Just Accepted

This article has been peer reviewed and accepted for publication. It is in production and has not been edited, so may differ from the final published form.

Farmer-wildlife coexistence: Decoding the pattern of human-wildlife conflict and compensation in the human-dominated landscape of Marathwada, Western India

Pandurang Pawar , Mahadeo Mule

Abstract

Context: Wildlife species depend on resources from agricultural ecosystems where pastoralists and farmers coexist with wildlife species. The negative interactions involving carnivores are more commonly associated with pastoralists, while those involving herbivores are primarily linked to farmers. Considering that most conservation efforts are currently focused on protected areas, regions, where many wildlife species persist in human-dominated landscapes, should also be given due consideration. Aims: To decode the pattern of human-wildlife conflict and compensation in the human-dominated landscape of Marathwada, Western India. Methods: We examined one of the most comprehensive compensation databases of the human-dominated landscape, which contained 19050 conflict incidents involving 15678 individual households from 2659 different villages spread across 64590 sq. km in India. We used a negative binomial regression model to predict the conflict incidences and used these to highlight the conflict risk hotspots. Our research employed advanced regression modelling to create conflict risk prediction and compensation access maps. We observed seasonal patterns in conflict types, influenced by factors such as NDVI, distance to waterbodies, and elevation. Key results: In eight years, one human death per year was recorded in addition to the 22.87 human injuries per year. Moreover, during that time, a total of 61.5 livestock deaths per year were confirmed. The four species with the highest estimated conflict probabilities are Panthera pardus fusca, Canis lupus pallipes, Boselaphus tragocamelus, and Sus scrofa. These species are also top-ranked for causing deaths, injuries, and crop raids. Additionally, vegetation cover emerged as a significant factor impacting human-wildlife interactions. Conclusions: The increase in negative interactions is being driven by changes in vegetation cover following the seasonality of farmers' activities. Farmers must be the focus of any conflict resolution strategy because they have represented the majority of the occurrences. Implications: The results would help the wildlife managers to focus on the factors responsible for HWC such as farmers' seasonal activities, cropping patterns, seasons of cultivation and sowing, habits of livestock grazing, and year-round resource availability in addition to the conflict hotspots and the conflict risk generated by the models.

WR24080  Accepted 16 August 2025

© CSIRO 2025