Contributed Paper

Use of an Action–Selection Framework forHuman–Carnivore Conflict in the BangladeshSundarbansADAM C. D. BARLOW,∗†§ CHRISTINA J. GREENWOOD,† ISHTIAQ U. AHMAD,∗‡AND JAMES L. D. SMITH∗∗Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, 200 Hodson Hall, 1980 Folwell Avenue,Saint Paul, MN 55108, U.S.A.†Zoological Society of London, Outer Circle, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4RY, United Kingdom‡Forest Department of Bangladesh, Agargaon, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Abstract: Human–carnivore conflict is manifested in the death of humans, livestock, and carnivores. The

resulting negative local attitudes and retribution killings imperil the future of many endangered carnivores.

We tailored existing management tools to create a framework to facilitate the selection of actions to alle-

viate human–carnivore conflict and applied the framework to the human–tiger conflict in the Bangladesh

Sundarbans. We identified potential actions that consider previous management efforts, local knowledge,

cost-effectiveness, fieldwork experience of authors and project staff, previous research on tiger ecology by the

authors, and recommendations from human–carnivore conflict studies in other countries. Our framework

includes creation of a profile to improve understanding of the nature of the conflict and its underlying

causality. Identified actions include deterrents, education, direct tiger management, and response teams. We

ranked actions by their potential to reduce conflict and the monetary cost of their implementation. We ranked

tiger-response teams and monitoring problem tigers as the two best actions because both had relatively high

impact and cost-effectiveness. We believe this framework could be used under a wide range of human–wildlife

conflict situations because it provides a structured approach to selection of mitigating actions.

Keywords: action selection, cost-effectiveness, decision support tool, human–carnivore conflict, panthera

tigris, sundarbans

Uso de un Marco de Seleccion de Acciones en un Conflicto Humanos-Carnıvoros en el Sundabarns de Bangladesh

Resumen: El conflicto humanos-carnıvoros se manifiesta como la muerte de humanos, ganado y carnıvoros.

Las actitudes locales negativas resultantes y las aniquiliciones en retribucion ponen en peligro el futuro de

muchos carnıvoros en estatus de riesgo. Ajustamos herramientas de manejo existentes para crear un marco de

referencia para facilitar la seleccion de acciones para atenuar conflictos humanos-carnıvoros y lo aplicamos al

conflicto humanos-tigres en el Sundabarns de Bangladesh. Identificamos acciones potenciales que consideran

los esfuerzos de manejo previos, el conocimiento local, la rentabilidad, la experiencia de campo de autores

y personal adscrito a proyectos, la investigacion previa sobre ecologıa de tigres y las recomendaciones de

estudios de conflictos humanos-carnıvoros en otros paıses. Nuestro marco incluye la creacion de un perfil para

mejorar el entendimiento de la naturaleza de un conflicto y las causas subyacentes. Las acciones identificadas

incluyen deterrentes, educacion, manejo directo de tigres y equipos de respuesta. Clasificamos las acciones por

su potencial para reducir el conflicto y el costo monetario de su implementacion. Clasificamos a los equipos

de respuesta a tigres y al monitoreo de problemas de tigres como las dos mejores acciones porque ambas

§email adam.barlow@zsl.orgPaper submitted June 29, 2009; revised manuscript accepted November 23, 2009.

1Conservation Biology, Volume **, No. **, ***–***C©2010 Society for Conservation BiologyDOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01496.x

2 Managing Human–Carnivore Conflict

tuvieron impacto y rentabilidad relativamente altos. Consideramos que este marco de referencia puede ser

utilizado en un amplio rango de situaciones de conflicto entre humanos y vida silvestre porque proporciona

un acercamiento estructurado a la seleccion de acciones de mitigacion.

Palabras Clave: conflicto humanos-carnıvoros, herramienta para soporte de decisiones, Panthera tigris, rentabil-idad, seleccion de acciones, Sundabarns

Introduction

Human–carnivore conflict is a key issue for the con-servation of many threatened carnivores (Graham et al.2005; Inskip & Zimmermann 2009). Previous workon human–carnivore conflict focuses primarily on site-specific case studies or on broad-scale explanatory factorsand solutions (Treves & Karanth 2003; Nyhus & Tilson2004; Packer et al. 2005). There is some useful guid-ance for overall management of human–wildlife conflict(Treves et al. 2006; Rondinini & Boitani 2007; Pressey &Bottrill 2008), and Treves et al. (2009) outlines a processstakeholders can use to evaluate potential interventionson the basis of cost-effectiveness, wildlife specificity andselectivity, and sociopolitical acceptability. To build onthese earlier efforts, we devised a framework to guidemanagers through the process of selecting an action thatwill mitigate human–carnivore conflict. The frameworkranks actions by their predicted impact (in terms of hu-man, carnivore, and livestock lives saved) and their cost-effectiveness.

The true test of a management framework is its ap-plicability in the real world. We used the case of thehuman–tiger conflict in the Sundarbans of Bangladesh toexplore the process of action selection and enable con-servation managers to visualize how the framework cansupport decision making.

Action–Selection Framework

A number of management frameworks are available thathelp guide development of conservation programs. Forexample, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (2007) frame-work breaks down program management into five com-ponents: define, design, implement, adapt, and share.The action–selection framework we present falls withinWWF’s design component and includes four steps: setobjectives, build the conflict profile, identify actions, andprioritize actions (Fig. 1).

Set Objectives

In our framework objectives are set by the project team,which itself is selected as part of the preliminary defini-tion step of the WWF model (World Wildlife Fund (WWF)2007). Setting objectives for human–carnivore conflict

can be a difficult undertaking because it requires a combi-nation of ethical, political, socioeconomic, and ecologicaljudgments. In a conflict scenario involving an endangeredspecies there may be more than one objective. It may benecessary to reduce loss of human lives and livestock,to increase local support for carnivore conservation, andto fulfill a moral obligation to reduce human sufferingcaused by the carnivore (Dorrance 1983). It may also benecessary to improve the situation for the carnivore byreducing unnecessary mortality and decreasing the popu-lation’s vulnerability to extinction (Chapron et al. 2008).We believe where humans and carnivores share a com-mon landscape, it is perhaps not an achievable objectiveto prevent all loss of human, livestock, and carnivore life.Therefore, where humans and carnivores are in conflict,objectives aim to minimize bad outcomes; in this caseloss of human, carnivore, and livestock lives. Setting ob-jectives in terms of numbers of lives ensures that selectionof an action focuses on reduction of the conflict, ratherthan addressing additional (and sometimes hidden) objec-tives the participants may have (e.g., a scientist wantingto prioritize research over mitigation). Useful objectivesshould be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, andtime bound (SMART) (Tucker et al. 2005).

Build the Conflict Profile

Creating a profile for each aspect of the conflict (human,carnivore, and livestock killing) helps identify mitigatingactions. The profile contains a general description of thecircumstances in which the conflict takes place and spe-cific information on the severity of the conflict and its spa-tial, temporal, and social characteristics. The severity ofthe conflict reveals the relative size of each aspect of theconflict (human, livestock, and carnivore loss) and helpsone estimate the potential impact and costs of actions(Graham et al. 2005). Spatial information on the conflicthelps focus actions in areas where they can be most ef-fective (e.g., distribution of human–sloth–bear conflict inIndia identified problem areas for management interven-tion; Rajpurohit & Krausman 2000). Information on tem-poral characteristics may help identify the best times toimplement particular actions (e.g., seasonal variation oflivestock depredation by large felids in Brazil resulted ina recommendation to improve water supply for livestockduring the dry season (Michalski et al. 2006). Understand-ing social characteristics may help identify target groups

Conservation Biology

Volume **, No. **, 2010

Barlow et al. 3

Setobjectives

Buildthe conflict

profile

Identifyactions

Prioritiseactions

Define in terms ofhumans,carnivores, orlivestock livessaved over aspecified timeperiod.

Include overviewof conflictdescription withspecificinformation onscale, temporal,spatial, andsocialcharacteristics.Note anyinformationrelating tocausality of theconflict.

List all possiblemitigatingactions.Consult with localstakeholders toensure potentialactions arepractical andsociallyacceptable.

Rank actionsbased onestimatednumber ofhuman,carnivore, andlivestock livessaved.Rank actionsbased on cost-effectiveness.Rank actionsbased oncombined impactand cost-effectiveness.

Figure 1. Steps of framework for

selecting actions to mitigate

human–carnivore conflict.

Building the conflict profile,

action identification, and action

prioritization are illustrated for

our case study (Tables 1–4).

for some actions (e.g., research in Bhutan assessed therelative impacts of wildlife–human conflict on differentgroups to improve the focus of management interven-tion; Ura et al. 2009). Understanding causality can alsoadvance management response from being reactive topreventative. The profile can also highlight informationgaps that require further research.

Identify Actions

Brainstorming sessions, focus group discussions, and lit-erature reviews can all be used to develop ideas for mit-igating actions (The Nature Conservancy 2003). Actionspreviously used in the area, new approaches identifiedthrough field work, local solutions, and measures used toreduce human–carnivore conflict in other countries canall be considered (Treves et al. 2009). Key stakeholders,such as government staff, staff of nongovernmental or-ganizations, and local people may be involved to build asense of joint ownership and ensure social acceptabilityof the solutions (Pinkerton 1999; Treves et al. 2009).

Taking no action should also be considered becausethis may be the best strategy under certain circumstancesand because considering it highlights the repercussionsof not intervening. Budget constraints are not consideredat this stage to ensure a comprehensive appraisal of po-tential solutions.

Prioritize Actions

First, actions are ranked against each objective in termsof the number of humans, carnivores, and livestock lives

saved over a specified time period. The expected yearwhen impact will first be realized and the yearly impactare used to calculate of total impact over a predefinedtime period. Because human–carnivore conflict is gener-ally emotive and highly political (Treves et al. 2006), werecommend objectives not be weighted in the processof action prioritization so as to avoid situations in whichcarnivores are valued above people, which may be inhu-mane, or consideration of short-term human benefit is pri-mary, which may lead to species extinction. Instead, theranks of actions against all objectives are used to identifyactions that may be beneficial for both humans and carni-vores. There are methods available to prioritize betweenpotentially conflicting objectives (Nute et al. 2000), butvalue trade-offs may be a more-appropriate approach thana quantitative approach for building a consensus betweenstakeholders on the relative importance of human and en-dangered carnivore life (Mace et al. 2006). Estimates ofimpact may be based on empirical data, computer mod-els, local and expert opinion, or best guess, depending onthe information available. Unless there is empirical dataavailable, estimation of an action’s impact will be biasedby the opinions, knowledge, experience, and interactionsof the people making the estimates. Expert opinion canbe augmented with local knowledge to develop realisticestimations of the effects of actions (Treves et al. 2009).

Choices often have to be made when funding isscarce, so the cost-effectiveness of actions also has tobe considered (Hughey et al. 2003). Cost-effectivenessanalysis (CEA), which incorporates a structured return-on-investment calculation, can be used to determinethe most-effective use of funds to mitigate the conflict(Murdoch et al. 2007). The return on investment (ROI)is calculated by dividing impact by cost. The setup costand yearly costs to maintain the action over time are

Conservation Biology

Volume **, No. **, 2010

4 Managing Human–Carnivore Conflict

used to calculate total cost over the time period. The es-timated cost takes into account the implementing organi-zations’ capacity and includes equipment, maintenance,and training costs over the life of the project (Murdochet al. 2007).

If multiple actions are being selected for implemen-tation, then summing impacts across different actionsshould be avoided if it leads to double counting and over-estimation of total impact (Murdoch et al. 2007). It is im-portant to ensure decision makers accept the full reper-cussions of a particular strategy, so the number of human,livestock, and carnivore lives lost can also be listed foreach action. If actions are very similar in impact and cost-effectiveness, then they may be differentiated by lever-age, which is any additional cost or benefit resulting froman action that is unrelated to the objectives delineated(The Nature Conservancy 2003; Murdoch et al. 2007).Actions for which there is insufficient information to es-timate impact can be highlighted for further research, ifjudged by participants to have potential merit.

Human–Tiger Conflict in the BangladeshSundarbans

Set Objectives

We applied our action–selection framework to the objec-tive of the Bangladesh Tiger Action Plan (BTAP): minimizethe number of human, tiger, and livestock lives lost in theBangladesh Sundarbans over the next 8 years (Ahmadet al. 2009). The project team dealing with human–tigerconflict was made up of three Bangladesh Forest Depart-ment staff (including I.U.A.), one project manager (C.J.G.)from the Wildlife Trust of Bangladesh (a national non-governmental organization), one person with expertiseon Sundarbans tigers (A.C.D.B.), one person with exper-tise on tiger ecology and behavior (J.L.D.S.), and fourlocal villagers with experience working on tiger researchand human–tiger conflict in the Sundarbans.

Build the Conflict Profile

Killing of humans by tigers in the Sundarbans has beenrecorded since at least 1860 (Blanford 1891). People havebeen attacked while working in the forest or when tigershave strayed into villages. People access the forest byboat, but have been vulnerable to attack when they land.People have been killed or injured as they were attempt-ing to save the first victim, or when they were attemptingto retrieve the victim’s body. Coworkers of the personattacked generally mark the creek entrance where theattack took place with a piece of cloth attached to a treeor pole, as a warning to other people. If seen at all, suchmarkings do not generally dissuade villagers from usingnearby creeks that are very likely within the range of thetiger responsible for the original attack (A.C.D.B., per-

sonal observation). Some forest users have sought pro-tection through the use of charms or the prayers of localholy men called Gunins (Eaton 1990).

People have been killed when tigers enter villages inwhat appear to be unprovoked attacks. Other villagershave been killed or injured when they tried to kill a tiger.Whether a tiger is identified as having attacked someoneor not, if it is detected in a village it is generally sur-rounded and bludgeoned to death by hundreds of localpeople armed with sticks and farm tools (Gani 2002).We collected information on severity, spatial, temporal,and social characteristics of tigers killing humans andhumans killing tigers from the literature, Forest Depart-ment records, and field observations (Table 1). We foundfew records of livestock depredation by tigers in govern-ment reports, and the one available report on the subject(Gani 2002) did not provide sufficient information to cre-ate a profile for this aspect of the conflict.

Identify Actions

There was insufficient information on the severity of live-stock depredation to warrant management interventionat this time, so we considered only actions that wouldreduce the killing of tigers by humans and the killing ofhumans by tigers. We collected ideas for potential ac-tions from actions used previously in the Sundarbans,fieldwork experience of the project team, suggestionsfrom local people, and actions suggested or used in othercountries to reduce conflict between humans and largefelids (Goodrich & Miquelle 2005; Gurung et al. 2008).Discussions between the project team and local com-munities during our 5 years of field work helped en-sure that suggested actions were socially acceptable andpractical.

Potential actions directed at the tigers in question werekilling, translocation, and collaring and monitoring tigerssuspected of killing people. Two specialist teams of For-est Department staff, trained in tiger capture and moni-toring, were considered necessary to carry out the latterwork. Dealing with problem tigers would require identi-fication of the tiger in question by victims, through thelocation of tiger tracks at a kill site, or with camera trap-ping. Killing of problem tigers was authorized previouslyby the government (Hendrichs 1975). Translocation ofproblem tigers was carried out in the Russian Far East(Goodrich & Miquelle 2005). Attaching radio and geo-graphical positioning system collars to problem animalsand monitoring the animal’s movements so that conflictscan be avoided was proposed as an approach to deal-ing with human-killing tigers in Nepal (Gurung et al.2008).

Indirect means of dealing with the conflict were build-ing fences (V. Rishi, unpublished data) and dredging wa-ter channels to form a barrier at the forest–village inter-face in northeastern Sundarbans, where tigers often stray

Conservation Biology

Volume **, No. **, 2010

Barlow et al. 5

Table 1. Profile of human–tiger conflict in the Bangladesh Sundarbans.

Conflict description Causality Source∗

Tigers killing humansseverity ∼30 human deaths each year; estimated

50% of tigers that kill humans kill onlyone person; 50% of tigers that kill humansaccount for 80% of human victims

∼350,000 people collect forest productsand may be exposed to tiger attack;high density of tigers may lead tohigher chance of human encounterswith tigers in the forest

1, 2, 3

spatial characteristics ∼27 human deaths/year in forest; ∼3human deaths/year in village area; mosthumans killed by tigers in westernSundarbans; no spatial pattern identifiedwith regards to humans killed by tigers invillages

forest users spread throughout forest;honey collection concentrated in thewest, where most honey is available;relative density of tigers also higher inthe west

1, 2, 4, 5

temporal characteristics high number of human deaths inDecember, January, and April; lownumbers in June, July, and August

human activity peaks in December andJanuary coinciding with collection ofwood and thatching material; honeycollection mostly carried out in April;overall human activity less inmonsoon (June–September)

1, 2, 3, 6

social characteristics majority of victims are honey gatherers,fishers, woodcutters; honey collectorskilled in higher numbers relative to thenumber of each user group in forest

forest user groups vulnerable to attackwhen they get onto land; honeycollectors vulnerable because theyspread out in the forest as they searchfor honey combs

1, 2, 5

Humans killing tigersseverity ∼3 tigers killed each year through

retribution; additional poaching of tigersmay go undetected

reasons for tigers straying into villageareas unknown

1, 2

spatial characteristics tigers killed in villages bordering the forest;tigers thought to stray into villages morefrequently in northeast

unknown distribution of tiger that strayinto villages and associated factors

1, 2

temporal characteristics unknown –

social characteristics tigers killed by local villagers tigers killed in retribution for previoushuman and livestock killing or for fearof future incidents

1, 2, 7, 8

∗Sources: 1, Forest Department records (1984–2006); 2, Barlow (2009); 7, Gani (2002); 3, Tamang (1993); 4, Barlow et al. (2008); 5, Hendrichs(1975); 6, Blower (1985); 8, Jagrata Juba Shangha (2003).

from the forest into villages (Gani 2002). The high intakeof saline water may increase human killing by tigers Hen-drichs (1975), so digging freshwater ponds was consid-ered (Saha 1988).

Some deterrents to tiger attack for forest users facinghigher risk of attack (e.g., honey collectors, fishers, andwoodcutters) were considered. In India, masks worn onthe back of the head were used to discourage tigers fromattacking (Rishi 1988; Saha 1988; Mukherjee 2003) andfiberglass headgear was used to reduce the chances ofinjury or death from an attack (Rishi 1988).

Firecrackers were used by forest users to scare away atiger from an area before starting work. Electrified dum-mies designed to condition tigers not to attack peoplewere pilot tested in India (Chowdhury 1985; Mukherjee2003). Guard dogs were proposed as potential deterrentsto attacks by tigers and for driving tigers away from vil-lages (Khan 2009).

Another potential solution was the creation and strate-gic stationing of Forest Department tiger-response teams

in areas where there are a high level of killings. Two teamswould be in boats so they could treat injured persons,transport them to medical assistance, and then patrol thearea of the attack to prevent further incidents. An addi-tional four teams would be based in the village to keeppeople away from tigers and to monitor the movementsof tigers near the village until they returned to the forest.

Education actions aimed at reducing the tigers killedby villages and improving the safety of forest users werealso considered.

Prioritize Actions

We ranked each action according to its potential to re-duce human deaths and tiger deaths and its cost overthe 8-year period covered by the BTAP. The project teamestimated impact on the basis of available informationon human–tiger conflict and the efficacy of each action;observations and knowledge of tiger behavior; over 20years of collective experience working on tiger ecology

Conservation Biology

Volume **, No. **, 2010

6 Managing Human–Carnivore Conflict

and human–tiger conflict in the Sundarbans; discussionswith additional Forest Department staff stationed in theSundarbans; and multiple, informal meetings with localcommunities living next to the forest during the courseof other research and conservation awareness activities.The authors then made the final estimation of impactand cost, considering all available information and theopinions of participants.

We judged the killing, translocation, or collaring andmonitoring of tigers after two human victims had the po-tential to prevent human and tiger deaths. The thresholdof two human victims per tiger took into account thatan estimated 50% of human-killing tigers kill only one hu-man victim and the other 50% kill two or more humansand account for 80% of all victims (Barlow 2009). Killingmany tigers that have killed humans has been correlatedwith reduction in human deaths from tiger attacks (Curtis1933; Hendrichs 1975). Nevertheless, given the endan-gered status of the species (IUCN 2008) and the uncer-tainty in estimates of abundance and the severity of otherthreats, additional human-caused mortality may imperilthe long-term viability of the tiger population (Chapronet al. 2008). In the Sundarbans human activities and tigerdensity are both relatively high and widespread (Iftekhar& Islam 2004; Barlow et al. 2008), so we assumed translo-cation of tigers is likely to move the problem to anotherarea of the forest rather than reduce it. Furthermore, weexpected that some translocated tigers would die dueto confrontation with conspecifics at the destination siteand others may return to their original range (Athreya2006; Armstrong & Seddon 2008).

Radio- or GPS collars have been used to help moni-tor and manage problem animals such as wolves (Ca-

nis lupus) (Chavez & Gese 2005), black bears (Ursus

americanus) (Breck et al. 2007), and tigers (Goodrich &Miquelle 2005). Furthermore, on the basis of work thathas been done to reduce livestock and lion deaths inKenya (L. Frank unpublished data), we considered it real-istic that by following a collared tiger’s movements daily,a monitoring team could warn away forest users if theygot too close to the tiger or could scare away the tigerto avoid a dangerous situation (Gurung et al. 2008). Themonitoring teams might also protect problem tigers fromretribution killings and poaching (Gurung et al. 2008).

Fence construction and canal dredging at theforest–village interface could only prevent those tiger andhuman deaths that occur in or near the village. We expectthat fences and dredging have limited effects becausetigers can climb over fences and traverse large waterbodies (Hendrichs 1975). We judged that the educationof villagers could prevent some tiger deaths by improv-ing attitudes toward tiger conservation and therefore de-crease retribution killings and that the education of forestusers could save some human lives by changing humanbehavior that makes forest users vulnerable to tiger at-tacks. The tiger-response teams could save some human

lives by administering emergency first aid and other livesby warning people away from dangerous areas of theforest.

There is no evidence for a biological link between wa-ter salinity and human-killing behavior in tigers, so weconsidered digging freshwater ponds has little effect.On the basis of available evidence (Chowdhury 1985;Mukherjee 2003), electrified human dummies do notwork well to reduce tiger attacks. Local people reportfirecrackers have a limited effect on tigers. The wearingof masks on the back of the head have been used in India,but their impact has not been assessed sufficiently (Rishi1988; Mukherjee & Tanti 2001). Nevertheless, tigers dogenerally attack from the rear and seem less confident ina face-on confrontation (Seidensticker & McDougal 1993;A.C.D.B., personal communication), so it seemed plausi-ble that masks could reduce some human deaths.

Headgear may save the lives of some users, but currentdesigns are cumbersome and uncomfortable for forestusers who work in hot conditions and need free headmovement to carry out their work (V. Rishi, unpublisheddata). Guard dogs have been used with varying degreesof success to protect livestock from carnivore predation(Green et al. 1984; Andelt 2001), and work by Khan(2009) suggests that dogs may prevent some tiger attackson humans.

Our ranking of actions by the estimated number of hu-man lives saved identified tiger collaring and government-authorized killing of tigers as the best options and dredg-ing and freshwater ponds as the worst. On the basis ofthe number of tiger lives saved, however, tiger collaringand tiger-response teams were ranked the highest. Wejudged many actions as having no impact and killing oftigers as having a negative impact (Table 2).

We estimated costs on the basis of equipment, mainte-nance, and training costs and on current resources avail-able to the Forest Department. We considered killingproblem tigers and the use of guard dogs the most cost-effective solution for reducing human deaths and dredg-ing water channels and digging freshwater ponds as theworst solutions. To reduce tiger deaths, we judged fenc-ing made of natural materials and tiger-response teamsthe most cost-effective solutions and the killing of tigersthe worst solution (Table 3).

On the basis of the ranking of all possible actions toprevent human deaths, tiger collaring and tiger-responseteams were the best options and doing nothing was theworst option (Table 4). On the basis of overall cost, ef-fectiveness tiger collaring and tiger-response teams werethe best actions and dredging water channels and dig-ging freshwater ponds the worst (Table 4). We judgeddiscrimination between actions on the basis of leverage(any additional cost or benefit resulting from an actionthat is unrelated to the objectives delineated) as unneces-sary because the actions that were highly ranked did nothave the same impact and cost-effectiveness scores.

Conservation Biology

Volume **, No. **, 2010

Barlow et al. 7

Table 2. Estimated impact of actions to reduce human–tiger conflict in Bangladesh.

Year of Humans Humans Tigers Tigersmanifestation saved/ saved/ Impact saved/ saved/ Impact

Action of effect yeara 8 years rankb year 8 years rankb

Tiger collaring 1 20 160 1 3 24 1Killing problem tigers 1 15 120 2 −3 −24 15Guard dogs 2 10 70 3 1 7 5Tiger-response teams 1 8 64 4 2 16 2Education program—forest users 1 5 40 6 0 0 9Fiberglass headgear 1 5 40 6 0 0 9Firecrackers 1 3 24 8 0 0 9Tiger translocation 1 3 24 8 1 8 3Education program—villagers 1 2 16 9 1 8 3Fencing

electric 2 2 14 10 1 7 5nylon 2 1 7 11 1 7 5natural 2 1 7 11 1 7 5

Electrified dummies 1 U 0 13 0 0 9Masks 1 U 0 13 0 0 9No action 1 0 0 15 0 0 9Dredging water channels 2 0 0 16 0 0 9Digging freshwater ponds 2 0 0 16 0 0 9

aU, unknown.bImpact ranks are on an ordinal scale of the total number of human or tiger lives saved.

Discussion

Framework Application

Decision makers are often forced to mitigate human–carnivore conflict in the face of scarce funding, politi-cal pressure, declining species and habitats, lack of in-formation, and uncertainty of success. We believe our

framework provides a structured approach to decisionmaking for selecting actions to reduce human–carnivoreconflict. Nevertheless, our framework is not prescriptiveand planners may wish to consider the following issueswhen adopting the method or reviewing its outputs.

The action identification and prioritization steps maybe biased by the composition of the planning team; a dif-ferent range of actions may be listed and the estimations

Table 3. Estimated cost-effectiveness of actions to save human and tiger lives in the Bangladesh Sundarbans.

Setup cost Maintenance cost Cost (US$) Humans saved Tigers savedAction (US$)a (US$)/yeara over 8 years ROI, rankb ROI, rankb

Kill problem tigers 20,000 20,000 160,000 7.5, 1 −1.5, 17Deploy guard dogs 18,000 4,000 46,000 6.5, 2 0.15, 7Collar tigers 36,000 36,000 288,000 5.56, 3 0.83, 3Wear fiberglass headgear 50,000 5,000 85,000 4.71, 4 0, 9Deploy tiger-response teams 20,000 20,000 160,000 4, 5 1, 2Educate forest users 23,000 23,000 184,000 2.17, 6 0, 9Use firecrackers 30,000 12,000 114,000 2.11, 7 0, 9Construct natural fence 13,500 4,050 41,850 1.67, 8 1.67, 1Educate villagers 23,000 23,000 184,000 0.87, 9 0.43, 5Translocate tigers 36,000 36,000 288,000 0.83, 10 0.28, 6Construct nylon fence 22,500 11,250 101,250 0.69, 11 0.69, 4Construct electric fence 360,000 36,000 612,000 0.23, 12 0.11, 8No action 0 0 0 0, 13 0, 9Erect electrified dummies 20,800 20,800 166,400 U, 13 0, 9Wear masks 20,000 2,000 34,000 U, 13 0, 9Dredge water channels 105,000 10,500 178,500 0, 13 0, 9Dig freshwater ponds 30,000 1,500 40,500 0, 13 0, 9

aSetup costs included all costs necessary to initiate the action, and maintenance costs encompassed all costs to maintain implementation ofaction per year. Cost estimates for killing problem tigers, tiger-response teams, tiger collaring, guard dogs, and tiger translocation were estimatedfrom equipment and previous fieldwork costs. Costs for fiberglass headgear, firecrackers, electrified dummies, and masks were estimated from

Chowdhury (1985), Rishi (1988), Saha (1988), and Mukherjee (2003); cost of local materials and labor; and number of potential users.Education program costs were estimated from the cost of previous awareness campaigns. Costs for fencing, dredging water channels, anddigging freshwater ponds were estimated from previous government expenditure and the scale of each action.bReturn on investment (ROI) is impact per $10000 cost. Rank of ROI is an ordinal scale of the relative ROI for each action.

Conservation Biology

Volume **, No. **, 2010

8 Managing Human–Carnivore Conflict

Table 4. Overall ranking of actions to save human and tiger lives in the Bangladesh Sundarbans.

Combined Combinedimpact Combined impact and Humans Tigers Potential additional

Action rank ROI rank∗ ROI rank killed killed costs and benefits

Tiger collaring 1 1 1 80 0 improved understanding of humankilling by tigers; increased sense ofstewardship in local communities

Tiger-response teams 2 2 2 176 8 training unit for Forest Departmentstaff and villagers

Guard dogs 3 3 3 170 17 additional applications for tigerresearch and monitoring

Tiger translocation 4 9 7 160 16Education program –

villagers5 6 4 224 16 improved general knowledge about

tiger conservation in localcommunities

Fiberglass headgear 6 5 4 200 24 low acceptance by forest usersbecause cumbersome to use

Education program –forest users

6 7 7 200 24 improved general knowledge abouttiger conservation in localcommunities

Fencingelectric 6 12 10 226 17 reduction in illegal livestock grazingnatural 9 3 6 233 17 reduction in illegal livestock grazingnylon 9 7 9 233 17 reduction in illegal livestock grazing

Firecrackers 11 9 11 216 24Killing problem tigers 11 11 12 120 48 increased mortality of tigersElectrified dummies 13 13 13 240 24Masks 13 13 13 240 24No action 15 13 13 240 24Dredging water channels 16 16 16 240 24 improved waterways for boat

transportFreshwater ponds 16 16 16 240 24 increase in freshwater availability for

forest department guard posts

∗Return on investment (ROI) is impact per $10000 cost. Impact is measured in number of human or tiger lives saved.

of impact for each action may be different on the ba-sis of opinions, experience, knowledge, and interestsof team members. Participant bias cannot be eliminatedcompletely, but it can be reduced by several steps in theframework: set SMART (specific, measurable, achievable,relevant, and time bound) objectives (Tucker et al. 2005)in terms of human, carnivore, and livestock lives; buildthe conflict profile to ensure a fuller understanding ofopportunities to reduce the conflict; include stakehold-ers on the project team (World Wildlife Fund (WWF)2007); and consult extensively with stakeholders duringthe framework process (Treves et al. 2009).

Action selection will be limited by the available infor-mation on the conflict and the potential impact of actions.Nevertheless, rather than wait until all possible informa-tion has been gathered, we believe it is imperative to startproactive management as soon as possible to prevent un-necessary loss of life, human, endangered carnivore, orlivestock.

Mitigating Human–Tiger Conflict

Some of the authors may have been biased in their judg-ment of estimated impact and cost for the actions we con-

sidered. Our research and institutional backgrounds andexperience in wildlife–human conflict may have intro-duced bias for or against particular actions we examined.All of us had limited experience in community-focusededucation, so we may have been biased against those ac-tions. Furthermore, we all may have been biased againstactions used previously only on the Indian side of theSundarbans (electric fencing, electric dummies, masks,headgear) because of our unfamiliarity with the effec-tiveness of these actions. Nevertheless, we believe ourpotential biases were lessened by the overriding objec-tive to reduce the conflict and by the structure of theframework itself.

The conflict profile in the Sundarbans highlights theneed for further information on livestock depredation bytigers so that the size of the problem can be assessed andan appropriate management response selected. Researchis also needed on the socioeconomic forces that causepeople to enter the forest to harvest resources. Researchinto the behavioral and ecological mechanisms that pre-dispose tigers to killing humans may also help identifyadditional actions to mitigate the conflict.

We rated tiger collaring and tiger-response teamsas the best overall actions in terms of impact and

Conservation Biology

Volume **, No. **, 2010

Barlow et al. 9

cost-effectiveness. Tigers could only be targeted for col-laring after they had killed two people, so this methodwould not lead to total eradication of the conflict. Nev-ertheless, theoretically, this would result in 80 humansand zero tigers being killed over 8 years, in contrast tothe predicted 240 humans and 24 tigers lost by choos-ing to do nothing. Two tiger-response teams have beencreated. One team is based in the western Sundarbansand deals with the tiger attacks in this area (numberof attacks is high). The second team manages tiger at-tacks in the southeastern Sundarbans (number of attacksis moderate) and the persistent problem of tigers stray-ing into villages in the northeast. Currently, two moretiger-response teams are being trained. In addition, theWildlife Trust of Bangladesh is working with the ForestDepartment and Wildlife Vets International to develop aprogram to train Forest Department staff to capture andimmobilize problem tigers.

We believe further evaluation of the use of guard dogsis required before implementation (Khan 2009). We thinkthe use of masks merits further research because the costof the action is low and may reduce tiger attacks (Rishi1988). We think, however, the use of electric dummies,creation of freshwater ponds, dredging, and electric fenc-ing do not merit further research because they are toocostly or there is little plausible explanation as to howthey can reduce human–tiger conflict (Chowdhury 1985;Mukherjee 2003).

We believe the actions we suggest to deal withhuman–tiger conflict in the Bangladesh Sundarbans mayalso be applicable to the Indian side of the Sundarbans,which has a tiger–human conflict situation similar to thatin the Sundarbans (Barlow 2009). We also believe that,despite its limitations, our framework may help improvemanagement of many human–carnivore conflict situa-tions in which decision makers have not conducted aformal process of action selection on the basis of impactand cost-effectiveness.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Ministry of Environmentand Forests and the Bangladesh Forest Department forpermission to work in the Sundarbans. The authors arealso very grateful for support of all the Wildlife Trust ofBangladesh staff. A. Howlader, M. Rahman, and A. Hos-sain helped collect data, and M.M.H. Khan gave helpfulcorrespondence regarding the guard dogs. Earlier draftsof this paper were improved by edits and comments fromF. Cuthbert, D. Garshelis, T. Arnold, D. Siniff, P. Cutter,B. Smith, A. Treves, E. Main, and three anonymous re-viewers. This study was made possible by funding fromthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Literature Cited

Ahmad, I. U., C. J. Greenwood, A. C. D. Barlow, M. A. Islam, A. N. M.Hossain, M. M. H. Khan, and J. L. D. Smith. 2009. Bangladesh tigeraction plan 2009–2017. Bangladesh Forest Department, Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests, Government of the People’s Republic ofBangladesh, Dhaka.

Andelt, W. F. 2001. Effectiveness of livestock guarding animalsfor reducing predation on livestock. Endangered Species Update18:182–185.

Armstrong, D. P., and P. J. Seddon. 2008. Directions in reintroductionbiology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23:20–25.

Athreya, V. 2006. Is relocation a viable management option for un-wanted animals? The case of the leopard in India. Conservation andSociety 4:419–423.

Barlow, A. C. D. 2009. The Sundarbans tiger: adaptation, population sta-tus and conflict management. PhD thesis. University of Minnesota,Saint Paul.

Barlow, A. C. D., M. I. U. Ahmed, M. M. Rahman, A. Howlader, A. C.Smith, and J. L. D. Smith. 2008. Linking monitoring and interventionfor improved management of tigers in the Sundarbans of Bangladesh.Biological Conservation 141:2031–2040.

Blanford, W. T. 1891. Fauna of British India: mammalia. Taylor andFrancis, London.

Blower, J. 1985. Sundarbans forest inventory project, Bangladesh.Wildlife conservation in the Sundarbans. Project report 151.ODA Land Resources Development Centre, Surbiton, UnitedKingdom.

Breck, S. W., N. Lance, J. Bourassa, S. Matthews, and V. Seher. 2007 Anautomated system for detecting and reporting trespassing bears inYosemite National Park. Ursus 18:230–235.

Chapron, G., D. G. Miquelle, A. Lambert, J. M. Goodrich, S.Legrandre, and J. Clobert. 2008. The impact on tigers of poach-ing versus prey depletion. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:1667–1674.

Chavez, A. S., and E. Gese. 2005. Landscape use and movements ofwolves in relation to livestock in a wildland-agriculture matrix. Jour-nal of Wildlife Management 70:1079–1086.

Chowdhury, M. K. 1985. Man-eating behavior of the tigers of Sundar-bans, West Bengal. Environment and Ecology 3:243–248.

Curtis, S. J. 1933. Working plan for the forests of the Sundarbans Divi-sion for the period from 1933 to 1951. Bengal Government Press,Calcutta, India.

Dorrance, M. J. 1983. A philosophy of problem wildlife management.Wildlife Society Bulletin 11:319–324.

Eaton, R. M. 1990. Human settlement and colonization in the Sundar-bans, 1200–1750. Agriculture and Human Values 7:6–16.

Engeman, R. M., S. A. Shwiff, B. Constantin, M. Stahl, and H. T. Smith.2002. An economic analysis of predator removal approaches for pro-tecting marine turtle nests at Hobe Sound National Wildlife Refuge.Ecological Economics 42:469–478.

Gani, M. O. 2002. A study on the loss of Bengal tiger (Panthera tigris)in five years (1996–2000) from Bangladesh Sundarbans. Tiger Paper29:6–11.

Goodrich, J. M., and D. G. Miquelle. 2005. Translocation of problemAmur tigers Panthera tigris altaica to alleviate tiger-human con-flicts. Oryx 39:454–457.

Graham, K., A. P. Beckerman, and S. Thirgood. 2005. Human-predator-prey conflicts: ecological correlates, prey losses and patterns ofmanagement. Biological Conservation 122:159–171.

Green I. S., R. A. Woodruff, and T. T. Tueller. 1984. Livestock-guardingdogs for predator control: costs, benefits and practicality. WildlifeSociety Bulletin 12:44–50.

Gurung, B., J. L. D. Smith, C. McDougal, J. B. Karki, and A. Barlow. 2008.Factors associated with human-killing tigers in Chitwan NationalPark, Nepal. Biological Conservation 141:3069–3078.

Conservation Biology

Volume **, No. **, 2010

10 Managing Human–Carnivore Conflict

Hendrichs, H. 1975. The status of the tiger Panthera tigris in the Sun-darbans mangrove forest (Bay of Bengal). Saugetierikundliche Mit-teilungen 23:161–199.

Hughey, K. F. D., R. Cullen, and E. Moran. 2003. Integrating economicsinto priority setting and evaluation in conservation management.Conservation Biology 17:93–103.

Iftekhar, M. S., and M. R. Islam. 2004. Managing mangroves inBangladesh: a strategy analysis. Journal of Coastal Conservation10:139–146.

Inskip, C., and A. Zimmermann, A. 2009. Human-felid conflict: a reviewof patterns and priorities worldwide. Oryx 43:18–34.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). 2008. The 2008review of the IUCN Red List of threatened species. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland.

Jagrata Juba Shangha. 2003. Human-wildlife interactions in relation tothe Sundarbans reserved forest of Bangladesh. Sundarbans biodiver-sity project report. Jagrata Juba Shangha, Khulna, Bangladesh.

Khan, M. M. 2009. Can domestic dogs save humans from tigers Pantheratigris? Oryx 43:44–47.

Mace, G. M., H. P. Possingham, and N. Leader-Williams. 2006. Prior-itizing choices in conservation. Pages 17–34 in D. McDonald andK. Service, editors. Key topics in conservation biology. BlackwellPublishing, Oxford, United Kingdom.

McCarthy, M. A., and H. P. Possingham. 2007. Active adaptive manage-ment for conservation. Conservation Biology 21:956–963.

Michalski, F., R. L. P. Boulhosa, A. Faria, and C. A. Peres. 2006. Human-wildlife conflicts in a fragmented Amazonian forest landscape: deter-minants of large felid depredation on livestock. Animal Conservation9:179–188.

Mukherjee, S. 2003. Tiger human conflicts in Sundarban Tiger Reserve,West Bengal, India. Tiger Paper 30:3–6.

Mukherjee, S., and G. Tanti. 2001. Capture and release of a strayed tigerunder the Sundarban Tiger Reserve area. Tiger Paper 28:18–20.

Murdoch, W., S. Polasky, K. A. Wilson, H. P. Possingham, P. Kareiva, andR. Shaw. 2007. Maximizing return on investment in conservation.Biological Conservation 139:375–388.

Nute, D., G. Rosenberg, S. Nath, B. Verma, H. M. Rauscher, M. J. Twery,and M. Grove. 2000. Goals and goal orientation in decision supportsystems for ecosystem management. Computers and Electronics inAgriculture 27:355–375.

Nyhus, P. J., and R. Tilson. 2004. Characterizing human-tiger conflictin Sumatra, Indonesia: implications for conservation. Oryx 38:68–74.

Packer, C., D. Ikanda, B. Kissui, and H. Kushnir. 2005. Lion attacks onhumans in Tanzania. Nature 436:927–928.

Pinkerton, E. 1999. Factors in overcoming barriers to implementing

co-management in British Columbia salmon fisheries. ConservationEcology 3:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol3/iss2/art2/.

Pressey, R. L, and M. C. Bottrill. 2008. Opportunism, threats, andthe evolution of systematic conservation planning. ConservationBiology 22:1340–1345.

Rajpurohit, K. S., and P. R. Krausman. 2000. Human-sloth-bear conflictsin Madya Pradesh, India. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:393–399.

Rishi, V. 1988. Man, mask and man-eater. Tiger Paper 15:9–14.Rondinini, C., and L. Boitani. 2007. Systematic conservation planning

and the cost of tackling conservation conflicts with large carnivoresin Italy. Conservation Biology 21:1455–1462.

Saha, D. 1988. A study of the Sundarbans Tiger Reserve, West Bengal,India. Environment and Ecology 5:430–434.

Seidensticker, J., and C. McDougal. 1993. Tiger predatory behavior,ecology and conservation. Symposia of the Zoological Society ofLondon 65:105–125.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2003. The five-s framework for siteconservation: a practitioner’s handbook for site conservation plan-ning and measuring conservation success. TNC, Arlington, Virginia.

Tamang, K. M. 1993. Wildlife management plan for the Sundarbansreserved forest. Integrated resource development of the SundarbansReserved Forest, Bangladesh. Volume 1. Project BGD/84/056. Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Treves, A., and K. U. Karanth. 2003. Human-carnivore conflict andperspectives on carnivore management worldwide. ConservationBiology 17:1491–1499.

Treves, A., R. B. Wallace, L. Naughton-Treves, and A. Morales. 2006. Co-managing humans-wildlife conflicts: a review. Human Dimensionsof Wildlife 11:1–14.

Treves, A., R. B. Wallace, and S. White. 2009. Participatory planningof interventions to mitigate human-wildlife conflicts. ConservationBiology 23:1577–1587.

Tucker, G., P. Bubb, M. de Heer, L. Miles, A. Lawrence, J. van Rijsoort,S. B. Bajracharya, R. C. Nepal, R. Sherchan, and N. Chapagain. 2005.Guidelines for biodiversity assessment and monitoring for protectedareas. U.N. Environmental Programme World Conservation Monitor-ing Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and King Mahendra Trustfor Nature Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Ura, K., R. Stringer, and E. Bulte. 2009. Managing wildlife damage to agri-culture in Bhutan: conflicts, costs and compromise. Pages 255–274in L. Lipper, T. Sakuyama, R. Stringer, and D. Zilberman, editors. Pay-ment for environmental services in agricultural landscapes. NaturalResource Management and Policy, Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion of the United Nations, Rome.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF). 2007. WWF standards of conservationproject and program management. WWF, Gland, Switzerland.

Conservation Biology

Volume **, No. **, 2010