| Autor: |
Yeshey, Rodney J. Keenan, Rebecca M. Ford, Craig R. Nitschke |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2023 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Trees, Forests and People, Vol 11, Iss , Pp 100378- (2023) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
2666-7193 |
| DOI: |
10.1016/j.tfp.2023.100378 |
| Popis: |
Protected areas (PA) to conserve wildlife are the cornerstone of biodiversity conservation but they can also result in increased human-wildlife conflict (HWC), which poses a serious challenge to jointly achieving sustainable development goals of food security and biodiversity conservation, particular in regions with high conservation values and subsistence farmers. In the Himalayan Kingdom of Bhutan, expanding PAs and other conservation efforts have led to increased wildlife populations that are causing more damage to crop and livestock and impacting on the livelihoods of subsistence farmers and herders. In this study, we used a social-ecological systems framework to quantify the intensity this impact and associated economic losses with identified wildlife species and compared differences between livelihood types (crop farming versus livestock husbandry) and land tenure (inside versus outside protected areas). Results indicated that Meso-scale wildlife species that are not the focus of conservation caused higher economic losses. Approximately 43% of total economic loss through crop depredation was attributed to wild pig (Sus scrofa) and 56% of the total economic loss through livestock predation was caused by wild dogs (Cuon alpinus). Losses borne by respondents whose livelihoods depend mainly on livestock were significantly higher, with a mean loss equivalent to US$1328 per household per annum, than those depending on crop production (US$171 per household per annum). Economic losses incurred through crop and livestock depredation were significantly higher for the respondents residing inside PAs, which is attributed by those households to a perceived increase in wildlife populations because of conservation policies. Interventions for prevention and mitigation of these impacts should recognize these varying unintended effects of wildlife and be better targeted at groups living in different parts of the landscape. These include expanding compensation scheme to losses caused by wild dogs and pigs, supporting ecotourism ventures within PAs to diversify income options and introducing control measures for these animals. |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
