Abstract

Paper reviews the extent of climate change on forest ecosystems and that impact the Human Wildlife Conflict (HWC). Historical dimension of HWC, implication of HWC on society, and social dimensions of HWC are all part of discussion in the paper. Human perceptions on wildlife are influenced by socio-cultural factors and also their influence on public policy. Paper concludes that interventions to reduce HWC are designed to reduce the frequency of interaction between people and wild animals along with initiatives to enhance the tolerance of societies in conflict situations.

Key words: Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC), Climate change, Forest management, Implications of HWC, Social dimensions

Introduction

Human Wildlife Conflict (HWC) is described as conflict between humans and wildlife wherein the actions of latter affect the former and vice-versa. Threats to human life, economic loss, food security, etc. are some of the major impacts of HWC (Redpath, SM, et.ail., 2013). HWC is predicted to intensify in response to global environmental issues such as climate change and the destruction of wildlife habitats and forests (Mason et al., 2018). HWC fosters widespread environmental, social, economic, and political problems across the globe (Guerra, 2019). Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) management is a multi-disciplinary concept involving animal behaviour, conservation biology, ecology, genetics, wildlife ecology, zoology, anthropology, economics, environmental studies, geography, history, natural resources management, political science, psychology, technology and so on (Nair, 2009). In the last two decades HWC management has attracted increased attention due to growing recognition that HWC affect societies globally and hinder conservation efforts along with the attainment of goals of sustainable development.

Major objective of the paper is to review the gravity of climate change on HWC and implications of the HWC on society. Paper also discusses the impact of climate change on forest ecosystems and biodiversity, leading to species extinction. Historical dimension of HWC and implication of HWC including costs and gender dimension are also discussed in detail in the paper. Review of social dimensions of HWC with emphasis on cultural diversity is also part of the paper.

Climate change as drivers

Deforestation and climate change are reciprocally related; temperature, radiation, rainfall and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the backbone of forest dynamics, whereas forests in turn will influence climate by seizing atmospheric carbon, solar radiation, cooling atmosphere through evapotranspiration and even producing cloud-forming aerosols. Figure-1 depicts the relationship between forest and climate change.

Climate change is anticipated to have significant impacts on forest ecosystems and accordingly forest management should adapt to changing scenarios. Impact of climate change on forest ranged from large-scale biome shifts to relatively less extensive disruptions in forest growth (Aber, et al. 2001). The increasing temperature and droughts will have negative impact on species diversity as well as ecosystem goods and services to humanity (Gnacadja and Lesch 2009). Major drivers of climate change includes anthropogenic causes such as land use changes, deforestation and forest degradation, fossil fuel burning and industrial processes and natural causes such as solar radiation changes and volcanic activity. Deforestation and forest degradation play a critical role in global climate change, and reciprocally, deforestation is indirectly affected by climate change too. In the past, nearly 45% of the land surface was covered by forest, which dwindled to nearly 30% due to shifting cultivation and other human activities. FAO reports show that current deforestation rate is 0.14%, which is 5.2 million hectares per annum (FAO, 2012). Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from deforestation and forest degradation are reported to account for about one-fifth of the total GHG emissions.

Figure: 1 Inter-relationship between Forest and Climate Change

Deforestation $\longleftrightarrow$ Climate Change $\longrightarrow$ Carbon Sequestration $\longrightarrow$ Impact on Forest $\longrightarrow$ Deforestation

Source: Khaine, Inkyin & Su Young Woo (2015)

Forest growth rate is reported to be correlated with climate, especially the water availability (Toledo et al. 2011). Increasing temperature and precipitation will directly influence tree growth, whereas increases in dry period will have a negative impact on growth of forest. Even the solar radiation has an impact on forest growth. The role of forests in environmental management is very important and it ranges from carbon sequestration to water and soil conservation. Carbon storage capacity of forest is significantly affected by environmental conservation. The global forests store over 650 billion tons of carbon in various forms including 44% as biomass, 45% in the soil and 11% in dead wood and litter (FAO 2010).

Recent researches shows gloomy picture for the future of forests and due to global warming, carbon regulation services of forests will be lost, as land ecosystems may turn into a net source of carbon dioxide by end of the century (Seppala et al. 2009). Studies also indicate that climate change will have moderate to large-scale impact on forest through shift in vegetation and biodiversity. Studies conducted in India demonstrate that nearly 39% of forested grids are vulnerable to climate change (Chaturvedi, et. al, 2011). The climate impact assessment studies done on Indian forests show that nearly 68% to 77% of the forested grids are likely to experience changes including loss of area under current forest type as well as replacement by a different type by 2085 (Ravindranath, et. al., 2010). Climate change may damage unique forest ecosystems and biodiversity, leading to species extinction.

Sustainable forest management as a tool to climate change adaptation management has provided positive results across the world. Sustainable forest management measures helps to ensure that adaptation and mitigation measures are carried out by accounting the economic, social and environmental value of forests (Nair, 2010). Adoption of landscape approach will help in implementing forest-based climate change adaptation and mitigation measures that lead to optimal economic, social and environmental outcomes. Adaptation to climate changes includes adjustments in ecological, social, and economic systems in response to the effects of changes in climate (Smit et al. 2000). Adaptation to climate change in forest management requires a planned response well in advance.

Adaptation requires setting up of objectives for the future forest under changed scenario, increased awareness and education, determining the vulnerability of forest ecosystems and society, development of cost-effective adaptive actions, reduction of vulnerability and enhancement of recovery, continuous monitoring of the state of the forest, and measures for speedy recovery (Holling, 2001). Climate change adaptation strategies are to be viewed as part of risk management plans, and the precautionary strategies would reduce the risk of losses in the future. Current forest growth and management is the result of how it developed in the past climatic conditions.

Policy-makers and forest managers should accept that climate change is probable and that forests and communities face significant impacts (Nair, 2022). Adaptation requires auditing of research requirements, auditing of educational needs, evaluation requirements, forest management actions, analysis of existing barriers, required forest policies, development of monitoring systems, and level of interventions including spatial (Spittlehouse and Stewart, 2003). Detailed action plan for climate adaptation action in forest management is provided in Table-1.

Table: 1 Climate Adaptive Actions in Forest Management

Source: Spittlehouse DL & R B. Stewart (2003)

Historical dimensions of HWC

In many civilizations wildlife and nature played an important role in framing customs, traditions, and the religion itself. The Nanai and Udege communities of the Russian Far East believe that seeing an Amur tiger is auspicious. In the Hindu religion of India, the goddess Durga is believed to ride on lion especially fighting with demons. In the Mesoamerican Mayan culture, jaguar is considered as a god; wanderer between the living and spirit worlds. In the Hindu cultures of South Asia, elephants are associated with Ganesha and is said to be the remover of obstacles.

The evolution of human civilizations is fundamentally a story of human interactions with other flora and fauna. The competition for food and water in drastic climatic situations and environment forced the human to dominate other living creatures. Human intelligence helped them even in conquering the territory of physically strong wild animals like elephant and lion in the terrestrial ecosystems and sharks in oceans. In due course humans emerged as a super predator and started dominating their living environment (Worm, B, 2015). It has led to the extraction and hunting on large scale and resulted in the extinction of many species. There are evidences that humans contributed to the extinction of large mammals during the late Pleistocene glacial period (Surovell, TA, et. al., 2016).

Predator avoidance might be one of the major challenges faced by the early hominids. Effective intelligence, social adaptation in the form of group formation, and usage of weaponry are some of the strategies used in the past (Hart D & Sussman, W, 2009). Ancient records of human-wildlife interface can be seen in the cave paintings (Guthrie, RD, 2005). Ancient civilizations such as Indus Valley, Chinese, Greece, and Egyptian have also records of HWC to protect crops, livestock and even human life. Elephant crop raids are reported in Asia as early as 300 BC (Sukumar, R, 1989). Kingdoms and colonial empires even had predator eradication initiatives, which led to the extinction or nearer to obliteration of much wildlife such as Chinese tiger, wolves in Europe, jaguars in Americas, lions and wild dogs in Africa, and Falkland Wolf.

In modern times, governments around the globe started framing laws and policies to address Human-Wildlife Interface. Important milestones as part of HWC management are provided in Table-2.

Table: 2 Important global milestones in the development of HWC management

Source: Gross E, et. al, 2021, A Future for All: The Need for Human-Wildlife Coexistence, WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

Human population have evolved from pre-history to modern history by competing with wildlife for food, resources, and space; in most cases led to the extinction of some sort of flora and fauna. But later societies started realising the significance of biodiversity and conservation for their own survival. Accordingly coexistence models were developed with the support of new laws, policies, assisted by institutions, tools and technology, and new values.

Implications of HWC

The HWC has significant impact on human health, safety, and welfare as well as ecosystem health and biodiversity. Direct impacts include attack on people resulting injury and death, collision with automobiles, transmission of zoonotic diseases or parasites, economic damage to crops, property and livestock, etc. (Woodroffe, RT, et.al., 2005). Indirect impacts include opportunity costs to farmers, diminished psychological wellbeing, disruption of livelihoods, food insecurity and so on.

Usually the hidden costs of HWC are not counted in quantifying the implications as it is mostly non-economical and includes impact on individuals, psychological impacts, and other opportunity costs (Barua, et. al., 2013). Studies show that the women and women-headed families used to experience a disproportionate burden of HWC compared to their male counterparts (DeMotts, R & P. Hoon, 2012). Emotional costs encompass physical safety issues, livelihood issues, and even frustration with outsiders. Some of the major impact of HWC in selected countries are provided in Table-3.

HWC results in stress and shock to livelihood and food security of the forest fringe communities. Stress is continuous, predictable, slowly increasing disruption to livelihoods with a cumulative impact, whereas shock is a large disturbance with immediate impact (Scoones, 1998). Vulnerable sections of people in the forest fringe areas in developing countries are not in a position to face such shock or stress, especially women. These shocks and stress adversely affect the women due to the following reasons (Khumalo & Young, 2015): i. Women are more vulnerable to shocks (short-term) and stress (long-term) due to poverty, marital status, lack of farm land, limited entitlements; ii. Crop loss, livestock depredation, and death or injury of a family member hit women harder. iii. Above losses magnify their vulnerability to other stresses and shocks as they are already marginalised.

Important costs of HWC at direct and indirect level are given in Table-4.

Table: 3 Gravity of HWC around the world

Source: Gross E, et. al, 2021, A Future for All: The Need for Human-Wildlife Coexistence, WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

Table: 4 Important Costs of HWC

Source: Khumalo K E (2015)

Social dimensions of HWC

HWC is sometimes viewed as a manifestation of human-human conflict, such as between authorities and local people or between people of diverse cultures. Studies prove that societies used to accept snags and risks of wildlife voluntarily than when imposed externally. People who have experience of living alongside wild animals tend to be less fearful of the animals (Roskaft, et. al., 2003). Societies respond differently to wildlife attack in different countries and sometime a small incident can instil huge wildlife causality. In Hokkaido, Japan a bear alert in 1966 resulted in the killing of 39 bears (Knight, 2000). As retaliation to an incident in Namibia in 1980s, 700 Namibian Cheetahs were killed (Marker, 2002). Reports from some of the countries in Asia and Africa reveal that societal belief system can also influence hostility towards wildlife. In Mozambique, there is a belief that some of the ethnic groups can use sorcery to transform tree twigs into spirit-lions, which are then used to attack rival ethnic groups; resulted in large-scale killing of lions (West, 2001).

Figure: 2 Factors Affecting Intensity of HWC – A Model

Environmental Risk Factors: Environmental Characteristics, Land use & Management, Human Behaviour (Asset Protection & Mgmt.), Behaviour and mgmt. of conflict (Causing conflict) $\longrightarrow$ Costs $\longrightarrow$ Actual Cost of Conflict / Perceived Cost of Conflict $\longrightarrow$ Response (Direct Impact) / Level of Hostility (Indirect Impact) $\longrightarrow$ Consequences Social Risk Factors: Inequality and power, Distrust & animosity, Vulnerability & wealth, Beliefs & Values Source: Dickman AJ (2010)

It has been proved that many of the HWCs stem from differences in objectives of various stakeholder and pressure groups, especially when the wildlife is treated as a resource that can be exploited for economic or cultural benefit, or where the conservation of wildlife is uncertain due to human population growth and the resultant development pressure (White & Alastair Ward, 2010).

Environmental factors such as the characteristics of the physical environment (forest-fringe areas), availability of alternative food sources for the wildlife, etc. can also influence the HWC. The beliefs and values of society are also important in determining the perception of society towards HWC. Hazzah (2006) reported that the Evangelical Christian beliefs have been linked to particular hostility toward wildlife. Ale (1998) reported that Buddhist herders in Nepal used to accept the depredation of snow leopard by treating it as a punishment of the mountain God.

The expression of values differs among people, and it will be reflected on their perception of wildlife. Some justify wildlife killing for the sake of human welfare, whereas others treat this action as inhumane and unjustifiable (Nair, Reji, 2024). Individual differences in value expressions are conceptualised by basic beliefs and are the outcome of central beliefs that is usually modelled early in the childhood. In this regard, the concept of Wildlife Value Orientation (WVO) was developed, which reveals the pattern and direction of basic belief about wildlife (Fulton, et. al., 1996). Accordingly two diverse views are formed; the first one is Wildlife Protection Orientation (WPO) and the second, Wildlife Use Orientation (WUO). The WPO emphasize that wildlife have rights on nature similar to human beings and some cultures completely follow this view. The WUO believe that wildlife should be used for the benefit of the human beings and they follow an extraction approach towards the environment.

Social Issues of HWC

i. Conflict level-I: Anger and distress over losses caused by wildlife are immediate reactions and are considered to be disputes that make up conflict level-I.

ii. Conflict level-II: People who experience negative HWC raises underlying issues, including poor governmental response or compensation for HWC incidents that complicate the situation.

iii. Conflict level-III: Deep-rooted conflicts include complex social, cultural, and historical contexts of HWC. Unfair resettlement of affected people, access issues in culturally important places, or the criminalization of hunting by local communities is examples in the context (Gross E.M, 2019).

Culturally the human attitude towards the environment is generally of either subjugation by nature or domination of nature. These diversions of view mark the transition from hunter-gatherers to pastoral societies and some cultures believe that cultural advancement was attained through the domination (Ingold, 1994). The Western origin religions are believed to have spawned the human-nature separation and advanced the prominent view of human domination over nature (White, 1967). On the other hand, the Eastern origin religions believe in the equality of all living creatures thereby treating the nature as the mother (Dwitvedi, 2001). Even some argue that scientific thought and the Calvinist ethic of domination laid the foundation of Capitalism and the European expansion to North America (Weber, 1948). Generally the cultures which are individualistic in nature would demonstrate competition over nature and wildlife, whereas collectivist cultures emphasise sharing of natural and wildlife resources.

In the post-materialistic world the emphasis would be on quality of life and self-expressions. Major difference between materialists and post-materialists is that the materialists prefer WUO, whereas, post-materialists are more likely to follow WPO (Manfredo, MJ & Ashley A D, 2004). Recent trends pose two fundamental challenges to wildlife professionals; the first being shift from conservation to management, that is transformation from increasing wildlife population to wildlife population control (Marchini & Crawshaw, 2015). The second is change in people’s tolerance to wildlife that is human dimension to wildlife. These developments exhibit an interdisciplinary approach to HWC integrating natural, social, and behavioural issues into research, conservation, management, and public policy.

Human perceptions on wildlife are influenced by variety of factors such as social or interest groups and also their influence on public policy is limited by their closeness to and special interest with in the Government (Lute, et. al., 2014). Studies show that economic growth has affected societal values from sustenance based acquisitive values towards self-expression and it has real effect on human perception on wildlife. At the same time cultural differences may have diverse effect, especially in India and Mongolia, where traditional societies are highly tolerant to wildlife (Athreya, et. al. 2013). It means human tolerance to wildlife conflict is not only about perceptions but also is dynamic and is affected modernization.

Conclusion

Climate change is altering the entire ecosystems around the world. The increasing frequency of HWC has resulted in deadly consequences on both sides, and various initiatives are under way in all parts of the globe to address the problem. Interventions to reduce HWC included actions that are designed to reduce the severity or frequency of encounters between people and wild animals or activities that enhance the tolerance of people in conflict situations. Frequency of interactions can be reduced through construction of barriers, guards, and deterrents, relocation of wild animals, relocation of people, and changes in human actions such as cropping pattern changes. In the worst case scenario of human causalities, such wild animals need to be killed. Usually multiple strategies are simultaneously required to settle the issue as a long-term measure. Tolerance of affected people can be enhanced through compensation programmes, incentive schemes, environmental education, and regulated public harvests. However, in most cases permanent solution of HWC in the forest fringes are distant realities as mitigation is ineffective and violate the conservation initiatives.

References

• Aber, J., et al. (2001), Forest processes and global environmental change: predicting the effects of individual and multiple stressors. Bio Science, Vol. 51, pp. 735-751.

• Ale, S (1998), ‘Culture and Conservation: the Snow Leopard in Nepal, International Snow Leopard Trust Newsletter, Vol. 16, p.10.

• Athreya V, et. al. (2013), ‘Big cats in our backyards: Persistence of large carnivores in a human dominated landscape in India’, PLoS ONE, Vol. 8, No.3, pp. 57-72

• Atwood T., et al. (2016), ‘Rapid Environmental Change Drives Increased Land Use by an Arctic Marine Predator, PLoS One, Vol. 11, No. 6.

• Atwood T.C (2017), ‘Implications of Rapid Environmental Change for Polar Bear Behavior and Sociality, in Marine Mammal Welfare: Human Induced Change in the Marine Environment and its Impacts on Marine Mammal Welfare (ed. A. Butterworth), Springer International Publishing, pp. 445-462.

• Barua, et. al. (2013), ‘THe Hidden Dimensions of Human-wildlife Conflict: Health Impacts, Opportunity and Transaction Costs, Biological Conservation, Vol. 157, pp. 309-316.

• Chaturvedi, R. K, et. al. (2011), ‘Impact of climate change on Indian forests: a dynamic vegetation modeling approach, Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change, Vol. 16, pp.119-142.

• DeMotts, R and P. Hoon (2012), ‘Whose Elephants? Conserving, Compensating, and Competing in Northern Botswana,’ Society and Natural Resources, Vol. 25, No. 9, pp.837-851.

• Dickman AJ (2010), ‘Complexities of Conflict: the Importance fConsidering Social Factors for Effectively Resolving Human-Wildlife Conflict,’ Animal Conservation, Vol. 13, pp.458-466.

• Dwitvedi O.P (2001), ‘Satyagraha for Conservation: Awakening the Spirit of Hinduism,’ in L.P Pojman (Ed.), Environmental Ethics, Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont, pp. 29-50.

• Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations (FAO, 2010), Global forest resources assessment, Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations.

• Fulton, et. al. (1996), ‘Wildlife Value Orientations: A Conceptual and Measurement Approach, Human Dimensions of Wildlife, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 24-47.

• Gnacadja and Lesch (2009), Running dry- Climate change in dry lands and how to cope with it. Germany: Meunchen.

• Gross E.M (2019), Tackling routes to coexistence. Human-elephant conflict in sub-Saharan Africa, GIZ Partnership against Poaching and Illegal Wildlife Trade, Eschborn, Germany.

• Gross E, et.al. (2021), A Future for All: The Need for Human-Wildlife Coexistence, WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

• Guerra, A.S. (2019), ‘Wolves of the sea: Managing human-wildlife conflict in an increasingly tense ocean’, Marine Policy, Vol. 99, pp. 369-373.

• Guthrie, RD (2005), The Nature of Paleo-lithic Art, University Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

• Hart D & Sussman, W (2009), Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators and Human Evolution, Westview Press, Boulder.

• Hazzah, L.N (2006), Living among Lions: Coexistence or Killing? Community Attitude towards Conservation Initiatives and the Motivations behind Lion Killing in Kenyan Maasailand, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

• Holling, C.S (2001), ‘Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems,’ Ecosystems, Vol. 4, pp. 390-405.

• Ingold T (1994), ‘From Trust to Domination: An Alternative History of Human-animal Relations,’ in A. Manning & J. Serpell (eds.), Animals and Human Society, Routledge, New York, pp. 1-22.

• Khaine, Inkyin & Su Young Woo (2015), ‘An overview of interrelationship between climate change and forests, Forest Science and Technology, Vol. 11, No. 1, March, Taylor and Francis.

• Khumalo K E & Young LA (2015), ‘Women, Human-wildlife Conflict, and CBNRM: Hidden Impacts and Vulnerabilities in Kwandu Conservancy, Namibia, Conservation and Society, Vol. 13, No.3, pp. 232-243.

• Knight, J (2000), ‘Culling Demons: the Problem of Bears in Japan, Natural enemies- People-wildlife Conflicts in Anthropological Perspective, Routledge, London, pp. 145-169.

• Lute, M.L & Gore, ML (2014), ‘Knowledge and power in wildlife management,’ The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 78, No. 6, pp. 1060-1068.

• Manfredo, M J & Ashley A D (2004), ‘Concepts of Exploring the Social Aspects of Human-Wildlife Conflict in a Global Context,’ Human Dimensions of Wildlife, Vol. 9, pp. 317-328.

• Marchini S & P. G Crawshaw (2015), ‘Human-Wildlife Conflicts in Brazil: A Fast-growing Issue,’ Human Dimensions of Wildlife, Vol. 20, pp. 323-328.

• Marker, L (2002), Aspects of Cheetah Biology, Ecology and Conservation Strategies on Namibian Farmlands, University of Oxford, Oxford.

• Mason et al., (2018), ‘Wicked conflict: Using wicked problem thinking for holistic management of conservation conflict, Conservation Letters, Vol.

• Nair, Reji D (2009), ‘Environmental Refugees-Lessons from Africa, Chapter in Environment and Climate Change, Edited by Sawalia Bihari Verma; Anand Bhusan Sharan and Sunil Kumar Verma, Pentagon Press, New Delhi.

• Nair, Reji D, et. al. (2010), Role of Indigenous Communities in Forest Conservation: Lessons from Africa, Institute of Social Research and Action, Thiruvananthapuram, India.

• Nair, Reji D (2022), ‘Counteracting Climate Change: A Review on Feasibility of the Circular Economy Approach, International Journal of Current Science, Vol. 12, Issue: 3, September.

• Nair, Reji D (2024), ‘Impact of Climate Change on Developing Countries: Case of Least Developed Countries, International Journal of Research in Education Humanities and Commerce, Vol.5, Issue 2, March-April.

• Ravindranath N. H, et. al. (2010), Impact of Climate Change on Forests in India, Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

• Redfern J.V., et al. (2013), ‘Assessing the risk of ships striking large whales in marine spatial planning,’ Conservation Biology, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 292-302.

• Roskaft, et. al. (2003), ‘Pattern of Self-reported Fear towards Large Carnivores among the Norwegian Public, Evolutionary Human Behaviour, Vol. 24, pp. 184-198.

• Scoones, I (1998), Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis,’ IDS Working Paper: 72.

• Seppala R, Buck A, Katila P (eds) (2009) Adaptation of forests and people to climate change: A Global Assessment Report. IUFRO World Series, Volume 22, Helsinki, p.224

• Smit, B, et al. (2000), ‘An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability, Climatic Change, Vol. 45, pp. 223-251.

• Spittlehouse DL & R B. Stewart (2003), ‘Adaptation to climate change in forest management,’ BC Journal of Ecosystems and Management, Volume 4, Number 1.FORREX-Forest Research Extension Partnership.

• Sukumar, R (1989), The Asian Elephant: Ecology and Management, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

• Surovell, TA, et. al. (2016), ‘Test of Martin’s overkill Hypothesis using Radiocarbon Dates on Extinct Mega fauna, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113, pp.886-891.

• Toledo et al. (2011), ‘Climate is a stronger driver of tree and forest growth rates than soil and disturbance, Journal of Ecology, Vol. 99, pp. 254-264.

• Weber M (1948), The Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism, Scribner, New York.