The human wildlife conflict: towards a theoretical foundation

Mohini Patil, Anuya Kanhere, Ashwini Visave, Milind Watve

Multiple angles of human wildlife conflict have been increasingly haunting conservation biology over the last few decades despite many mitigation attempts. We argue here that the field suffers from the lack of a theoretical foundation. As a result, researchers have failed to collect data on some of the most critical variables, and are unable to determine the predominant causes of the conflict. In the absence of causal analysis, the management has failed to deploy appropriate mitigation measures. As a result, the conservation policies are divided by mutually incompatible philosophies, sentiments and opinions. We identify here the alternative causal factors of the conflicts along with their differential testable predictions. Further we incorporate them in a unified model based on foraging optimization by the animals. At different parameters the same model fits into different observed conflict patterns. Identifying the predominant cause is a pre-requisite for designing any effective short and long-term solutions for any given locale. The model results reveal that across contexts the most critical parameter is fear of humans. If the human avoidance behaviour of animals decreases below a threshold, conflict escalates even at a small population size. Mitigation measures such as habitat restoration, population control, fencing or deterrents are effective only if the fear factor is adequately high. The model can direct the focus of research towards the missing variables in empirical work. With adequate empirical support, the theory would provide an appropriate basis for long term conservation management maximizing stable population sizes and survival probabilities with minimum conflict.