Abstract
SummaryHuman–wildlife interactions (HWIs) occur in many rural African communities, with potential impacts on livelihood vulnerability. High livelihood vulnerability may force communities to employ strategies that increase the risk of negative HWIs, yet the extent to which HWIs drive or are driven by vulnerability is unclear. We hypothesized that more vulnerable households are more likely to be exposed to wildlife and experience negative interactions. To test this hypothesis, we calculated the Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI) of rural households in and around Quirimbas National Park (north-eastern Mozambique) and assessed whether there is a link between livelihood vulnerability and HWIs. We found a two-way association between LVI and HWIs, with more vulnerable households indeed taking greater risks and encountering wildlife when fetching water from rivers, whereas less vulnerable households tended not to employ strategies likely to increase wildlife encounters. We also observed that HWIs exert a strong effect on livelihood vulnerability, suggesting that HWIs should be included as an exposure factor in vulnerability assessments for rural households. We recommend that livelihood strategies and community vulnerability should be considered when designing HWI mitigation schemes and implementing conservation measures.
Highlights
Human population growth can increase the vulnerability of local communities to food and water scarcity, poverty and climate change (Mondal 2019)
We explore how livelihood vulnerability varies across communities and evaluate which drivers have the greatest influence on such vulnerability, its components and, human–wildlife interactions (HWIs)
Relationship between the Livelihood Vulnerability Index (LVI) and HWIs For the LVI components having an effect on the LVI, we examined whether their indicators were related to HWIs
Summary
Human population growth can increase the vulnerability of local communities to food and water scarcity, poverty and climate change (Mondal 2019). Strategies such as building a highly connected social network are very successful in reducing vulnerability (Chambers & Conway 1992), other strategies, such as collection of non-timber forest resources for commercial purposes, may alleviate vulnerability in one way but exacerbate it in others (Duffy et al 2016), such as by increasing the frequency of human–wildlife interactions (HWIs) (Khumalo & Yung 2015). Projected climate-driven changes in human migration and wildlife range shifts suggest that HWIs may become more frequent, so a better understanding of the relationship between HWIs and livelihood vulnerability is fundamental (Khumalo & Yung 2015)
Published Version (Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.