A systematic review on

Human-Wildlife Conflict worldwide

and the efficiency of deterrents to
reduce depredation and Crop Damage.
MARTINOT Katinka* , 1
*Master student in Biodiversity, Evolution & Ecology. Specialized in bio-anthropology at University Paul Sabatier, Route de
Narbonne, 31000 Toulouse, France.
Internship: 31 March – 31 August 2020. Alldays Wilidlife and Communities Research Center (AWCRC), R572, Limpopo, South
Africa. Supervised by Leah Findlay2.
Authors guide: Bruns, Waltert, M., Khorozyan, I., 2020. The effectiveness of livestock protection measures against wolves
(Canis lupus) and implications for their co-existence with humans. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. (Bruns et al., 2020).

Abstract
Le conflit homme-faune sauvage est un défi mondial et complexe, present dans notre société depuis
pluieurs décennies. Elle implique des facteurs socio-économiques, politiques, environne-mentaux, écologiques et
agricoles, étant donc difficile à comprendre et à résoudre. Les principaux types de conflit entre la faune et les
activités humaines sont les pillages de récoltes et la déprédation du bétail. Ces conflits se produisent sur les quatre
continents et ne font qu'augmenter avec la croissance de la population humaine et l'expansion de l'industrie. De
nombreux chercheurs ont testé plusieurs méthodes, afin de résoudre les conflits homme-faune sauvage. Dans
cette revue sont résumés certains de ces moyens de dissuasion, le but étant d'évaluer leur efficacité de réduction
de la prédation par les grands carnivores et les pillage de cultures par des primates non-humains. Les répulsifs à
base de piment se sont avérés très efficaces contre les attaques de cultures par les primates et la protection des
troncs pour éviter que les ours n'endommagent les arbres lorsqu'ils recherchent l'aubier. Les colliers en cuir, les
clôtures électriques et les enclos pour le bétail étaient efficaces contre la prédation par les grands carnivores.

Human-wildlife Conflict is a global and complex challenge for the pat few decades. It implies socio-
economic, political, environmental, ecological and agricultural contexts and is therefore difficult to comprehend
and resolve. The main types of conflict arising between wildlife and human activities are crop raiding and
depredation of livestock. These conflicts occur on every continent in different dimensions, and are only
increasing with human population growth and industry expansion. Many researchers have trialled several
methods, also called deterrents, in orders to resolve Human-Wildlife Conflict. In this review are summarised
some of these deterrents, the goal being to evaluate their effectiveness to mitigate predation by large carnivores
and crop raiding by non-human primates. Chili-based repellents proved to be very efficient against crop raiding
by non-human primates and protection of tree trunks to avoid bears from damaging tree while foraging for
sapwood. Leather collars, electric fencing and enclosure of livestock were effective against predation by large
carnivores.

Keywords: Human-Wildlife Conflict, predators, non-human primates, crop raiding, depredation, deterrents,
ecology.

1
Corresponding author: katinka.m@hotmail.fr . Current address: 10 Rue de la Trilhe, 31000 Toulouse, France.
2Supervisor: l.j.findlay@durham.ac.uk . Research Coordinator at AWCRC, Durham University, Primate and Predator
Project.
 Introduction
In last few centuries, human activity, industry and population size have increased exponentially
(Meyer and Turner, 1992; Ripple et al., 2017). And with the changing needs and the increase of our
living standards, humans need more and more land for livestock and food farming (Elmhagen et al.,
2015). Although humans and wildlife have coexisted for millennia, the constantly evolving
relationships about resources among people and wild animals pose a global challenge due to the
growing competition over space and limited resources (McKee et al., 2003). With the development of
the industry and economies, the ecological niches of humans and wildlife tend to overlap, often leading
to human-wildlife conflict (HWC) (Messmer, 2000). According to the UICN, “HWC occurs when animals
pose a direct and recurring threat to the livelihood or safety of people, leading to the persecution of
that species”. HWC can be defined as the negative interactions between people and wild animals, with
consequences for both people and their resources and wildlife and their habitats (IUCN World
Conservation Congress, 2020)3.

Human-wildlife conflicts are increasing in human-dominated landscapes (Mukeka et al., 2019)

with serious impacts and implications for biodiversity (McKee et al., 2003; Redpath et al., 2013; Ruyle,
2018; Woodroffe et al., 2005). The changing land-use causes degradation, fragmentation and
destruction of wildlife habitat (Benjamin-Fink, 2019; Distefano, 2005). These processes endanger
species, especially key species that are often most vulnerable to habitat destruction, thereby
jeopardising whole ecosystems (Benjamin-Fink, 2019; Lamprey and Reid, 2004; Ogada et al., 2003;
Woodroffe et al., 2005). Human encroachment can lead to direct competition and exclusion from
resources, increase of disease transmission, introduction of non-native species as well as killing of
wildlife (due to habitat destruction or the employment of lethal methods) (Benjamin-Fink, 2019;
Distefano, 2005; Messmer, 2000; Treves and Naughton-Treves, 2005; Woodroffe et al., 2005).

The risk of disease transmission is heightened by the close proximity of wildlife and humans.
In rural as well as peri-urban or urban areas, there is an increase in vehicle collisions and residential
damage (Distefano, 2005; Lamarque et al., 2009). At last, although less frequently observed, there is
an intensification of attacks on human life (Barua et al., 2013; Bond and Mkutu, 2018). In Mozambique,
crocodiles have been stated to cause the greatest number of deaths by wildlife (Lamarque et al., 2009).
Although precise estimations of the number of deaths caused by wildlife are difficult to find because
citizens often can’t reach a government office to report the deaths, a rough estimate of killings by
crocodiles would be 300 people per year (FAO, 2005; Lamarque et al., 2009). Large felines such as lions
and leopards also sometimes attack humans. This last cause of HWC has an important psychological
and sometimes traumatic impact on humans (Bond and Mkutu, 2018). Not only is the loss of family
member hard on people, it can also induce indirect consequences. For example, if the person that died
is the main source of income of the family, their absence can cause food scarcity and loss of income,
not to mention that often younger people (children) therefore have to work instead of receiving proper
scholar education, especially in developing countries (Barua et al., 2013).

3 In light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Government of

France have decided to postpone the IUCN World Conservation Congress 2020 in Marseille to 7-15 January 2021. However, the definition of
HWC is available on the official website of the IUCN World Conservation Congress (Motion 117).

2
 In areas where human and wildlife niches overlap, wildlife can cause damage to the livelihoods
due to foraging in crop fields or taking of livestock (Benjamin-Fink, 2019). Crop damage and livestock
predation are the most prevalent forms of human-wildlife conflict across the African continent. In a
study realised in Kenya from 2001 to 2017, results showed that the 3 main conflict types occurring in
Kenya were crop raiding (50%), attacks on humans (27,3%) and livestock depredation (17,6%) (Mukeka
et al., 2019). The main species involved in these conflicts are elephants (46,2%), non-human primates
(11,7%) and carnivores such as leopards (7,3%), lions (3,3%) and hyenas (5,8%) (Mukeka et al., 2019).
Predation by lions on livestock in Kenya were responsible for 40% (US$ 374,603) of total loss of
livestock to wildlife (Muriuki et al., 2017). Large carnivores such as bears and wolves, often cause
significant loss of income for livestock farmers (Widman and Elofsson, 2018). Precise recent records of
the cost due to crop losses are difficult to find, but Engeman (Engeman et al., 2010) stated that Rhesus
macaques (Macaca mulatta) and Patas monkeys (Erythrocebus patas) in Puerto Rico were estimated
to have caused economic losses of US$1.13–1.46 million per year among commercial farmers from
2002 to 2006. Thus, crop damage and taking of livestock play an important role in HWC.

As mentioned before, HWC is still increasing despite the IUCN recommendations in 2003.
There are various reasons of the increase of HWC. Firstly, as human population is increasing, their need
to expend increases as well, therefore human and wildlife niches overlap more and more, hence
creating conflict. Moreover, it is not an easy task to resolve HWC due its complexity. HWC involves not
only ecological and economic concerns, but is also mediated by cultural and political drifts. For
example, human perception of nature can influence decision making in HWC. According to Hudenko,
2012, human emotion can play a major role in how humans respond to HWC and can alter decision
making in the process of solving HWC. Raising awareness and educating people about wildlife can
positively influence perception of wildlife and conservation efforts. A study carried out in the state of
Washington showed that societal-levels like modernization levels (e.g. county-level urbanization,
wealth, and education) can influence individuals’ wildlife value orientations. They found that
modernization is positively associated with mutualism (individual-level support for conservation
actions in favour of biodiversity) (Dietsch et al., 2016).

In order to better understand HWC, this review is an assessment of several deterrent methods
employed to mitigate HWC worldwide. It will focus mainly on Crop Raiding (CR) by non-human
primates in Africa, beehive destruction by bears and predation by large carnivores across the four
continents.

Material and Methods:

In this section I will present some case studies of HWC around the globe, focusing mainly on
mammals, carnivores and non-human primates. All around the world HWC exists and poses a threat
to human health and security but also to species and ecosystems. In the last decades, the lethal
managing of wildlife has led many species to the edge of extinction, or at least endangering them.
Conversely, human communities, especially in developing countries, have suffered from the costs of
HWC due to loss of livelihoods or damage caused by wildlife. In the last decade, conservation guilds
and researchers have tried to use non-lethal management of wildlife in order to protect both human
and wildlife. In this section I will present some of the deterrents methods used to resolve HWC,
focussing on 2 major types of HWC: Depredation of livestock and Crop Raiding (CR). Loss of livestock

3
is mainly caused by carnivores such as leopards (Panthera pardus), hyenas (Crocuta crocuta), bears
(Ursus sp.) and wolves (Canis lupus), and some countries by Pumas (Puma concolor), lions (Panthera
leo) and jaguars (Panthera onca). Species involved in CR conflict often are non-human primates such
as the vervet monkey (Chlorocebus aethiops), baboon (Papio anubis), red-tailed monkey
(Cercopithecus ascanius) and blue monkey (Cercopithecus mitis).

Literature Research

I used a structured search on the internet using the words “human-wildlife conflict”, “crop
raiding”, “predation” and “deterrent” in different combinations, sometimes adding a specific species
name, within a period of 1990 to 2020. To refine the research and obtain more recent results, I also
submitted a search for articles dating from 2016 to 2020. I mainly used literature databases like Google
Scholar, Science Direct , Mendeley, Springer, Pubmed and the Human-Wildlife Conflict Library of the
IUCN SSC (http://www.hwctf.org/resources/document-library). I also searched for datasets on
database search engines such as the Worldbank Database, Mendeley Data, DRYAD, UNData and
several others. I selected articles on their abstract, verifying the article was of interest. To be included
in the analysis, publications had to be peer-reviewed, published in English, and contain sufficient
information about their material and methods and their results to be able to either calculate the Risk
Ratio or the percentage of reduction in damage (either reduction in predation, CR, or CD). Some articles
returned were systematic reviews and contained information gathered from several articles. In this
case, I would try to find all the articles mentioned in that review to extract the data myself, if possible,
otherwise the raw data from the systematic review would be used ((Eklund et al., 2017).

1.2. Data Analysis:

To obtain the dataset I either extracted data from databases, systematic reviews or articles.
(Eklund et al., 2017) published a systematic review on the efficiency of predation deterrents. He used
a total of 21 articles from a pool of 562. I used his references to find the authors cited in his article,
from there I read Material and Methods and Results of the 21 authors. I decided to exclude some
articles because not relevant or not enough data. I also excluded the articles using a shock collar or
sterilization as deterrent because I want to focus my research on more approachable, low-cost and
easy to install – deterrents. Other data was extracted from case studies (Clark et al., 2005; Di Vittorio
et al., 2016; Fredriksson, 2005; Hill and Wallace, 2012; Huygens and Hayashi, 1999; Kobashikawa et al.,
2019; Otto and Roloff, 2015; Riley et al., 1994; Shivik et al., 2011; Treves et al., 2010; Ziegltrum, 2004).
Data from Leah Findlay’s thesis wasn’t used by lack of time. However, many deterrents for CR
described in the current article have also been tested by Findlay. Sample size or date of publication
weren’t taking into account. The total data was entered in a table on Excel.

I transformed some data (e.g. number of killings or crop raiding events before and after intervention)
into percentages or Risk Ratios if possible. Variables used to calculate the RR or the percentage of
reduction were either number of Crop Raiding Events (CRE), number of killings of livestock, number of
damage records, number of crops damaged, or percentage of crops damaged. To calculate the
percentage of damage reduction (%Reduction) to livestock or crops, I used this formula:

4
 𝐵−𝐴
% 𝑅𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = ( ) ∗ 100
𝐵
And the RR was calculated as such:

𝐴⁄𝑁𝑒
𝑅𝑅 =
𝐵 ⁄𝑁𝑐

Where A is the number of killed individuals (or other variable listed above depending on the study) in
the experiment group; B is the number of killed individuals (or other variable) in the control group
(before installation of deterrent); Ne is the number of total individuals (or other variable) in the
experimental group; and Nc is the total number of individuals (or other variable) in the control group.
When RR>1 the deterrent would cause the increase of depredation, RR=1 means there is no difference,
and RR<1 means the deterrent is effective. The closer the risk ratio is to 0 the more effective it is.

The final dataset contained the variables “Deterrent”, “Type”, “Species”, “Assets”, “HWC”, “RR”,
“%Reduction”, “Country”, “Author”; describing deterrent methods used in the study, the type of
deterrent (Physical, chemical, fencing etc.), the species causing damage to livelihoods, the assets
damaged (sheep, cattle, crops etc.), the type of HWC (Predation or Crop Raiding), the risk ratio, the
percentage of reduction in damage, the country where the study took place and the authors name and
date , respectively. Finally, I summarised the data into graphics, so it is easier to comprehend.

Results
1.1. Research Literature:

I have selected 38 articles representing 90 experiments and 37 deterrents tested, most of them
being non-invasive methods (i.e. non-lethal methods), regrouped in 16 types of deterrents (Table 1).

These included Jatropha sp. and Ocinum sp. hedges acting like a fence, also called bio-fence,
were plant species are grown into a hedge to act as a protective wall around the crop fields to keep
the crop raiders out. The crop raiders in the case studies are mainly non-human primates such as
Vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus aethiops), baboons (Papio anubis), blue monkeys (Cercopithecus mitis
stuhlmanni), red-tailed monkeys (Cercopithecus ascanius schmidti) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)
(Hill and Wallace, 2012). In the same article they also teste other types of fences, such as a net fence
with bells, acting as an alarm system when triggered by primates entering crop. The bell alarm system
has also been tested by Leah Findlay (FINDLAY, 2016).

Other types of fences included barbed wire fences and chili rope fences, the later one being a
repellent deterrent (i.e. this type of deterrent repels animals). The ropes are soaked in chili paste, and
when primates touch the ropes trying to enter the crop fields, it irritates their skin (several farmers
have stated they saw the primates rubbing their hands vigorously after having touched the ropes)(Hill
and Wallace, 2012). The chili paste rope has also been used in Kenya as a deterrent against elephants,
An even more robust type of fence is the electric fence that has been tested by several researchers
(Clark et al., 2005; Di Vittorio et al., 2016; Huygens and Hayashi, 1999; Otto and Roloff, 2015; Sejias,
2016).

5
Table 1: Description of the deterrents trialled in the 38 articles and their authors.
Type of Deterrent Deterrent Treatment Detail Treatment Authors
Bio Fence Ocinum sp. hedge 1 row ocinum hedge + mesh Hill & Wallace, 2012
3 row ocinum hedge
3 row ocinum hedge + mesh
Jatropha sp. hedge Vegetation fence (bush trees)
Buffer food Supplemental feeding Supplemental feeding by carrion Kavčič et al. 2013
Supplemental feeding by feed pellets Ziegltrum 2004
Enclosure Enclosure Andelt and Hopper 2000
Papworth et al. 2014
Wilson et al. 2005
Rigg et al. 2011
Night corral Enclosure by night of livestock. Mazzoli et al., 2002
Synonym: a pen.
Barns Enclosure by night in a barn Rigg et al., 2011
Fortified Boma Pole fence instead of Bush Kolowski & Holecamp, 2006
Living walls (plant species formed Lichtenfeld et al., 2015
into a hedge/fence)
Fortified Boma (Decrease Woodroffe et al., 2007
transparency)
Fence Electric fence Clark et al. 2005
Di Vittorio et al. 2016
Seijas et al. 2016
Huygens and Hayashi 1999
Otto and Roloff 2015
Barbed wire fence 3 strand barbed wire fence Hill & Wallace, 2012
4 strand barbed wire fence
Guarding Guards Full-time guard Hill & Wallace, 2012
Part-time guard
Herders Herders Iliopoulos et al., 2009
Palmer et al., 2010
Woodroffe et al., 2007
Guarding animals Guarding dogs Andelt , 1992
Andelt and Hopper 2000
Hansen and Smith 1999
Palmer et al., 2010
Rigg et al., 2011
Woodroffe et al., 2007
Guarding Llama Meadows and Knowlton 2000
Lethal Shooting Anderson et al. 2002
Sagør et al. 1997
Treves et al. 2010
Livestock change Replacement of livestock by Replacement of Dala sheep by Landa et al., 1999
another livestock species Norwegian fur-bearing sheep
Replacement of Dala sheep by
Norwegian short-tailed sheep
Replacement of Dala sheep by Rygja
sheep
Replacement of sheep by cattle Zimmermann et al. 2003
Physical deterrent Metal sheeting Protection of trees by disposing Fredrikkson 2005
metal sheets around the trunk
Leather Collar A leather collar put around the neck Khorozyan et al., 2020
of cattle to prevent bting by leopards

Trunk netting Net that is disposed around the trunk Kobashikawa et al. 2019
of a tree
Repellent Rope & chili paste A rope soaked in chili paste irritating Hill & Wallace, 2012
for skin and breathing system

Translocation Translocation Removal of wildlife that is then Alldredge et al. 2015

Visual deterrent Fladry
Electric Fladry
Scarecrow on Boma
Warning system Net + bells
Mixed deterrents Visual + acoustic deterrent
Fence + Guarding
transferred to a different location Anderson et al. 2002
Riley et al. 1994
Shivik et al. 2011
Colored flags on a rope that are Davidson-Nelson & Gehring, 2010
agitated in the wind Musiani et al., 2003
Lance et al., 2010
Woodroffe et al., 2007
Bells attached to a net fence that are Hill & Wallace, 2012
triggered by movement of the fence
Fladry + sound Zarco-Gonzalez et al., 2014
Electric fence, Guarding dogs and Krogstad et al. 2000
herding
6
 To prevent CR, guarding is also a method frequently employed. For CR mitigation, especially in
developing countries, farmers often hire guards, who scrutinize the fields for any wildlife and scare
them off by either shooting, making loud sounds, yelling or throwing stones (FINDLAY, 2016; Hill and
Wallace, 2012). To mitigate predation, livestock flocks are often accompanied by herders (Iliopoulos
et al., 2009; Palmer et al., 2010; Woodroffe et al., 2007) and/or guarding dogs (Andelt, 1992; Andelt
and Hopper, 2000; Hansen and Smith, 1999; Meadows and Knowlton, 2000; Palmer et al., 2010; Rigg
et al., 2011; Woodroffe et al., 2007). Another deterrent tested is translocation of predators, especially
bears (Ursus sp.) (Alldredge et al., 2015; Anderson et al., 2002; Riley et al., 1994; Shivik et al., 2011).

To prevent predation at night, farmers would put their flocks in enclosures, such as Bomas
(traditional Maasai enclosure) (Kolowski and Holekamp, 2006; Lichtenfeld et al., 2015; Woodroffe et
al., 2007), corrals (Mazzolli et al., 2002) or barns (Rigg et al., 2011). Several types of Bomas have been
tested, fortified by either mesh (thin wire net), plant species (also called living walls) or timber pole
fences instead of bush fences.

Some study cases also test whether predators have a preference for a type or a species of
livestock, to see if a change in livestock type would decrease the number of killings (Landa et al., 1999;
Zimmermann et al., 2003). Change of livestock in a deterrent not frequently used, but that could be
interesting depending on the predator’s ecology and behaviour.

One way to prevent predation or crop raiding is to put an obstacle to wildlife. I classified such
deterrent as physical deterrents. Three articles mention this type of deterrent: they used leather
collars for cattle to prevent predators from killing, and metal sheets or nets to prevent damage to tree
plantations (Fredriksson, 2005; Khorozyan et al., 2020; Kobashikawa et al., 2019).

Finally, some studies test visual deterrents such as fladry (coloured flags on a rope) and
scarecrows, or mixed deterrents (use of several types of deterrents simultaneously) (Zarco‐González
and Monroy‐Vilchis, 2014).

7
 1.2. Data Analysis:

Many have tried to limit depredation of livestock and crop raiding by using for instance:
guarding, enhanced fencing or enclosure, changing livestock etc.
Risk Ratio

Biofence Enclosure Fence + Guarding Guarding Animals Livestock change Repellent Visual + acoustic Warning System

Type of Deterrent

Figure 1: Boxplot distribution of risk ration after deterrent intervention by deterrent type, all studies combined (species and assets aren't taking
into account). Some deterrents are very effective (Rmean=0), others mildly effective (Rmean>0,7), not effective (Rmean=1), or increase the amount
or crop raiding or predation (Rmean>1).

Acoustic repellent

The acoustic repellent was tested by making loud sounds or shooting sounds to scare away
brown bears (Ursus arctos) preying on cattle in the United States of America. The authors that trialled
this deterrent observed that this technique was very efficient (RR=0) and that it reduced predation by
a 100% (Figure 3).

Biofence

The biofences trialled were to mitigate CR by non-human primates in Uganda. The biofences
were composed of Ocinum kailimandscharicum or Jatropha curcas hedges. The hedge was grown in
order to obscure primates’ view of crop fields from the forest, and their view of the forest once inside
the crop fields, thereby reducing their information about human on-farm activity and escape routes,
increasing perceived risks associated with raiding. Jatropha is a drought resistant shrub with toxic
seeds, enhancing its deterrent impact. Ocinum is an aromatic shrub (same family as basil), and is
expected to be repellent by its odour and attractiveness to bees, in addition to obscuring the sight of
the fields and farm activity.

8
 In general, the RR showed that biofences are only mildly effective (RR=0,566) (Figure 1), but
as shown in Figure 2, the efficiency is also species dependant. The hedges were very effective against
Vervet monkeys (RR=0), and reduced crop raiding by 77% and 40% for Baboons and Cercopithecus
species respectively. However, Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) weren’t stopped by the biofences, and
the CR even increased (RR=1,50) (Figure 2).

Buffer food

Buffer food was tested on bears that damaged conifer tree plantations while foraging on tee
sapwood. Buffer food was composed of feeding stations distributing pellets. The goal was for bears to
feed on the pellets and not on the trees’ sapwood. This deterrent reduced tree damage by 73,34%
(RR=0,27) (Figure 2). The other type of buffer food was by carrion (carcasses) to avoid preying on
sheep. However, this technique was much less effective, only reducing predation by 13, 92% (RR=0,86)
(Figure 3). Average risk ratio was equal to 0,56 (Figure 1).

Figure 2: Crop raiding risk ratios after deterrent intervention, by type of deterrent and species.

9
Figure 3: Predation risk ratios after deterrent intervention, by deterrent type and species.

Enclosure

Enclosure was used for beehives and livestock. Results were mixed, with big differences
depending on species and assets. Average RR was equal to 0,745 (Figure 1). Enclosure for beehives to
keep bears out wasn’t effective at all, it even increased damage by 116,64%, although enclosure of
livestock was effective to deter bears (RR=0,11) (Figure 3). The results for deterring lions was on
opposites. Lichtenfeld et al., 2015 found a reduction of predation of 88%, conversely, Kolowski &
Holecamp, 2007 found an increase of 250% in predation by lions. Enclosure was also very effective for
deterring wolves, hyenas and pumas (RRwolf-sheep = 0,25 ; RRhyena-shoats = 0,625 ; RRpuma-sheep+swine = 0,25).

Fence

Different types of fences have been tested: to prevent crop raiding by primates, barbed wire
fences were installed, to prevent beehive raiding and tree plantation damage by bears, electric fences
were used. In average, fencing was efficient to prevent crop raiding (RR=0,41) and beehive destruction
(RR=0,089) (Figure 1). But fencing wasn’t effective against every species, Red-tailed monkeys
continued to raid crops (RR=1,1), but for baboons and blue monkeys a decrease in crop raiding was
observed (50% and 67% respectively) (Figure 2). At last, fencing was also effective to prevent bears
from damaging tree plantations (RR=0,167) (Figure 2).

10
 Guarding

Employing guards on crop farms proved to be effective to reduce crop raiding by primates
(RR=0,38), especially against blue monkeys, chimpanzees and Vervet monkeys (RR=0,25; RR=0,11 and
RR=0 respectively) (Figure 2). However, baboons and red-tailed monkeys were less impressed by the
guards (RR=0,63 and RR=0,7 respectively). Guarding of livestock (herders) to prevent predation by
large carnivores was less efficient than for CR (RR=0,62 on average) (Figure 1). Predation by lions,
leopards and hyenas on cattle and sheep only reduced by 30%. However, the presence of guards did
reduce predation by wolves, bears and coyotes (RR=0,35) (Figure 3). One study combined guarding
and fencing of sheep to prevent predation by bears, this technique was quite effective (RR=0,02)
(Figure 3).

Guarding animals

Guarding animals are often employed to guard herds or flocks. The main species to be used as
guarding animals are dogs, but sometimes donkeys or llamas are also employed. On average, guarding
animals were only mildly effective (RR=0,45) (Figure 1). Coyotes and the American black bear reduced
their predation on sheep by 92% and 77% respectively. Lions, leopards and hyenas continued killing
livestock but a decrease in predation of 41% was observed. However, brown bears’ and pumas’
predation was actually increased (RR=1,71) (Figure 3).

Lethal deterrent

Shooting is still a frequently used deterrent, although not recommended by conservation

organizations. Results of lethal deterrents are mixed. Predation on cattle by brown bears was reduced
by 100%, however brown bears continued preying on sheep (RR=1,34). American black bears that
would raid crops and beehives were slightly deterred (RR=0,74) (Figure 3). In average, lethal shooting
was effective by 30% (RR=0,69) (Figure 1).

Livestock change

Replacement of sheep by cattle to prevent depredation by brown bears proved to be very

efficient (RR=0,002). In another study they tested the preference of predators for a specific species of
sheep. Results showed that the initial species (Dala sheep) was more preyed by wolverines than the 3
other species (RR=0,6) (Figure 3).

Physical deterrent

The leather collars used on cattle to prevent killing by leopards, the metal sheeting of tree and
the netting trunks all proved to be highly effective, reducing damage and predation by a 100% (RR=0)
(Figure 2 & Figure 3).

Repellent

The chili rope fence was highly effective to prevent crop raiding by primates (RR=0,04),
reducing Crop Raiding Events by 95,65% (Figure 2).

11
 Translocation

Translocation of brown bears was not effective against beehive raiding and livestock predation
(RR=1 and RR=0,845) (Figure 3). However, it showed to be quite effective on the American black bear,
reducing crop raiding by 96,15% and predation on livestock by 79% (Figure 3).

Visual deterrent

Visual deterrents such as fladry proved to be quite effective against wolves (RR=0,08), but not
against larger carnivores like leopards, lions and hyenas (RR=1,195) where the fladry actually increased
the rate of predation. The combination of fladry and an auditive repellent (loud sounds) proved to be
very effective against predation by pumas and jaguars on sheep and cattle (RR=0) (Figure 3).

Warning systems

Warning systems were tested by attaching bells to a net fence. These proved to be very
efficient against crop raiding by primates (RR=0,108), although more effective on red-tailed, blue and
vervet monkeys than on baboons (Figure 1 & Figure 2).

Discussion
This study shows that the most effective deterrent for CR by primates is the chili rope fence
(repellent) and the warning system (bell net) with a reduction of damage of 95,65% and 89,17%
respectively (Figure 1). All the deterrents tested for primates have been studied by Hill and Wallace,
2012, even though there is only one case study to prove the effectiveness of these deterrents, their
study was quite thorough and with a sufficient sample size to give significant results. Some of these
methods have also been studied by Leah Findlay giving encouraging results, although her tests
concerning warning systems weren’t conclusive (FINDLAY, 2016). However, she didn’t test the chili
rope fence, which could be very interesting given the results of this study. Chili is also used to deter
other species in other countries. For example in Africa the Elephant-Human Conflict is very present
(Hoare, 1999), and some farmers use chili bombs (mix of dong and crushed chilies, once lit the smoke
irritates the breathing ways of the elephants), chili pepper gas dispensers, or chili rope fences (the
irritation of their skin caused by contact with the chili paste is enough to deter them from entering the
fields) to prevent elephants from entering the crop fields and causing damage (Chang’a et al., 2016; Le
Bel et al., 2015; Malvern Karidozo, 2015; Pozo et al., 2019). On top of that, farmers can also grow chilies
to make an extra income and at the same time use a small amount of their harvests to produce chili-
based deterrents (Pozo et al., 2019). Therefore, chili-based deterrents show a promising future
concerning HWC management.

As for CR by bears, the most efficient deterrent was translocation (reduction of 96,15%) (Figure
3). Nevertheless, translocation seemed to be species-dependent, as it is only a successful deterrent for
American black bears but not for Brown bears. This shows the importance of understanding predator
ecology and behaviour in order to successfully mitigate HWC. Furthermore, translocation of animals is
very expensive (US$3756 per individual, Fontúrbel and Simonetti, 2011). Given the mixed results and
the cost of translocation, this deterrent does not seem to be appropriate in mitigating HWC.

12
 To reduce damage caused by bears on tree plantations, the most efficient deterrent is the
physical deterrent (metal sheeting of trunks and trunk netting), although electric fences also show
promise (Reduction of 83,30%) (Figure 2). This deterrent might be effective, it is costly and thus not an
approachable deterrent for farmers with a low income. Concerning beehives, fencing reduced beehive
destruction by 91-100% whereas lethal methods only by 26% (Figure 2). This clearly shows that non-
invasive methods can be very efficient instead of lethal management of wildlife.

Predation mitigation shows strong variation of effectiveness between and within deterrents.
This variation is probably due to the species-dependent dimension of predation deterrence. This
review shows that acoustic, physical and visual deterrents are the most effective to mitigate predation
(reduction of 100%) by brown bears, Leopards and Pumas and jaguars, respectively (Figure 3).
However, these 3 results are drawn from only 1 study case each (Anderson et al., 2002; Khorozyan et
al., 2020; Zarco‐González and Monroy‐Vilchis, 2014) (Table 1). Furthermore, acoustic and visual
deterrents are often effective only on short-term, because wildlife quickly habituates to the sounds (of
human activity, dog barking, motorcycles…) and visual deterrents (FINDLAY, 2016). Therefore, acoustic
and visual deterrents are not a long-term solution for resolving HWC. Physical deterrents to prevent
leopards from killing cattle were a 100% effective (Figure 3). This proves that leather collars could be
a useful deterrent for carnivores that mainly attack and kill their prey by biting their neck.

Other promising deterrents against bears were electric fencing and guarding, with an overall
reduction of 91-97% of predation. Unfortunately, the case study trialling the combination of fencing
and guarding on deterring brown bears was written in Norwegian and though mentioned in several
articles, it couldn’t be found on the internet (Krogstad et al., 2000). Even though the results (extracted
from Eklund et al., 2017) of the article remained included in this review, there was no way of verifying
the accuracy of the study. Consequently, their results should be regarded with caution. On average,
deterrents trialled were far more effective against American black bears than against brown bears,
further emphasizing the importance of animal ecology and behaviour. Guarding was also very effective
against wolves. In general, all deterrents involving visual of human activity (guards, herders,
scarecrows) and acoustic deterrents (gunshots, barking etc.) were effective against wolf predation. For
other carnivores such as leopards, hyenas, lions and coyotes, the effectiveness of deterrents trialled
were mixed. The difference of behaviour towards the same deterrents by different species of
predators shows the importance of understanding behaviour and ecology of large carnivores in order
to reduce predation on livestock.

At last, enclosure and livestock change also showed mixed results (Figure 1 & Figure 3).
Enclosure was effective against wolves but not against lions and hyenas. Livestock change
(replacement of sheep by cattle) was a 100% effective against predation by brown bears. However,
the diet of the brown bear (Ursus arctos) can also include cattle (Pasitschniak, 1993). Therefore, we
can’t consider this deterrent to be effective on long-term, considering the brown bear would quickly
adapt the new species into its diet.

This review shows the effectiveness of different types of deterrents. Nevertheless, socio-
economic contexts have not been taking into account (Nyhus, 2016). It is important to adapt deterrents
to the species that causes damage of livelihoods, but it is also of importance to know the financial
capacity of farmers and the amount of income they can invest in deterrents. The costs of deterrents
vary, some of them being rather inexpensive such as the chili rope fence, and others high-priced such
as translocation. It is therefore imperative to estimate the benefits and costs of deterrents, so that the

13
final outcome of the equation is positive. If not, HWC will continue to occur. Another factor that has
not been taking into account in this review is the social dimension of HWC. The initial conflict arises
between wildlife and humans but over time the main actors in this dispute have become human:
conservation organizations that intend to protect wildlife and their habitats are often unaware of the
farmers’ struggles to protect their crops and livelihoods from wildlife, and therefore less understanding
of the employment of lethal methods (Bond and Mkutu, 2018). Conversely, farmers are often aversive
towards conservation organizations, unaware of the solutions they could bring to their problems
(Redpath et al., 2013). Indeed, HWCs are in essence conflicts between stakeholders, and perhaps more
accurately presented as “human-human conflicts” (Bond and Mkutu, 2018; Redpath et al., 2015). Even
though some researchers include farmers in the decision-making process of which deterrents to trial,
it is clear that forthcoming attempts on resolving HWC require more communication between
stakeholders.

Limits of the study

This study includes a sufficient number of case studies, however, the number per deterrent
type is not consistent. To obtain a more consistent view on efficiency of deterrents, additional case
studies might need to be added for testing buffer food, biofences, livestock change, and repellents. By
doing this, the sample size of case studies per type of deterrent would be more balanced and thus
more accurate. Furthermore, this review only shows some of the deterrents that have been trialled to
mitigate HWC around the world, although including all types of deterrents would demand a great
investment of time given the amount of publications on the subject. Finally, some publications are
older than 10 years, and it might be interesting to add more recent publication to the study to see if
there is a difference in methods accuracy and deterrent results from 2000 to 2010, and from 2010 to
2020.

Conclusion
Overcoming HWC is a global and complex challenge. As this study has shown, deterrents are
often species dependent, indicating that wildlife behaviour and ecology has to be taken into account
in order to efficiently manage and resolve HWC. However, chili-based deterrents are efficient against
primates and elephant and inexpensive, indicating they could be a solution to other species involved
in HWC. Protection of tree trunks from bears, leather collars to protect livestock from carnivore
attacks, electric fencing, and enclosure of livestock by night all proved to be successful deterrents,
though depending on species. This study is proof that non-invasive management can resolve HWC, and
is far more effective than lethal management, even though further research is needed to find the
perfect deterrent for each type of conflict.

14
 Bibliography:

Alldredge, M.W., Walsh, D.P., Sweanor, L.L., Davies, R.B., Trujillo, A., 2015. Evaluation of translocation
of black bears involved in human–bear conflicts in South-central Colorado. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 39,
334–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.526
Andelt, W.F., 1992. Effectiveness of Livestock Guarding Dogs for Reducing Predation on Domestic
Sheep. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1973-2006 20, 55–62.
Andelt, W.F., Hopper, S.N., 2000. Livestock guard dogs reduce predation on domestic sheep in
Colorado. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. J. Range Manag. Arch. 53, 259–267.
Anderson, C.R., Ternent, M.A., Moody, D.S., 2002. Grizzly Bear-Cattle Interactions on Two Grazing
Allotments in Northwest Wyoming. Ursus 13, 247–256.
Barua, M., Bhagwat, S.A., Jadhav, S., 2013. The hidden dimensions of human–wildlife conflict: Health
impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biol. Conserv. 157, 309–316.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.014
Benjamin-Fink, 2019. An Assessment of the Human-Wildlife Conflict across Africa. Wildl. Popul. Monit.
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82793
Bond, J., Mkutu, K., 2018. Exploring the Hidden Costs of Human–Wildlife Conflict in Northern Kenya.
Afr. Stud. Rev. 61, 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/asr.2017.134
Bruns, Waltert, M., Khorozyan, I., 2020. The effectiveness of livestock protection measures against
wolves (Canis lupus) and implications for their co-existence with humans. Glob. Ecol. Conserv.
21, e00868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00868
Chang’a, A., Souza de, N., Muya, J., Keyyu, J., Mwakatobe, A., Malugu, L., Ndossi, H.P., Konuche, J.,
Omondi, R., Mpinge, A., Hahn, N., Palminteri, S., Olson, D., 2016. Scaling-Up the Use of Chili
Fences for Reducing Human-Elephant Conflict Across Landscapes in Tanzania. Trop. Conserv.
Sci. 9, 921–930. https://doi.org/10.1177/194008291600900220
Clark, J.D., Dobey, S., Masters, D.V., Scheick, B.K., Pelton, M.R., Sunquist, M.E., 2005. American black
bears and bee yard depredation at Okefenokee Swamp, Georgia. Ursus.
https://doi.org/10.2192/1537-6176(2005)016[0234:ABBABY]2.0.CO;2
Di Vittorio, Costrini, Rocco, Bragalanti, Borsetta, 2016. Assessing the efficacy of electric fences to
prevent Bear Damage in Italy. CDP Carnivore Damage Prevention News, 12: 31-37. [WWW
Document]. ResearchGate. URL
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/310627017_Di_Vittorio_M_Costrini_P_Rocco_M
_Bragalanti_N_Borsetta_M_2016_Assessing_the_efficacy_of_electric_fences_to_prevent_Be
ar_Damage_in_Italy_CDP_Carnivore_Damage_Prevention_News_12_31-37 (accessed
9.15.20).
Dietsch, A.M., Teel, T.L., Manfredo, M.J., 2016. Social values and biodiversity conservation in a dynamic
world. Conserv. Biol. J. Soc. Conserv. Biol. 30, 1212–1221. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12742
Distefano, E., 2005. Human-Wildlife Conflict worldwide: collection of case studies, analysis of
management strategies and good practices. FAO For. Pap. 34.
Eklund, A., López-Bao, J.V., Tourani, M., Chapron, G., Frank, J., 2017. Limited evidence on the
effectiveness of interventions to reduce livestock predation by large carnivores. Sci. Rep. 7,
2097. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02323-w
Elmhagen, B., Destouni, G., Angerbjörn, A., Borgström, S., Boyd, E., Cousins, S.A.O., Dalén, L., Ehrlén,
J., Ermold, M., Hambäck, P.A., Hedlund, J., Hylander, K., Jaramillo, F., Lagerholm, V.K., Lyon,
S.W., Moor, H., Nykvist, B., Pasanen-Mortensen, M., Plue, J., Prieto, C., van der Velde, Y.,
Lindborg, R., 2015. Interacting effects of change in climate, human population, land use, and
water use on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Ecol. Soc. 20.
FINDLAY, L., 2016. Human-primate conflict: an interdisciplinary evaluation of wildlife crop raiding on
commercial crop farms in Limpopo Province, South Africa (Doctoral). Durham University.

15
Fontúrbel, F.E., Simonetti, J.A., 2011. Translocations and human-carnivore conflicts: problem solving
or problem creating? Wildl. Biol. 17, 217–224. https://doi.org/10.2981/10-091
Fredriksson, G., 2005. Human–sun bear conflicts in East Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo. Ursus 16,
130–137. https://doi.org/10.2192/1537-6176(2005)016[0130:HBCIEK]2.0.CO;2
Hansen, I., Smith, M.E., 1999. Livestock-guarding dogs in Norway. II. Different working regimes. Rangel.
Ecol. Manag. J. Range Manag. Arch. 52, 312–316.
Hill, C.M., Wallace, G.E., 2012. Crop protection and conflict mitigation: reducing the costs of living
alongside non-human primates. Biodivers. Conserv. 21, 2569–2587.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0318-y
Hoare, R.E., 1999. Determinants of human-elephant conflict in a land-use mosaic. J. Appl. Ecol. 36,
689–700.
Hudenko, H.W., 2012. Exploring the Influence of Emotion on Human Decision Making in Human–
Wildlife Conflict. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 17, 16–28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2012.623262
Huygens, O.C., Hayashi, H., 1999. Using Electric Fences to Reduce Asiatic Black Bear Depredation in
Nagano Prefecture, Central Japan. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1973-2006 27, 959–964.
Iliopoulos, Y., Sgardelis, S., Koutis, V., Savaris, D., 2009. Wolf depredation on livestock in central Greece.
Mammal Res. 54, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03193133
IUCN World Conservation Congress, 2020. Motion 117 - Addressing human-wildlife conflict: fostering
a safe and beneficial coexistence of people and wildlife [WWW Document]. IUCN World
Conserv. Congr. 2020. URL https://www.iucncongress2020.org/motion/117 (accessed
4.29.20).
Khorozyan, I., Ghoddousi, S., Soufi, M., Soofi, M., Waltert, M., 2020. Studded leather collars are very
effective in protecting cattle from leopard (Panthera pardus) attacks. Ecol. Solut. Evid. 1,
e12013. https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12013
Kobashikawa, S., Trentin, B., Koike, S., 2019. The benefit of wrapping trees in biodegradable material
netting to protect against bark stripping by bears extends to surrounding stands. For. Ecol.
Manag. 437, 134–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2019.01.037
Kolowski, J.M., Holekamp, K.E., 2006. Spatial, temporal, and physical characteristics of livestock
depredations by large carnivores along a Kenyan reserve border. Biol. Conserv. 128, 529–541.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.021
Lamarque, F., Anderson, J., Fergusson, R., Lagrange, M., Osei-Owusu, Y., Bakker, L., 2009. Human-
wildlife conflict in Africa: causes, consequences and management strategies. FAO For. Pap.
Lamprey, R.H., Reid, R.S., 2004. Expansion of human settlement in Kenya’s Maasai Mara: what future
for pastoralism and wildlife? J. Biogeogr. 31, 997–1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2699.2004.01062.x
Landa, A., Gudvangen, K., Swenson, J.E., Røskaft, E., 1999. Factors associated with wolverine Gulo gulo
predation on domestic sheep. J. Appl. Ecol. 36, 963–973. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2664.1999.00451.x
Le Bel, S., La Grange, M., Drouet, N., 2015. Repelling elephants with a chilli pepper gas dispenser: field
tests and practical use in Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe from 2009 to 2013. Pachyderm.
Lichtenfeld, L.L., Trout, C., Kisimir, E.L., 2015. Evidence-based conservation: predator-proof bomas
protect livestock and lions. Biodivers. Conserv. 24, 483–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-
014-0828-x
Malvern Karidozo, F.V.O., 2015. Community Based Conflict Mitigation Trials: Results of Field Tests of
Chilli as an Elephant Deterrent. J. Biodivers. Endanger. Species 3.
https://doi.org/10.4172/2332-2543.1000144
Mazzolli, M., Graipel, M.E., Dunstone, N., 2002. Mountain lion depredation in southern Brazil. Biol.
Conserv. 105, 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(01)00178-1
McKee, J.K., Sciulli, P.W., Fooce, C.D., Waite, T.A., 2003. Forecasting global biodiversity threats
associated with human population growth. Biol. Conserv. 115, 161–164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00099-5
16
Meadows, L.E., Knowlton, F.F., 2000. Efficacy of Guard Ilamas to Reduce Canine Predation on Domestic
Sheep. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 1973-2006 28, 614–622.
Messmer, T.A., 2000. The emergence of human–wildlife conflict management: turning challenges into
opportunities. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 45, 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-
8305(00)00045-7
Meyer, W.B., Turner, B.L., 1992. Human Population Growth and Global Land-Use/Cover Change. Annu.
Rev. Ecol. Syst. 23, 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.23.110192.000351
Mukeka, J.M., Ogutu, J.O., Kanga, E., Røskaft, E., 2019. Human-wildlife conflicts and their correlates in
Narok County, Kenya. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 18, e00620.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00620
Muriuki, M.W., Ipara, H., Kiringe, J.W., 2017. The cost of livestock lost to lions and other wildlife species
in the Amboseli ecosystem, Kenya. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 63, 60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-
017-1117-2
Nyhus, P.J., 2016. Human–Wildlife Conflict and Coexistence. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 143–171.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085634
Ogada, M.O., Woodroffe, R., Oguge, N.O., Frank, L.G., 2003. Limiting Depredation by African
Carnivores: the Role of Livestock Husbandry. Conserv. Biol. 17, 1521–1530.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00061.x
Otto, T.E., Roloff, G., 2015. Black bear exclusion fences to protect mobile apiaries.
https://doi.org/10.26077/DN8A-3941
Palmer, B.C., Conover, M.R., Frey, N., 2010. Replication of a 1970s Study on Domestic Sheep Losses to
Predators on Utah’s Summer Rangelands. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. J. Range Manag. Arch. 63, 689–
695.
Pasitschniak, M., 1993. Mammalian Species : Ursus arctos Linnaeus., 1758. Am. Soc. Mammal. 10.
Pozo, R.A., Coulson, T., McCulloch, G., Stronza, A., Songhurst, A., 2019. Chilli-briquettes modify the
temporal behaviour of elephants, but not their numbers. Oryx 53, 100–108.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001235
Redpath, S.M., Bhatia, S., Young, J., 2015. Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx
49, 222–225. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605314000799
Redpath, S.M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W.M., Sutherland, W.J., Whitehouse, A., Amar, A., Lambert,
R.A., Linnell, J.D.C., Watt, A., Gutiérrez, R.J., 2013. Understanding and managing conservation
conflicts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021
Rigg, R., Finďo, S., Wechselberger, M., Gorman, M.L., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Macdonald, D.W., 2011.
Mitigating carnivore–livestock conflict in Europe: lessons from Slovakia. Oryx 45, 272–280.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605310000074
Riley, S., Aune, K.E., Mace, R.D., Madel, M., 1994. Translocation of Nuisance Grizzly Bears in
Northwestern Montana. https://doi.org/10.2307/3872745
Ripple, W.J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T.M., Galetti, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, E., Mahmoud, M.I., Laurance,
W.F., 15, 364 Scientist Signatories from 184 Countries, 2017. World Scientists’ Warning to
Humanity: A Second Notice. BioScience 67, 1026–1028. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125
Ruyle, L.E., 2018. The Impacts of Conflict on Biodiversity in the Anthropocene, in: Dellasala, D.A.,
Goldstein, M.I. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene. Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 361–368.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809665-9.09849-9
Sejias, 2016. A PROJECT TO INCREASE TOLERANCE TOWARD BEARS THROUGH CONFLICT MITIGATION
AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A POPULATION MANAGEMENT APPROACH 31.
Shivik, J.A., Ruid, D., Willging, R.C., Mock, K.E., 2011. Are the same bears repeatedly translocated from
corn crops in Wisconsin? Ursus 22, 114–119. https://doi.org/10.2192/URSUS-D-10-00031.1
Treves, A., Kapp, K.J., MacFarland, D.M., 2010. American black bear nuisance complaints and hunter
take. Ursus 21, 30–42. https://doi.org/10.2192/09GR012.1
Treves, A., Naughton-Treves, L., 2005. Evaluating lethal control in the management of human–wildlife
conflict, in: Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., Rabinowitz, A. (Eds.), People and Wildlife. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 86–106. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614774.007
17
Widman, M., Elofsson, K., 2018. Costs of Livestock Depredation by Large Carnivores in Sweden 2001
to 2013. Ecol. Econ. 143, 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.008
Woodroffe, R., Frank, L.G., Lindsey, P.A., ole Ranah, S.M.K., Romañach, S., 2007. Livestock husbandry
as a tool for carnivore conservation in Africa’s community rangelands: a case–control study.
Biodivers. Conserv. 16, 1245–1260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9124-8
Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., Rabinowitz, A., 2005. The impact of human–wildlife conflict on natural
systems [WWW Document]. People Wildl. Confl. Co-Exist.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614774.002
Zarco‐González, M.M., Monroy‐Vilchis, O., 2014. Effectiveness of low-cost deterrents in decreasing
livestock predation by felids: a case in Central Mexico. Anim. Conserv. 17, 371–378.
https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12104
Ziegltrum, G.J., 2004. Efficacy of Black Bear Supplemental Feeding to Reduce Conifer Damage in
Western Washington. J. Wildl. Manag. 68, 470–474. https://doi.org/10.2193/0022-
541X(2004)068[0470:EOBBSF]2.0.CO;2
Zimmermann, B., Wabakken, P., Dotterer, M., 2003. Brownbear-livestock conflicts in a
bearconservation zone in Norway: are cattle a good alternativeto sheep? 12.

18