Volume: 51 Issue: 2
Year: 2020, Page: 123-127,
Received: Aug. 7, 2019 Accepted: Nov. 20, 2019 Published: July 1, 2020
Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) can be explained as an interaction between humans and wildlife where negative consequences, whether perceived, exists for one or both the parties when the action of one has an adverse effect on the other. The human population residing the forest buffer zones sharing a common geographical border with it are considered to be more affected with HWC. These populations encompassing the tribal and non-tribal communities usually manage the HWC by external assistance and internal efforts by the affected one. The present study was conducted in such a community so as to identify the above type of affect to identify the constraints in management of HWC encountered by tribal and non-tribal the inhabitants associated with the Eastern Palakkad forest circle of Kerala state in India. A total of sixty respondents including thirty non-tribal and tribal families each from the affected people were purposively selected for study various division of Palakkad forest area. The responses were recorded initially with group discussion, pilot study etc., and the final schedule was used as the scale with final statement to analyse the constraints of the respondents using Garret ranking method. The constraints faced by encountering HWC and implementing control measure. Most of the non-tribal and tribal respondents perceived HWCs to be caused by water scarcity during the summer period and inadequate food availability due to climate change and deforestation, shrinkage of grassland/pasture land, lack of proper barriers (solar fence, trench) and proximity to forest land as the major constraints.
Keywords: Constraints, Human-wildlife conflict, Conservation, Participatory management
Agarwal B. (2000). Conceptualizing Environmental Collective Action: Why Gender Matters. Cambridge Journal of Economics 24: 3283–310.
Balint, P. J. 2006. Improving community-based conservation near protected areas: The importance of development variables. Environ. Mgmt. 38: 137-148.
Conover, M. R., 2001. Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: the science of wildlife damage management. CRC presses toward tigers in Nepal. Ambio. 43:125-137.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 1980. Menzies, N. (2003). “Partners in Governing the Forests: Reviewing Community-based Forest Management.” Paper presented at the XII Wolrd Forestry Congress, Quebec City, Canada. http://www. fao. org/DOCREP/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0777- A4.HTM.
Ramkumar, K., Ramakrishnan, B. and Saravanamuthu, R., 2014. Crop damage by Asian Elephants Elephas maximus and effectiveness of mitigating measures in Coimbatore Forest Division, South India. Int. Res. J. Biol. Sci. 3: 1-11.
Rohini, C. K., Aravindan, T., Das, K. S. A. and Vinayan, P. A. 2016. Patterns of humanwildlife conflict and people’s perception towards compensation program in Nilambur, Southern Western Ghats, India. Conserv. Sci. 4: 1-10
Sarin, M. (1998). Who is Gaining? Who is Losing? Gender and Equity Concerns in Joint Forest Management. Society for Promotion of Wastelands Development (SPWD), New Delhi.
Scherl, L. M., Wilson, A., Wild, R., Blockhus, J., Franks, P., McNeely, J. A. and McShane, T. O.2004. Can protected areas contribute to poverty reduction? opportunities and limitations. IUCN - The World Conservation Union. 72p.
Treves, A., Wallace, R. B. and White, S., 2009. Participatory planning of interventions to mitigate human–wildlife conflicts. Conserv. Biology. 23: 1577-1587.
© 2020 Vinoth et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Vinoth, P., Rajeev, T.S., Jiji, R.S., Senthilkumar, R. and Gleeja, V.L. 2020. Constraints in participatory management perceived by the inhabitants of human-wildlife conflict (HWC) affected areas in Kerala. .J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 51(2): 123-127.