i
Royal Government of Bhutan
Ministry of Agriculture and Forests
Department of Forests and Parks
Wildlife Conservation Division
Assessment on Impact of Human-Wildlife Conflict Management Intervention to the local
communities.
March 2013
ii
Table of contents
Summary 1
1. Introduction 3
2. Study approaches 4
2.1. Review of literature 4
2.2. Study area 12
2.3. Data collection 13
2.4. Data analysis 15
3. Results 16
3.1. Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents 16
3.2. Livelihood systems, sources of food and cash and threats 16
3.3. Traditional guarding practices 23
3.4. WCD’s interventions and its impacts on communities 24
4. Conclusion 30
5. Recommendations 31
6. References 33
1
Summary
Most farming communities in Bhutan suffer from wildlife: crops are destroyed, domestic stock
killed and sometimes homes destroyed and people attacked. Such incidences have undermined
livelihoods, loss of lives and abandonment of farmlands. These damages if not abated could
result in lower food security, reduced health and lower school attendance leading to anti-
conservation feelings within the affected communities. Past studies have reported that local
farmers preferred to eliminate wildlife and their habitat. Realizing the potential of HWC to
hijack Bhutan’s conservation efforts, Bhutan’s Wildlife Conservation Division (then Nature
Conservation Division) developed the first national strategy, the Bhutan Human-Wildlife
Conflicts Management Strategy through exhaustive consultations with national and international
stakeholders, and drew on past publications.
After its endorsement, the Conservation division has initiated select interventions
(electric fencing, trip wire alarm, insurance scheme) in high damage areas. This is study is part
of WCD’s effort to monitor and assess how the interventions has impacted the beneficiaries
socio-economically. In particular, the study focused on: how members of local communities
view and judge interventions (community based insurance program and electric fencing)
intended to reduce human wildlife conflicts as in crop damage, livestock predation and time
spent guarding these resources.
Results from this study carried out in 7 geogs of Singhe, Lhamoizingkha, Langchenphug,
Norbugang, Tashichooling, Ura, and Dangchu, indicate that electric fencing was a great success
saving communities large amount of crop and guarding times, thereby achieving the original goal
of reducing conflicts and alleviating poverty. Overall, communities in the 7 geogs harvested
9770kf of crops (mainly rice) with a mean increased yield of 976kg for each household reporting
an increase. Using local selling prices, each household gained an equivalent of Nu.25, 454 from
increase crop yield. With the fence in place, communities saved a total of 12, 570 nights with
each of the household on average saving 110 nights. As a result communities are better off and
happier. The insurance program was active only in Dangchu geog, and can be attributed to the
fact that livestock herding is perhaps the primary livelihood activity, while in the rest of the
geogs, farming of crops may have demanded community’s time and effort instead of insurance
2
program. In general, farmers were aware of WCD’s efforts to mitigate conflicts, and expressed
overwhelming support for HWC interventions.
Top sources of food were rice and maize for communities in the southern geogs, potato
for Ura, and livestock rearing for Dangchu geogs. Primary sources of cash incomes were from
sale of areca nut, potato, and dry chili.
3
1. Introduction
Conflict between people and wildlife is a serious problem that must be addressed if
conservation is to succeed. And, perversely, conservation success often leads to increased
conflict as wildlife populations grow. The often-significant financial and labor (spent in guarding
and building other protective measures) losses farmers and livestock owners endure at the hands
of wildlife, lead to revenge killing, and antipathy toward wildlife, protected areas and their
managers. Yet the support of these same rural people is essential to making any conservation
program work.
Realizing the importance of fundamental information for making policy decisions to
maintain this sensitive harmony between people and wildlife, Bhutanese researchers have
proposed possible solutions for Bhutan, where human-wildlife conflict is a significant obstacle to
enlisting and maintaining rural support for conservation. Wang and his colleagues (Wang and
Macdonald, 2006; Wang et al, 2006a, 2006b, Wang, 2008) have examined human-wildlife
conflict in detail and made numerous recommendations to ease the pressure of human wildlife
conflicts and urged the Government of Bhutan to develop amalgamate these recommendations
into a national strategy.
Recently in 2008, the Royal Government of Bhutan approved the Bhutan Human
Wildlife Conflict Management Strategy, which is a self-explicit recognition of the scale of the
conflict and the Government’s commitment to reduce it. Since then much progress has been
made in implementing the strategy with multi-pronged interventions including electric fencing,
establishment of sound and light repellents, formation of guarding team, promotion of alternative
livelihoods to offset losses, community based compensation schemes, and a recent activity worth
mentioning is the creation of the HWC endowment fund. As HWC is a complex issues which
changes with changing socio-economic and environmental conditions, it is crucial that
authorities monitor and assess interventions so that expected results may be achieved. At the
requirement of WCD, the report is based on a study that attempted to:
- Assess the benefits from interventions put in place by the Department of Forests and Park
Services;
4
- Evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation and other innovative measures in reducing
conflicts and enhancing livelihoods of the affected communities especially the vulnerable
groups;
- Identify beneficial and effective interventions that have the potential for scaling up to the
national level.
The following report presents the findings of the survey.
2. Study Approaches
2.1. Review of Literature
Realizing the critical need to address the basic concerns, needs and aspirations of the
local people if conservation is to succeed, authorities around the world have implemented
various interventions to reduce conflicts and maintain a win-win situation. Some of these
interventions include cash compensation, protection measures, wildlife population management,
etc. Locals meet these interventions with mixed results mostly owing to poor understanding of
the scientific specifics of conflicts, poor management, lack of sustainable funds and poor
acceptance.
Compensation
Compensation is one such an intervention that is widely tried around the world. This
scheme which is aimed at compensating people for losses to wildlife are used in some places but
they are fraught with difficulties of verifying claims, fairly assessing the value of livestock or
crops lost to wildlife, disbursing funds, and, for the farmer, dealing with cumbersome and
lengthy claims procedures. In some cases, such schemes actually exacerbate the problem,
increasing farmers’ animosity toward wildlife and conservation policies and the officials who try
to carry them out. Direct compensation is also unsustainable, as it represents a continual drain on
the coffers of the cash-strapped governments or, in many cases the NGOs that fund them.
Compensation programs have been adopted in many countries to reduce wildlife-human
conflicts and they are generally believed to be worth their costs, especially in reducing animosity
5
in agricultural communities (Conover, 2002). Many respondents that Allen and McCarthy (2001)
interviewed in Mongolia suggested that the government should compensate herders for losses
due to snow leopard predation. Farmers in the U.S. have argued that wildlife are managed by the
government, and therefore, the government should be liable for any damages inflicted on private
property by wildlife, just as farmers are liable if their domestic animal destroyed a neighbor’s
property (Conover, 2002). In addition agricultural landowners provide much of the wildlife
habitat throughout the U.S. and the world, and wildlife-inflicted damage to crops, livestock and
other property is among the costs of maintaining wildlife populations. Hence, cooperation of
farmers is essential for successful conservation of wildlife. Realizing this fact, most agencies in
the U.S. and Canada maintain some form of program to address wildlife-inflicted damage, and
many provide consultation services, direct abatement and subsidies for fences and dispersal
devices (Conover, 2002). Some states maintain compensation programs to reimburse agricultural
landowners for wildlife-inflicted damage (Yoder, 2002). The compensation and abatement
programs also inexpensively generate damage data as a byproduct, which would otherwise have
to be obtained through costly surveys. These data can be used to make very important inferences
regarding wildlife population densities, hotspots and prices of livestock and agricultural
commodities, as well as the extent of economic losses, all of which can be used for management
planning and policy formulation purposes.
Compensation may be problematic in other parts of the world, as it can be a drain on the
financial resources of governments and protected areas. In many developing countries,
compensation is not a viable option, as it requires huge budgets. Also, there is a lack of effective
means for validating claims, dispensing funds and minimizing potential fraudulent claims. If
compensation is to be implemented, it should be targeted at disadvantaged individuals who have
suffered depredation losses, rather than at an entire community. Studies from Trans-Himalayan
region indicate that there is dissatisfaction with the system used by governments to compensate
villagers for livestock losses (Saberwal, et al., 1994; Maikhuri, et al., 2001). Eighty-six percent
of the respondents (N= 61) interviewed by Saberwal, et al. (1994) complained that compensation
levels for livestock kills were too low in comparison to the purchase price of replacement
animals. Furthermore, 81% of the respondents stated that they did not file for compensation upon
losing livestock to lions because of the procedural problems associated with filing such claims.
Problems cited included excessive travel to report losses, the likelihood that an official would not
6
be available to register a reported livestock depredation within the mandatory reporting period
(less than 24 hours after the kill), subjective assessment by the officials of the worth of
depredated livestock and difficulties associated with receiving payments for settlements
(Maikhuri, et al., 2001; Saberwal, et al., 1994). Villagers living adjacent to Nepal’s Royal Bardia
National Park were allowed to collect grass for a period of two weeks as a compensation for
damage caused by wildlife. More than 70% of the respondents (N=181), stated this as a reason
for positive attitudes towards the Park (Mishra, 1982; Sharma, 1990; Studsrod and Wegge,
1995). Studsrod and Wegge (1995) also warned that a well-established system of compensation
might serve to attract more immigrants to the protected areas.
Experiences in Italy found that compensation programs alone were not effective in
reducing conflicts or in preventing illegal, private efforts to control wolf numbers (Cozza, et al.,
1996; Ciucci and Boitani, 1998). In addition, under some conditions, financial compensation for
predator attacks may actually encourage a state of permanent conflict. Considering the abysmal
record of compensation schemes elsewhere, direct monetary compensation should be considered
cautiously and only in the cases involving losses due to species of conservation importance
(Naughton-Treves, 1998). Because compensation involves an instant financial incentive, such
programs may help change livestock farmers’ attitudes toward predators and improve their
communication with wildlife managers). In this context, compensation should not be seen as the
only means of managing depredation problems, but should be effectively integrated into a
broader strategy in which preventative husbandry practices play a critical role, and whereby
claims involving faulty husbandry practice should be either reduced or denied (Wang and David,
2006).
Fencing
Electric fencing is a modern solution and can include solar, battery operated, or
electricity fences. This if erected properly are more durable due to reduced physical pressure
from animals and also has the potential to deter multi species which is a major problem with
other means of protection as they are species specific. However, electric fencing needs higher
investment in both establishment and maintenance and is not therefore easily accessible to
farmers in resource-limited communities especially in developing countries (Hoare, 1992).
7
Electric fences have been successfully used in India, Kenya, Namibia and other nations. For
instance in Namibia, electric fencing has proved to be the only long-term deterrent to elephants
and has reduced human-elephant conflict on a very large scale. Inspite of high cost of installation
and maintenance, it was demonstrated that electric fencing is cost effective to the community by
means of reduced elephant attacks, which intern has allowed the farmers to harvest increased
yield.
Bhutan and HWC
Bhutan is widely recognized for its unusually high levels of biological diversity, which
arise due to its position at the meeting of four bio-geographic divisions and the many different
habitats that exist along an enormous elevation gradient. Though small in size, Bhutan is a
primary steward of some of the world’s most exceptional mega-fauna, many of which are
endangered elsewhere in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas. For centuries a strong religious and
cultural ethos based on Buddhism has provided a safe refuge for this extraordinary richness.
Beginning in 1993, Bhutan has steadily gained international recognition for its organized
conservation efforts, including the establishment of an extensive network of protected areas, and
interconnecting biological corridors. Indeed, about 51% of the country’s total land area of 38,394
km2 (NSB, 2007) has been set aside for conservation, and 60% of the country is mandated by the
Constitution of Bhutan to remain in forest cover for all times. The protection of nature and the
environment is central to governmental efforts to promote Gross National Happiness for all
Bhutanese and serves as an ideal for governments everywhere.
As an agrarian-based society, almost 70% of Bhutan’s population depends directly on
crop and/or livestock production for their livelihood. Bhutan’s conservation policy allows
farmers to remain in protected areas, and corridors, and some of the country’s poorest
communities can be found within these areas. Hence, the Royal Government of Bhutan is faced
with promoting long-term economic and social development programs aimed at poverty
alleviation in these rural areas, while simultaneously protecting the natural resources that
uniquely characterize this country. Finding a balance is the basis for sustainable development.
8
The quest to find new paths for conservation and sustainable development is a worldwide
issue and presents many obstacles. One major challenge in a country like Bhutan, with large
populations of mega-fauna living in close proximity to rural communities, is the conflicts that
arise between humans and wildlife. The loss of crops, livestock, and/or human lives to wildlife
represents social and economic costs that jeopardize livelihoods, exacerbate poverty, and may
lead to retaliation against conservation programs. Bhutan’s recent move to democracy may open
a new process for concentrating local resistance to conservation policies, possibly leading to
detrimental changes to certain wildlife populations. Clearly, rural livelihoods and conservation
are inseparably linked. If conservation efforts are to succeed, then human-wildlife conflicts must
be reduced. Hence, there is an urgent need to address the concerns of Bhutanese farmers by
designing and implementing a comprehensive proposal focused on understanding and managing
such conflicts.
One of the main contributors to human wildlife conflicts is predation of livestock by
carnivores, especially tigers (NCD, 2004; Wang and Macdonald, 2006; Wang et al., 2006;
Sangay and Karl 2008). Tigers are listed in the Schedule I of the Forest and Nature Conservation
Act 1995, meaning that they are totally protected species in Bhutan. With such rules in place, the
killing of wild animals listed in schedule I is non-negotiable. A corollary of this legislation then,
is that compensation should be given to owners of livestock that are killed by these predators.
Regardless, conflict between people and wildlife is a serious problem that must be addressed if
conservation of tigers and other carnivores is to succeed.
In Bhutan’s subsistence agricultural systems, livestock are an important source of draught
power, food, and supplemental cash income as well as means of transportation. Livestock are
highly valued and expensive to purchase. The loss of a yak, cow, or mule to carnivore predation
could be a devastating blow to a family (Wang and Macdonald, 2006). Retaliation killing of
predators emerges as a major issue. For instance, dholes, assumed to be major predators of
livestock, were almost eliminated from Bhutan due to retaliatory killings using poison in the late
1970s and early 1980s. Similarly, wolves are found in Bhutan, but only occasionally in the
higher alpine areas, as they are still not able to establish stable populations due to consistent
persecution by yak herders.
9
Poisoning of predators is indiscriminate and, although anecdotal evidence exists of tigers
falling victim to poisoning, hard evidence is lacking. Still, the low density of tigers of 1/200 km2
(Wang, 2008) is a cause for concern. Carnivore population viability is intricately linked to the
herbivore prey density (including livestock). Free-range grazing of livestock in the forests may
be displacing wild herbivores as natural prey for carnivores. Wang (2008) concluded that natural
prey density is low in tiger habitats, which are crowded with livestock. As a consequence of low
food resources in the forests, natural prey species clustered around human settlements and
entered into direct conflict with humans through crop damage (Wang, 2008). Thus, tigers and
other large carnivores have an indirect impact on crop loss to herbivores. Healthy and balanced
populations of predators and prey likely result in lower depredation of livestock and reduced
crop damage by wildlife (Wang, 2008). There is an urgent need for management interventions
targeted to enhance this natural balance.
The loss of livestock to tigers causes food shortages, as some people are totally
dependent on the livestock for their livelihood. For example, the income of local people are often
dependent on cattle for dairy products, and horses for labor, thus the loss of these animals causes
heavy losses for the farmers. In many cases, loans are taken by the farmers just to purchase
livestock like cattle and mules. In such cases, if tigers kill the mules, the owners suffer a huge
loss and this leads to negative attitudes towards wildlife. Guarding dogs used for the protection
of livestock and crops are expensive, but large predators often kill them. Sometimes large
carnivores kill four to five calves in one attack. In such cases, the cash compensation is not a
long-term solution.
Charismatic large carnivore species such as tigers often have been used as flagship
species for wildlife conservation and protected area management. Conflicts between large
carnivores and farmers must be resolved if conservation is to succeed into the next century.
Farmers are the people closest to the environment and they understand it better than most people.
It is therefore of great importance to gain their support in conservation efforts. They must be
involved with conservation efforts and there must exist some mechanism to reward them for their
sacrifices, be it livestock loss or crop damage. While compensation may reduce hostility towards
tigers and improve farmers’ attitudes towards conservation, co-management may make them
more responsible for conserving their environment (Wang, 2008).
10
The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and the Department of Forests (DoF) have been
aware of this growing need. Accordingly, the Nature Conservation Division (NCD) took the
initiative to develop a plan to address human-wildlife conflicts for the Royal Government’s 10th
Five-Year Plan (10 FYP). Consequently, a National Strategy, the first of its kind for Bhutan and
likely any other nation, was developed through workshops and meetings with various
stakeholders. This proposal presents much of the plan, whose overall goal is to reduce human-
wildlife conflicts, while at the same time ensuring the conservation of tigers and other threatened
wildlife and alleviating rural poverty.
This is an ambitious and unprecedented proposal that is focused on human welfare,
poverty alleviation, and wildlife conservation. Unfortunately, many conservation initiatives
worldwide have been at the cost of rural livelihoods, a pattern that must be changed if people and
nature ever hope to exist in harmony. The Royal Government of Bhutan accepted this challenge
and has designed a comprehensive proposal that meets the King’s vision for the people of
Bhutan and the country’s rich natural heritage. Through a critical examination involving multiple
stakeholders, a concrete proposal was developed to understand and mitigate human-wildlife
conflicts in Bhutan. Results from this work will not only provide a critical guide for action by
managers, researchers, and communities in Bhutan. This proposal most certainly work towards
alleviating poverty and improving livelihoods for rural Bhutanese while protecting the mega-
fauna that characterize this Kingdom. Moreover, it provides inspiration and a model to design
comprehensive proposals to resolve human-wildlife conflicts elsewhere, thereby further
enhancing Bhutan’s leadership role in conservation worldwide.
Ensuing the endorsement of this strategy, WCD (then the NCD) initiated interventions
targeted at reducing human-wildlife conflicts and alleviate poverty. Electric fencing, insurance
scheme, sound and light alarm etc has been implemented in high conflict areas (see Table 1 for
details). To effectively manage these interventions, seven Geog Environmental Conservation
Committees have been formed in Dangchu, Nubi, Bjena, Tsamang, Chimung, Lhamoizingkha,
and sipsoo. To sustain interventions the endowment fund for human wildlife conflict
management was also launched in 2009. Since then the WCD has raised a total of Nu. 4.0
million.
11
Table 1: Showing details of interventions and investment made by DoFPS, since 2008.
Activities Distance (Km) Cost (BTN) Year Location Dzongkhag
Ele
ctri
c fe
nci
ng
4.5 2,900,000 2009 Singhe Sarpang
2.55 116,000 2008 Taraythang Sarpang
2.114 809,000 2010 Umling Sarpang
10 651,000 2011 Lhamoizingkha Dagana
6.7 994,308 2010 Sipsoo Samtse
1.71 1,005,962 2011 Dina Samtse
0.8 470,625 2011 Jitti Samtse
5 16,91210 2011 Jomotsangkha S/Jongkhar
Insu
ran
ce
300000 Sipsoo Samtse
2,36,596 Lhamoizingkha Dagana
300,000 Lachenphug S/Jongkha
300,000 Dangchu Wangdue
315,359 Nubi Trongsa
225,000 Tsamang Mongar
300,000 Chimung P/Gatshel
300,000 Bjena Wangdue
300,000 Dhur Bumthang
300,000 Naji-Korphu Trongsa
Note: Source: WCD, DoFPS. Insurance scheme is active only in Dangchu
12
2.2. Study area
The study was conducted in the communities where WCD has implemented fencing and
compensation schemes (Figure 1, and Table 1). The study area comprised of elephant infected
areas along the southern belt of the country and one in western and one in central Bhutan.
<INSERT STUDY AREA MAP HERE>
13
2.3. Data collection
Primary data was collected through respondent interviews with members of the Geog
Conservation Committee, Beneficiaries, caretakers, and wildlife and forestry officials. Areas
where WCD has implemented crop protection and livestock insurance program were included in
the study. In each of these areas, respondents were randomly selected to represent atleaast 25%
of the total population. Interview was carried out from January-February 2013. This information
was supplemented by focus group discussion and conversations with wildlife officials wherever
possible.
Interviews were carried out to ascertain perceptions, facts and figures on the impacts of
HWC interventions, identify best practices and the opportunities that WCD can build on. In
particular, the study attempted to:
1. Assess how members of local communities view and judge interventions (community based
insurance program and electric fencing) intended to reduce human wildlife conflicts as in crop
damage, livestock predation and time spent guarding these resources;
2. Quantify economic and social benefits accrued as a result of these interventions;
3. What are the major socio-economic and demographic factors that determine and maintain
local support for these interventions? And vice versa.
14
Table 2. Details of study area and respondents selected (2013)
Dzongkhag Dungkhag Geog Village Type of HWC
interventions
Total Beneficiaries
(N)
No. of Beneficiaries
surveyed (N)*
Sarpang Singhe Sangaythang Electric fencing 22 6
Sarpang Singhe Shisarthang Electric fencing 36 9
Sarpang Lhamoizingkha Lhamoizingkha Kuendrelthang Electric fencing 44 11
Sarpang Lhamoizingkha Lhamoizingkha Lungseltsa Electric fencing 30 8
Sarpang Lhamoizingkha Lhamoizingkha Farmgaon/Beletar Electric fencing 84 20
Sarpang Lhamoizingkha Lhamoizingkha Sibsooni Electric fencing 37 10
Samdrup
Jongkhar
Jomotsangkha Langchenphug Langchenphug Electric fencing 50 13
Samtse Norbugang Dupijora Electric fencing 50 13
Samtse Norbugang Kirney Electric fencing 16 4
Samtse Sipsu Tashicholing Peljorling A& B Electric fencing 80 18
Samtse Sipsu Tashicholing Belbotang/Jogimar
ang/Narjantsa
Electric fencing 140 34
Samtse Sipsu Tashicholing Singyegang Electric fencing 90 24
Bumthang Ura Ura Trip wire alarm 16 4
Wangdue Dangchu Dangchu Insurance 28 7
Total 723 181
* 25% of the total beneficiaries were selected to statistically represent the population
15
2.4. Data analysis
Informational data either qualitative or quantitative generated through respondent interview
were compiled in an excel database, cleaned and analyzed using statistical tools (STATPLUS,
EXCEL) to derive inferences. Data for statistical analysis were first subjected to preliminary
descriptive analysis including normality test and subsequently subjected to appropriate tests.
Excel also was used to analyze and compare data in terms of actual numbers, proportions
and means using charts and tables. The statistical package STATPLUS wherever necessary.
Sample distributions were examined for shape, outliers and normality using descriptive statistics.
Where required, outliers were removed and standard transformations, non-parametric tests were
performed. Unless otherwise stated, a 95% significance level was used to accept or reject null
hypotheses.
Data for age was normal with a mean of 45; thus, those who were and younger than 45
were grouped together and those above 45 years were grouped as another. The national land
ownership ceiling for Bhutan is 5 acres, thus all those who had five acres or less of land were
grouped into one group and those with more then five acres into another group.
Impact of WCD’s interventions was primarily assessed by the quantity of increased yield
and time spent guarding farms at night. Fair market value was used to ascertain economic gains
resulting from increased yield from crops and reduced time (nights) for guarding farms.
16
3. Results
3.1. Socio-economic Characteristics of the respondents
The gender ration of the sample population selected for interview (51% male, 49%
female) closely represented the national gender ration (49% male, 51% female). The mean age of
the respondents was 45 and majority of the respondents fell below the mean age (54%). This is
good news, as the villages seem to hold more productive labor force. A large majority of the
respondents also had some level of schooling (65%) including non-formal education while the
rest are illiterate. Significantly large number of respondents (82%) owned less then or equal to 5
acres of land. This is consistent with the national land ownership ceiling of 5 acres (Table 3).
However, 18% of the respondents owned more than 5 acres of land with one respondent owning
17 acres in Ura geog. Few of the respondents have reported lack of enough land for agriculture
has kept the in poverty.
3.2. Livelihood systems sources of food, cash and threats
Understanding the sources of livelihood including food security, sources of major food,
cash incomes, farming systems along with wildlife ecological data is critical in ascertaining the
causes of conflicts and therefore inevitable for decisions making especially regarding
interventions. Interventions without understanding these fundamentals of humans and wildlife
could prove to be short lived with devastating impacts.
Food security and threats
Securing enough food to sustain their families round the year is the primary goal of large
majority of farmers in Bhutan. Figure 2 shows food security situation in the study goegs. Over
all, large majority of the farmers are always food self sufficient (64%) followed by 28% who
have mostly enough food. Amongst the study geogs, Dangchu topped the list with 100% always
food self sufficient, followed by Lachenphug (77%), Ura (75%), Norbugang (65%) with Singhe
geog reporting only 20% who always have enough food. Nine percent of the farmers are mostly
17
struggling to feed their families. Most of these farmers again fall in Singhe (27%) and
Tashicholing (17%) geogs (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Food Self sufficiency as reported by respondents in study sites (2013).
Figure 2a-g shows food sources as ranked by the respondents in descending order of
importance. With exception of Dangchu and Ura geogs, irrigated rice was overwhelmingly
ranked as the top source of food source, followed by maize, vegetables, and livestock products.
In Ura, respondents ranked potato as the top source of food, followed by barley, and vegetables,
while in Dangchu respondents ranked chili as the top food source followed by livestock and
potato. These food sources also reflect the influence of ecological and climatic influence on the
food productivity as well as food habits of the farmers. While rice is perceived as the top staple
food of Bhutanese farmers, unfavorably harsh climatic conditions in Dangchu and Ura (both high
altitude geogs) have forced them to grow chili, potato, barley coupled with livestock herding.
Traditionally, dangchu from “Sha” area has been known for their chili.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Pe
rce
nt
Geog
Always enough Mostly enough Mostly not enough
18
Table 3. Demographic profile of respondents participating in HWC interventions (N=181; 2013).
Geogs
Variables
Singhe
N (%)
Lhamoizingkha
N (%)
Langchenphug
N (%)
Norbugang
N (%)
Tashicholing
N (%)
Ura
N (%)
Dangchu
N (%)
Total
N (%)
Male 6 (40) 22 (45) 7 (54) 9 (53) 43 (57) 1 (25) 3 (43) 91 (51)
Female 9 (60) 27 (55) 6 (46) 8 (47) 33 (43) 3 (75) 4 (57) 89 (49)
>45 6 (40) 26 (53) 7 (54) 5 (29) 38 (50) 1 (25) 0 (0) 83 (46)
<45 9 (60) 23 (47) 6 (46) 12 (71) 38 (50) 3 (75) 7 (100) 98 (54)
Literate 3 (20) 11 (22) 4 (31) 8 (47) 33 (43) 1 (25) 3 (43) 63 (35)
Illiterate 12 (80) 38 (78) 9 (69) 9 (53) 43 (57) 3 (75) 4 (57) 118 (65)
>5 10 (67) 6 (12) 2 (15) 4 (24) 8 (11) 3 (75) 0 (0) 33 (18)
<5 5 (33) 43 (88) 11 (85) 13 (76) 68 (89) 1 (25) 7 (100) 148 (82)
19
Fig 3a. Food sources as ranked by the respondents in Singhe geog.
Fig 3b. Food Sources as ranked by respondents in Trashiholing geog
Fig 3c. Food Source as ranked by respondents in Norbugang geog
Fig 3d. Food source as ranked by respondents in Langchenpug geog.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Irrigatedrice
Maize millet Maize millet Vegetables
Source 1 Source 2 Source 3
Ranked food source
Percent Frequency
010203040506070
Irrigatedrice
Maize maize vegetable livestock vegetable
Source 1 source 2 Source 3
Ranked Food Source
Percent Frequency
0102030405060708090
100
irrigatedrice
maize maize millet millet vegetable
Source 1 Source 2 Source 3
Ranked Food Source
Percent Frequency
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Irrigated rice Maize Vegetables Millet
Source 1 Source 2 Source 3
Ranked Food Source
Percent Frequency
20
Fig 3e. Food sources as ranked by respondents in Lhamoizingkha geog.
Fig 3f. Food sources as ranked by respondents in Ura geog.
Fig 3g. Food sources as ranked by respondents in Dangchu geog.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Irrigated rice Maize Vegetable livestock
Source 1 Source 2 Source 3
Ranked Food Source
Percent Frequency
020406080
100120
Potato Barley Vegetables
Source 1 Source 2 Source 3
Pe
rce
nt
Ranked food source
Percent Frequency
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Chilli livestock Potato
Source 1 Source 2 Source 3
Pe
rce
nt
Ranked food source
Percent Frequency
21
Elephants still remain the top threat to food security in Langchenphug, Norbugang, and
Tashicholing geogs and number 2 threat in Singye and Lhamoizingkha geogs (Table 4). This is
perhaps a direct indication of the efficacy of the electric fencing, which were reported to be more
effective in Singye and Lhamoizingkha geogs. From the results in table 4, it is also clear wild
pigs as a threat to food security been ranked either as top threat (in Singye & Ura geogs) or as
number 2 threats in others. Overall, elephants and wild pigs are the two biggest threat to food
security in the study areas. This perhaps calls for a redesign in electric fencing to target both
elephants and wild pigs.
In Dangchu where herding livestock is a major livelihood source, livestock kills by wild
predators such as tigers and leopards have been ranked as threat 1 and threat 2. This is if taken
with a pinch of salt is good news for carnivore conservation as it indicates that these high profile
cats, which are disappearing in other parts of the world, are present in Bhutan. However, past
studies in Bhutan (Wang and Macdonald, 2006) reported that livestock predation is mainly
caused by lax herding in deep forest. Other emerging threats to food security are related to
droughts, lack of irrigation & land and damage by Indian cattle from across the boarder.
Table 4. Ranking of major threats to food security as reported by respondents (2013)
Geogs
Threats
Singhe
(N=49)
Lhamoi
Zingkha
(N=49)
Langchen
phug
(N=13)
Norbugang
(N=17)
Tashi
choling
(N=76)
Ura
(N=4)
Dangchu
(N=7)
Threat 1 Wild pig Deer, pigs,
monkeys
Elephant Elephant Elephant Wild pig Tiger
Threat 2 Elephant Elephant Wild pig Monkeys Wild pig Birds and
bear
Leopard
Threat 3 Drought
and
irrigation
Irrigation
and land
Rabbit Indian cattle Rabbit none Wild pig
22
Cash income and threats
Areca nut is by top source of cash for people in Lhamiozingkha, Langchenphug,
Norbugang, and Tashicholing geogs where it has been ranked as the most important source by
the respondents. Respondents in Dangchu and Ura ranked potato as the top cash earners. These
findings implies that any future interventions targeted at boosting cash incomes in the study areas
should target improving value chain system (from production through marketing) of areca nut
and potato. All geogs displayed homogeneity in that they ranked farms products such as
vegetables, fruits, and livestock products as number 2 cash earners, except for farmers in
Lhamoizingha whose number 2 cash source is from remittance and business. Ura farmers also
sold high value mushitake mushroom and medicinal plants (Table 5).
Sources of threat to cash income are not significantly different from the threats to food
sources. Top threats rests with Elephants (Langchenphug, Norbugang, Tashcholing geogs), wild
pigs (Singhe, Lhamoizingkha, and Ura geogs), and tigers (Dangchu geog). In Singhe and
Lhamoizingkha geogs elephants came as the number 2 threat to cash income with leopard in
Dangchu geog. Wildpig and elephants are reported as the top 2 threats to cash income sources
thus requiring future HWC interventions to be sensitive to these species (Table 6).
Table 5. Cash income source as ranked by respondents (from most important to least) 2013.
Geogs
Source ranked
Singhe
(N=49)
Lhamoi
Zingkha
(N=49)
Langchen
phug
(N=13)
Norbugang
(N=17)
Tashi
choling
(N=76)
Ura
(N=4)
Dangchu
(N=7)
Source 1 Wage
labor
Areca nut Areca nut Areca nut Areca nut Potato Potato
Source 2 Farm
products
Remittance,
business/veh
icle hiring
Livestock
products
Vegetables Farm
products
Mushroo
m
Dry chili
Source 3 None Vegetables,
poultry,
oranges
Vegetable Livestock
products
Livestock
products
Medicinal
plants
Butter
23
Table 6. Ranking of major threats to cash income as reported by respondents (2013)
Geogs
Threats
Singhe
(N=15)
Lhamoi
Zingkha
(N=49)
Langchen
phug
(N=13)
Norbugang
(N=17)
Tashi
choling
(N=76)
Ura
(N=4)
Dangchu
(N=7)
Threat 1 Wild pig Wild pig,
deer,
monkey
Elephant Elephant
damage
Elephant Wild pig Tiger
Threat 2 Elephant Elephant Wild pig Monkey Wild pig Birds and
bear
Leopard
Threat 3 Drought Irrigation Rabbit Peacock Rabbit None Wild dog
3.3. Traditional guarding practices
Because human wildlife conflicts is as old as the history of human civilization itself
(Conover 2002), humans and wildlife have evolved to co-exists. One of the strategies for this co-
existence is guarding crops, livestock, and property against wildlife. Overall, guarding although
labor intensive is the most popular methods of crop and property protection. Over the years this
has gotten some innovation to ease the drudgery involved in guarding. Some of these innovations
included locally made scarecrows, nobels, banging of metals, shouting through loudspeakers, use
of fire crackers, etc. The single most popular method of guarding in the study area consisted of
the combination of throwing fireball (includes fire crackers), watchtower, shouting, and group
chasing (Table 7). Blank firing by forestry officials has been reported by respondents in some
geogs to complement traditional guarding. Surprisingly few of the respondents in Sighe (6%),
Lhamoizingkha (6%), and Tashicholing (5%) had no idea about traditional guarding practices.
Interms of gender involvement in guarding exercise, it is the task of men with every
geogs reporting over 93% men. This is perhaps due to the fact that women are more confined to
looking after the home chores and children. While there is very little involvement of women in
guarding, absence of men from home to help with home chores could be an indirectly increase
24
the burden to look after homes. So any attempt to reduce guarding time may alleviate this burden
and make families happier.
Table 7. Traditional crop/property protection as reported by respondents (N=172; 2013)
Geogs
Protection Method
Singhe
%
Lhamoi
zingkha
%
Langchen
phug
%
Norbugang
%
Tashi
choling
%
Ura
%
Throwing fireball,
watchtower, shouting
and group chasing
87
94
100
100
95
100
Blank firing 7 0 0 0 0 0
No Idea 6 6 0 0 5 0
Involved in guarding
Women (%) 7 4 6 6 4 0
Men (%) 93 96 94 94 96 100
3.4. WCD’s interventions and its impacts on communities
Following from the ambitious HWC management strategy, WCD implemented some of
the priority interventions in conflict hotspots across the country. Interventions ranged from sound
and light alarms, trip wire fencing, electric fencing, through community based insurance
program. This study in particular looked at the impact of electric fencing and insurance program
on affected communities. For any intervention to be successful, community must be fully aware,
involved, and supportive.
25
Awareness
Almost 100% of all the respondents reported that they are not only aware of electric
fencing but also knew it was initiated by WCD. Livestock insurance program did not get
implemented except in Dangchu geog where farmers were fully aware of the program as well as
who initiated it (Table 8).
Table 8. Percent awareness about WCD’s intervention, as reported by the respondents (N=181;
2013).
Geogs
Awareness
Singhe
(N=15)
%
Lhamoi
Zingkha
(N=49)
%
Langchen
phug
(N=13)
%
Norbugang
(N=17)
%
Tashi
choling
(N=76)
%
Ura
(N=4)
%
Dangchu
(N=7)
%
Electric
fencing
100 98 100 100 99 100 X
Insurance
program
X X X X X X 100
WCD 100 98 100 100 100 100 100
Economic gains to the community thereof (2013)
Most human wildlife conflict interventions are targeted at reducing losses to wildlife
thereby bringing social and economic gains to the affected communities. Failure of any
intervention to result in significant economic and social gains is guaranteed to lose public
support and fail to achieve its intended goals. Electric fencing carried out by WCD in affected
communities is geared towards reducing crop and property losses to wildlife, enhance food
security, and reduce guarding. Table 9 presents the economic impact of WCD’s interventions.
The impact of electric fencing was assessed by using increased yield reported for their major
crops and then valuing it interms of money using local sale rates (Source: DAMS, MoAF, 2013).
26
Total number of guarding nights reduced was also collected and then assessed for its economic
value using 2/3 the government approved daily wage (Nu150/day). Discussions were held as to
whether or not to use the full daily wage rate as night labor may be more expensive, however to
avoid over estimation, only 2/3 was used). The results here indicate that electric fencing as a
hugely successful intervention with 73% of the respondents reporting increased yield as a result
of fencing. Overall, respondents have reported that they harvested 9,770 kilograms (Kg) more in
the last one year a mean increase of 976kg. Using local selling prices, increased yield was valued
at a total saving of NU.332,592.00 with those household reporting an increase saving an
equivalent of Nu. 25,454, which is 21% of the per capita GDP (NSB, 2011).
Respondents from Lhamoizingkha geog reported the highest amount of yield increase
(28,692kg, equivalent of Nu. 1,004,22) followed by Norbugang (11,410kg, equivalent of Nu.
399,350) followed by Singhe (8,015kg, equivalent of Nu.280,525) geogs. The lowest increase
was reported by a lone respondent in Tashicholing (450kg valued at Nu.191,250) geog.
However, when assessed for only those households reporting the increase, Ura reported the
highest mean yield increase per household (hh) at 1417 kg of potato (valued at Nu.47,813). This
was closely followed by Langchenphu (967kg, valued at Nu.17,409) and Lhamoizingkha (755kg,
valued at Nu.26,425) geogs. Langchenphug inspite of reporting higher increase compared to
Lhamoizingkha has lower value interms of Nu because of lower selling prices.
When compared against the national per capita GDP (Nu.120,876; NSB, 2011), Ura
respondents saved a whooping 39%, followed by Norbugang (22%), Singhe (16%) with the
lowest for Tashicholing (13%).
One of the major benefits of electric fencing is also the time reduced in guarding crops
and property especially at night, which bears high social and economic costs. Table 9 shows
impressive impact with 100% respondents reporting reduced guarding in Singhe (1,530nights
reduced), Langchenphu (4,745 nights reduced), and Norbugang (1,650 nights reduced).
Respondents from Tashiholing reported no reduction in the number of nights spent on guarding.
Overall, 66% of the respondents reported a reduction of 12,570 nights as a result of electric
fencing. Highest mean number of nights reduced was reported in Langchenphug (365 nights
reduced), followed by Singhe (102 nights reduced), Lhamoizingkha (98 nights reduced),
Norbugang (97 nights reduced) with Tashicholing and Ura reporting no reduction. These reduced
27
Table 9. Impact of WCD’s interventions and economic gains thereof (N=174; 2013)
1mean value per household reporting increase (with mean value taking all respondents in consideration in parenthesis)
2Total Nu
saved per household for those reporting increased yield. Figure in parenthesis represents total Nu save taking all respondents into
consideration
Geogs
Impact variables
Singhe
(N=15)
Lhamoi
Zingkha
(N=49)
Langchen
phug
(N=13)
Norbugang
(N=17)
Tashi
choling
N=76)
Ura
(N=4)
Overall
(N=174)
Increased yield reported 100% 75% 100% 88% 1% 75% 73%
Quantity increased (kg) 8,015 28,692 5803 11410 450 4250 9,770
Mean increase (Kg)1 534 755 (586) 967 (484) 761 (671) 450 (5.9) 1417 976
Total amount saved 280,525 1,004,220 104454 399,350 15750 191,250 332,592
Total amount saved/hh2
18,702 26,425
(20,494)
17,409
(8,705)
26,623
(23,491)
15750 (207) 47,813 25,454
Amount saved/hh as a % of per
capita GDP3 120876
16 22 14 22 13 39 21
Reduced guarding reported 100% 98% 100% 100% 0% 0% 66%
Total nights reduced 1,530 4,645 4,745 1,650 0 0 12,570
Mean no of nights reduced/hh 102 98 365 97 0 0 110
Total amount saved/hh (Nu) 10,200 9,800 36,500 9,700 0 0 11,033
Total amount saved (Nu) 153,000 464,500 474,500 165,000 0 0 209,500
WCD investment on fencing 2,900,000 651,000 16, 91210 994,308 4,545,308
28
mean nights translated into an equivalent mean monetary savings of Nu.36,500; 10,200; 9,800;
and 9,700, respectively. Overall,110 mean nights were reduced for respondents reporting
reduction with an equivalent saving of Nu 11,000 per hh. At this rate, the farmers have probably
recovered the investment made by WCD in savings, especially if we combine the savings from
yield increase and reduced guarding. The results also implies that in communities where electric
fencing has been a success, families would have had time to spent together and hence reducing
the drudgery of running homes and looking after children by women.
Overall, the results indicate a highly successful intervention, which perhaps can become a
biggest contributing factor to enhancing food security, alleviating poverty, reducing drudgery for
vulnerable groups, not to mention of the other social and psychological affects on the
communities which will translate into positive attitudes towards conservation and WCD.
Community support for WCD’s intervention
Table 10 shows that majority of the respondents (82%) were very supportive of the
interventions so far implemented by WCD, while 7% were not supportive with remaining 11%
reporting indifferent. This indicates great achievement as well as huge potential for the
interventions to both improve as well as scale up to national level. No support and indifferent
were 100% contributed by respondents from Tashicholing geog where electric fencing remains
as failure, mainly due to lack of public support and involvement.
Farmer support for intervention is further confirmed by their support (100%) for the jobs
done by caretakers (Table 11). When asked about their salaries for their caretakers, 84% of the
respondents said the salaries were either very good or good. Fourteen percent of the respondents
reported care taker salary as poor and suggested increase and split the amount equally between
communities and the government or each household (hh) paying 200 Ngultrum. Given, only
small number of farmers feel this way, WCD may not have to take actions to increase their
salaries yet.
29
Table 10. Impact of WCD interventions on respondent support (N=181; 2013)
Geogs
Variable
Singhe
N (%)
Lhamoi
Zingkha
N (%)
Langchen
phug
N (%)
Norbugang
N (%)
Tashi
choling
N (%)
Ura
N (%)
Dangchu
N (%)
Overall
N (%)
Very
supportive
15 (100) 47 (96) 13 (100) 17 (100) 45(59) 4 (100) 7 (100) 148 (82)
No
supportive
0 2 (4) 0 0 11 (15) 0 0 13 (7)
Indifferent 0 0 0 0 20 (26) 0 0 20 (11)
Table 11. Impact of WCD’s interventions on respondents support for caretakers (%)
Geogs
Caretaker
Singhe
(N=15)
Lhamoi
Zingkha
(N=49)
Norbugang
(N=17)
Overall
(N=19)
Job done well 100 100 100 100
Salary very good 27 69 18 38
Salary good 60 18 59 46
Salary poor 13 12 17 14
Suggestion Increase salary to 6000 (3000 from communities and 3000 from
Government. Or pay 200/hh
Challenges in implementation of interventions
The nature of challenges encountered in the implementation of WCD’s intervention
programs by both the GECC and caretakers have been compiled in Table 12. GECC members
were of the opinion that there is lack of timely monitoring of the interventions by WCD and geog
officials. In some instances there is also lack of proper repair and maintenance of fencing. In
addition, communities often fail to pay their contributions in time. Compared to the
30
overwhelming success of the intervention especially the electric fencing in Singhe,
Lhamoizingkha, and Norbugang, these challenges are almost systemic and can be improved with
very little effort on the part of the partners.
Table 12. shows the nature of challenges encountered in implementation of WCD interventions
by both the GECC and caretakers.
Challenges faced by Nature of challenge
Gog Environment
Conservation
Committee (GECC)
- Timely monitoring by WCD and goegs
- Timely fee payment by communities
- Lack of repair/maintenance
Care takers - Poor salary
- No payment
- Poor equipment
4. Conclusion
Human wildlife conflicts are complex requiring highly successful interventions that are
sensitive to the needs of ecosystem and society at large. Failure to balance this need will lead to
either ecological disaster which may bring devastating impact on the survival of humans and
other animals or not receive enough community support for the intervention to succeed. Going
by the findings of this study, electric fencing is a winner, saving huge amount of crops and
property not to mention of significant reduction in number of nights spent on guarding. Reduced
guarding in particular has enabled men to spend more time at home helping women and children,
thereby reducing home related drudgery for women and children. Electric fencing has resulted in
food secured and happy families in the study geogs. Livestock insurance program on the other
hand did not take off except in Dangchu geog where it received full support. Two claims were
also made by communities for kills by tigers, which indicates a healthy ecosystem. One logical
reason why compensation program did not take off in other communities could be influenced by
the fact that agriculture crops rather than livestock is their primary source of livelihood. In the
light of these findings, following recommendations are proposed:
31
5. Recommendations
1. Electric fencing using based on Singhe geog method is recommended for scaling up to
areas infected with wild pest. The designed may be improved to target multiple species
including wildpig, which may require reducing the gap between the ground level and
electric line. High initial investment must not discourage government from scaling up
electric fencing in highly infected areas as the cost recovery or savings to the farmers
resulting from this intervention is significant.
2. Replace all solar powered fences to actual electric fencing.
3. Caretakers must be fully trained in repair and maintenance of electric fencing including
basic knowledge on how electric fencing operates.
4. Bringing communities to successful areas like Singhe and Lhamoizingkha must be
continued so that the affected communities can see for themselves the benefits of the
intervention.
5. To bring about and encourage community acceptance and participation in interventions
especially insurance program, there is a need to incorporate conservation education into
the program. This will help create awareness about conservation, the long term goal of
interventions, and build community’s support for it.
6. WCD’s contribution towards the insurance program should be doubled to increase
interest earnings which will help gain community’s’ interest in the program.
7. This report should be published and information disseminated to the general public,
especially those affected, geogs officials, forest officials, politicians, and donors to bring
about general awareness and support for HWC interventions.
8. Extra effort must be invested into raising enough funds both at home and abroad to
support HWC intervention programs. To sustain HWC management programs,
Government of Bhutan must be persuaded to allocate funds on an annual basis to both
show the national and international partners that HWC management is a priority for
Bhutan and encourage them to support it.
9. Because communities differ in their ability and willingness to implement and maintain
communal interventions, policies to address conflicts must be flexible and adaptable.
10. There is a need to monitor, adapt, and modify interventions.
32
6. References
Ciucci, P., and Boitani, L. 1998. Wolf and dog depredation on livestock in central Italy. Wildlife
Society Bulletin. 26:504-514.
Conover, M.R. 2002. Resolving human-wildlife conflicts. Lewis Publishers, Baca Raton,
Florida, USA.
Cozza, K., Fico, R., Battistini, M.L.1996. The damage-conservation interface illustrated by
predation on domestic livestock in central Italy. Biological Conservation. 78:329-336.
Hoare, R.E. 1992. A decision support system for managing human-elephant conflict situation in
Africa. IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group (HECWG) – IUCN.
Maikhuri, R.K., Nautiyal, S., Rao, K.S., Saxena, K.G., 2001. Conservation policy-people
conflicts: a case study from Nanda Devi biodiversity reserve (a World Heritage Site, India).
Forest Policy Economics 2, 355–365.
McCarthy, T., 2000. Ecology and conservation of snow leopards, Gobi brown bears, and wild
Bactrian camels in Mongolia. Ph.D. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA.
Mishra, H.R. 1982. Balancing human need and conservation in Nepal’s Royal Chitwan Park.
Ambio. 11:246-251.
NCD. 2004. Bhutan Biodiversity Conservation Complex: Living in Harmony with the Nature.
Nature Conservation Division, Department of Forests, Ministry of Agriculture, Thimphu, Bhutan.
58p.
NSB. 2007. Bhutan at a Glance. National Statistical Bureau, Royal Government of Bhutan,
Thimphu Bhutan.
Saberwal, V.K., Gibs, J.P., Chellam, R., Johnsingh, A.T.J., 1994. Lion-human conflict in the Gir
forest, India. Conservation Biology 8, 501–507.
Sharma, U.R. 1990. An overview of park-people interaction in Royal Chitwan National Park,
Nepal. Landscape and Urban Planning. 19:133-144.
33
Studsrod, J.E., Wegge, P., 1995. Park-people relationships: the case of damage caused by park
animals around the Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Environmental Conservation 22, 133–
142.
Naughton-Treves, L., A. Treves, C. Chapman, and R. Wrangham. 1998. Temporal patterns of
crop raiding by primates: linking food availability in croplands and adjacent forest. Journal of
Applied Ecology 35:596–606.
Wang, S. W. 2008. Understanding Ecological Interactions Among Carnivores, Ungulates and
Farmers in Bhutan's Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park. PhD. Dissertation. Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York, USA. 137 p.
Wang, S. W., and D. W. Macdonald. 2006. Livestock predation by carnivores in Jigme Singye
Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Biological Conservation 129: 558-565.
Wang, S. W., P. D. Curtis, and J. P. Lassoie. 2006a. Farmer perception of crop damage by wildlife
in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34 (2): 359-365.
Wang, S. W., J. P. Lassoie, and P. D. Curtis. 2006b. Farmer attitudes towards conservation in
Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Environmental Conservation 33 (2): 148-156.
Wang, S.W. and Macdonald, D.W. 2006. Predation losses by carnivores in Jigme Singye
Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Biological Conservation, 129:558-565.
Yoder, J. 2002. Estimation of wildlife-inflicted property damage ad abatement based on
compensation program. Land Economics. 78:45-59.