Evaluating the Effectiveness of Farmer- and Government-Led Mitigation Measures for Human Wildlife Conflict in Kannur District, Kerala, India

Abstract

Aims: The present study aims to assess the effectiveness of mitigation strategies adopted by both farmers and government institutions regarding Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) in the agricultural sector of Kannur district. Methodology: A total of 150 farmers (75 each from the Aralam Farm and Kottiyoor Range) who had experienced economic losses due to HWC were surveyed using a semi-structured interview schedule. The Index Method was used to calculate the perceived effectiveness of different mitigation measures, based on a five-point rating scale given by the farmers. Results: The study found that Farmers prioritize measures that offer immediate, short-term relief (scare devices) and physical exclusion (fences/trenches). The lowest rating went to night guarding (Index 35.25), reflecting the operational unsustainability and extreme human cost (sleep deprivation, risk of injury) associated with this method. Coming to the Effectiveness of Government-Adopted Mitigation Measures, the highest ratings are for the physical exclusion barriers (Solar Fences, EPTs), confirming the belief that structural prevention is the most effective approach. The most significant failure is the compensation scheme, which received the lowest score (Index 28.5). This failure is systemic, as payments are often delayed and inadequate (covering only a fraction of the actual loss), which ultimately undermines public trust and tolerance for conservation. the farmers' priorities when selecting a human-wildlife conflict mitigation scheme are overwhelmingly focused on economic viability and proven success. Regarding the mitigating measures' economic evaluation Farmers think their investment in self-defense measures is not financially beneficial (Index 29.5) and have an "Extreme Loss Perception" (Index 98.75). The most vulnerable marginal farmers, who comprise 84% of the population, perceive the expense of high-quality measures as prohibitive (Index 20.75). Conclusion: The study highlights the urgent need for a more scientific, transparent, and farmer-centric compensation framework to mitigate the socioeconomic burden of HWC and promote sustainable coexistence between humans and wildlife.