tolerance Towards Cheetahs
on Namibian Farmlands. Conservation Biology 17: 1290–1298.
Marker, L., Dickman, A. J., Mills, G. L., and Macdonald, D. W.
(2010). Cheetahs and ranchers in Namibia. In Macdonald, D.
W., and Loveridge, A. J. (eds.), Biology and Conservation of
Wild Felids. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 351–372.
Mazzolli, M., Graipel, M. E., and Dunstone, N. (2002). Mountain Lion
Depredation in Southern Brazil. Biological Conservation 105:
43–51.
Mishra, C. (1997). Livestock Depredation by Large Carnivores in the
Indian Trans-Himalaya: Conflict Perceptions and Conservation
Prospects. Environmental Conservation 24: 338–343.
Mizutani, F., Muthiani, E., Kristjanson, P., and Recke, H. (2005).
Impact and value of wildlife in pastoral livestock productions
systems in Kenya: Possibilities for healthy ecosystem conserva-
tion and livestock development for the poor. In Osofsky, S. A.,
Cleveland, S., Karesh, W. B., Kock, M. D., Nyhus, P. J., Starr, L.,
and Yang, A. (eds.), Conservation and Development Interventions
at the Wildlife/Livestock Interface: Implications for Wildlife,
Livestock and Human Health. IUCN, Gland, pp. 121–132.
Mohsanin, S., Barlow, A. C. D., Greenwood, C. J., Islam, M. A., Kabir, M.
M., Rahman, M. M., and Howlader, A. (2012). Assessing the Threat
if Human Consumption of Tiger Prey in the Bangladesh Sundarbans.
Animal Conservation doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2012.00571.x.
Murtaza, M. G. (2001). Socio-Economic Baseline Study of the Impact
Zone of the Sundarbans. Sundarbans Biodiversity Conservation
Project Report. Forest Department, Government of Bangladesh
Khulna, Bangladesh.
Naughton-Treves, L. (1997). Farming the Forest Edge: Vulnerable
Places and People Around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Geo-
graphical Review 87(1): 27–46.
Neumann-Denzau, G., and Denzau, H. (2010). Examining the extent
of human-tiger conflict in the Sundarbans Forest, Bangladesh.
Tigerpaper 37(2): 4–7.
Nyhus, P. J., Osofsky, S., Ferraro, P., Madden, F., and Fischer, H.
(2005). Bearing the costs of human–wildlife conflict: the chal-
lenges of compensation schemes. In Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S.,
and Rabinowitz, A. (eds.), People and Wildlife. Conflict or Co-
existence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 107–121.
Hum Ecol (2013) 41:169–186
Ogada, M. O., Woodroffe, R., Oguge, N. O., and Frank, L. G. (2003).
Limiting Depredation by African Carnivores: The Role of Live-
stock Husbandry. Conservation Biology 17: 1521–1530.
Packer, C., Ikanda, D., Kissui, B., and Kushnir, H. (2005). Lion
Attacks on Humans in Tanzania. Nature 436: 927–928.
Quinn, C. H., Huby, M., Kiwasila, H., and Lovett, J. C. (2003). Local
Perceptions of Risk to Livelihood in Semi-Arid Tanzania. Journal
of Environmental Management 68: 111–119.
Rahman, H. A., Barlow, A. C. D., Greenwood, C. J., Islam, M. A., and
Ahmed, I. U. (2009). Livestock depredation by tiger on the edge
of the Bangladesh Sundarbans. Technical Report. Wildlife Trust
of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Rahman, M. A., Islam, M. K., and Lahann, P. (2012). Stray-tiger
human conflict incidents January, 2012. Technical Report. Wild-
life Trust of Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Riley, S. J. A., and Decker, D. J. (2000). Risk Perception as a Factor in
Wildlife Stakeholder Acceptance Capacity for Cougars in Mon-
tana. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 5: 50–62.
Sanderson, E., Forrest, J., Loucks, C., Ginsberg, J. R., Dinerstein, E.,
Seidensticker, J., Leimgruber, P., Songer, M., Heydlauff, A.,
O’Brien, T. G., Bryja, G., Klenzendorf, S., and Wikramanayake,
E. (2006). Setting Priorities for the Conservation and Recovery of
Wild Tigers: 2005–2015. The Technical Assessment. WCS, WWF,
Smithsonian, and NFWF-STF, New York - Washington, D.C.
Schiess-Meier, M., Ramsauer, S., Gabanapelo, T., and König, B.
(2007). Livestock Predation—Insights from Problem Animal
Control Registers in Botswana. Journal of Wildlife Management
71: 1267–1274.
Sen, S. G. (2010) Conservation of the Sundarbans Through Sustainable
Shrimp Aquaculture. Policy Analysis Paper. Harvard Kennedy
School, Harvard University, Massachusetts, USA. http://www.
innovations.harvard.edu/cache/documents/12273/1227364.pdf
[accessed 1st March 2012]
Siemer, W. F., Hart, P. S., Decker, D. J., and Shanahan, J. E. (2009).
Factors That Influence Concern About Human-Black Bear Inter-
actions in Residential Settings. Human Dimensions of Wildlife
14: 185–197.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science 236: 280–285.
Smith, K., Barrett, C. B., and Box, P. W. (2000). Participatory Risk
Mapping for Targeting Research and Assistance: With an Example
from East African Pastoralists. World Development 28: 1945–1959.
Smith, K., Barrett, C. B., and Box, P. (2001). Not Necessarily in the
Same Boat: Heterogeneous Risk Assessment Among East African
Pastoralists. Journal of Development Studies 37: 1–30.
St John, F. A. V., Edwards-Jones, G., and Jones, J. P. G. (2010).
Conservation and Human Behaviour: Lessons from Social Psy-
chology. Wildlife Research 37: 658–667.
Thirgood, S., Woodroffe, R., and Rabinowitz, A. (2005). The impact of
human–wildlife conflict on human lives and Livelihoods. In
Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., and Rabinowitz, A. (eds.), People
and Wildlife. Conflict or Coexistence? Cambridge University
Press, UK, pp. 13–26.
Thornton, C., and Quinn, M. (2010). Risk Perceptions and Attitudes
Toward Cougars in the Southern Foothills of Alberta. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife 15: 359–372.
Wallmo, K., and Jacobson, S. K. (1998). A Social and Environmental
Evaluation of Fuel Efficient Cook-Stoves and Conservation in
Uganda. Environmental Conservation 25: 99–108.
Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., and Rabinowitz, A. (2005). The impact of
human–wildlife conflict on natural systems. In Woodroffe, R.,
Thirgood, S., and Rabinowitz, A. (eds.), People and Wildlife.
Conflict or Coexistence? Cambridge University Press, UK, pp. 1–12.
Woodroffe, R., Frank, L. G., Lindsey, P. A., Ole Ranah, S. M. K., and
Romanach, S. (2007). Livestock Husbandry as a Tool for Carni-
vore Conservation in Africa’s Community Rangelands: A Case-
Control Study. Biodiversity and Conservation 16: 1245–1260.