Relocate local pastoralist communities to reduce human-wildlife conflict

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

60%
Certainty

10%
Harms

10%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Species conservation can conflict with interests of local communities that own and manage grazing livestock. An intervention occasionally enacted is to relocate pastoralist communities to areas further way from the threatened species.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on mammals of relocating local pastoralists to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in India.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Abundance (1 study): A study in India found that after most pastoralists were relocated outside of an area, Asiatic lion numbers increased.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A study in 1974–2010 of forest and savanna in one area in Gujarat, India (Singh & Gibson 2011) found that after most pastoralists were relocated outside of the area, Asiatic lion Panthera leo persica numbers increased. The lion population increased during the study period from 180 in 1974 to 411 individuals 36 years later. This coincided with increased abundance of wild ungulates from 5,600 individuals prior to the start of the study, in 1969–1970, to 64,850 individuals in 2010. Scat analysis showed that domestic livestock formed 75% of lions’ diets four years before the main study period which fell to 25% at the end of the study. A wildlife sanctuary was created in 1965 and was expanded and declared a National Park in 1975. Four further areas were protected between 1989 and 2007. Three core protected areas covered 1,452 km². Over two thirds of indigenous pastoral Maldharis and their livestock were relocated from the area, commencing in 1972. The number of domestic buffalo and cattle in the protected areas fell from 24,250 animals in the 1970s to 12,500 in the mid-1980s but then increased to 23,440 in 2010. Lions were visually surveyed at 5–6-year intervals, from 1974–2010.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Singh H.S. & Gibson L. (2011) A conservation success story in the otherwise dire megafauna extinction crisis: The Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica) of Gir forest. Biological Conservation, 144, 1753-1757.

Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Use taste-aversion to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to deter human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	9	Synopsis Link
Translocate predators away from livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Trade-off between benefit and harms	11	Synopsis Link
Use target species scent to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link