Identification of human-carnivore conflict hotspots to prioritize mitigation efforts.

Femke Broekhuis,Nicholas B Elliot,Samuel A Cushman

doi:10.1002/ece3.3565

Abstract

Human–carnivore conflict is a primary driver of carnivore declines worldwide and resolving these conflicts is a conservation priority. However, resources to mitigate conflicts are limited and should be focused on areas of highest priority. We conducted 820 semistructured interviews with community members living within Kenya's Maasai Mara ecosystem. A multiscale analysis was used to determine the influence of husbandry and environmental factors on livestock depredation inside livestock enclosures (bomas). Areas with a high proportion of closed habitat and protected areas had the highest risk of depredation. Depredation was most likely to occur at weak bomas and at households where there were fewer dogs. We used the results to identify potential conflict hotspots by mapping the probability of livestock depredation across the landscape. 21.4% of the landscape was classified as high risk, and within these areas, 53.4% of the households that were interviewed had weak bomas. Synthesis and applications. With limited resources available to mitigate human–carnivore conflicts, it is imperative that areas are identified where livestock is most at risk of depredation. Focusing mitigation measures on high‐risk areas may reduce conflict and lead to a decrease in retaliatory killings of predators.

Highlights

Human–carnivore conflict is a primary driver of carnivore declines worldwide (Woodroffe, Thirgood, & Rabinowitz, 2005) and can inflict substantial costs on local communities (Thirgood, Woodroffe, & Rabinowitz, 2005)
Our results show that landscape features and husbandry practices are both important predictors of livestock depredation by carnivores inside bomas
With the exception of Rostro-Garcia et al (2016), these studies investigated habitat on a fine spatial scale, whereas we show that the presence of closed vegetation has an influence at a much broader scale (2,880 m)

Summary

| INTRODUCTION

Human–carnivore conflict is a primary driver of carnivore declines worldwide (Woodroffe, Thirgood, & Rabinowitz, 2005) and can inflict substantial costs on local communities (Thirgood, Woodroffe, & Rabinowitz, 2005). Large carnivores range widely and their feeding habits pose a direct threat to livestock and people themselves (Packer, Ikanda, Kissui, & Kushnir, 2005) In response to this threat, people commonly kill carnivores (Loveridge, Valeix, Elliot, & Macdonald, 2016), which has resulted in the local extirpation of many carnivore populations (Treves & Karanth, 2003). Human–carnivore conflict is frequently examined from either a human (e.g., Dickman, Hazzah, Carbone, & Durant, 2014) or a carnivore (e.g., Oriol-Cotterill, Macdonald, Valeix, Ekwanga, & Frank, 2015) perspective This is because it is often difficult to collect data on predators residing within human-dominated landscapes, which may alter their behavior to avoid detection (Oriol-Cotterill et al, 2015). We had four core objectives: (1) to describe the extent of human–carnivore conflict using self-reported livestock loss data, (2) to spatially map conflict hotspots by modelling the probability of livestock loss within bomas, (3) to model livestock loss as a function of livestock husbandry, and (4) to identify areas most at risk of livestock depredation based on environmental factors and livestock husbandry

| METHODS

| DISCUSSION

Findings

CONFLICT OF INTEREST