Next Article in Journal
Species Diversity of Benthic Marine Diatoms from a Natural Protected Area in Cuba
Next Article in Special Issue
Strategies for Coordinated Development Between Local Communities and the Northeast China Tiger and Leopard National Park: Case Study of the Hunchun Area
Previous Article in Journal
Distribution of Eukaryotic Environmental DNA in Water and Sediment from Offshore Petroleum Platforms in the Gulf of Thailand
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Game of Risk: Human Activities Shape Roe Deer Spatial Behavior in Presence of Wolves in the Southwestern Alps
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 17
Issue 3
10.3390/d17030180
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fields of Conflict: Public Attitudes and Economic Impacts of Human–Wildlife Conflict on Rural Livelihood in District Lakki Marwat, Pakistan

by
Tauheed Ullah Khan
1,
Ghulam Nabi
2,
Arshad Iqbal
3,
Kalim Ullah
4 and
Huijian Hu
1,*
1
Guangdong Key Laboratory of Animal Conservation and Resource Utilization, Institute of Zoology, Guangdong Academy of Sciences, Guangzhou 510260, China
2
Department of Zoology, Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Lahore, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
3
Center of Biotechnology and Microbiology, University of Swat, Swat 19120, Pakistan
4
Department of Zoology, University of Science and Technology, Kohat 26000, Pakistan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2025, 17(3), 180; https://doi.org/10.3390/d17030180
Submission received: 4 January 2025 / Revised: 26 February 2025 / Accepted: 27 February 2025 / Published: 3 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Conflict and Coexistence Between Humans and Wildlife)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Human–wildlife conflict poses significant ecological and socio-economic challenges, particularly in rural communities where agriculture and livestock rearing form the backbone of livelihoods. Despite the growing importance of this issue, District Lakki Marwat remains an unexplored area of northwest Pakistan. This study aims to fill this gap by systematically assessing the status, economic impacts, and community perceptions of five wildlife species: wild boar (Sus scrofa), grey wolf (Canis lupus), golden jackal (Canis aureus), striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena), and red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Using semi-structured surveys with 117 respondents, we analyzed species prevalence, perceived danger levels, crop damage patterns, and predation impacts on livestock and poultry. The findings revealed that wild boars were identified as the primary contributors to agricultural damage, with total annual crop losses surpassing the economic impacts attributed to the studied carnivores. On average, each surveyed household experienced an annual loss of PKR 4510.38. For the 39% of households reporting crop damage, the annual loss per reported household was PKR 11,727, which was higher than the average annual loss across all households, underscoring the severity of the impact on those specifically affected by the wild boar-related crop damage. Notably, community attitudes were most negative toward wild boars, a pattern driven by the economic burden of crop losses, challenging the conventional focus on carnivores as the primary conflict species. A Pearson’s X 2 test confirmed strong associations between species and perceived danger levels, while regression analysis demonstrated an association between crop damage and negative attitudes. Traditional deterrents like thorn fences were found ineffective against wild boars. More advanced methods, including game-proof fencing, trenches, bio-fencing, crop rotation, audio and visual deterrents, taste and order repellents, and watchtowers combined with group vigilance, are recommended to reduce crop damage. Integrating these approaches with community-based education, habitat management, and government-supported compensation schemes can mitigate wild boar impacts. This study contributes new insights into multi-species HWC dynamics, demonstrating that community perceptions are primarily shaped by the economic impact of a species, regardless of whether it is a carnivore or an omnivore. The attitudes of local communities are driven by the financial losses incurred, rather than the species' behavior or ecological role. This study underscores the need for collaborative efforts to reduce human–wildlife conflict, foster coexistence, and ensure ecological balance in vulnerable rural areas.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Wildlife species hold significant ecological, economic, scientific, and cultural value and play a pivotal role in maintaining ecosystem balance [1] by regulating prey populations and supporting biodiversity [2,3,4]. However, without effective management, they can cause substantial economic losses, resulting in human–wildlife conflict (HWC) [5]. HWC is more prevalent in rural areas, where a large portion of the population depends on livestock rearing and agricultural activities for their livelihood [6]. Conflicts between agrarian interests and wildlife conservation are intensifying worldwide, due to significant economic losses from crops, livestock, and property damage [7,8,9,10,11]. The stakes are higher in developing countries, where rural communities are highly reliant on agricultural crops and livestock rearing for their livelihood [12]. Consequently, these losses breed negative attitudes and perceptions among the agro-pastoral populations. Human–wildlife conflict has significant socio-economic consequences, especially in rural communities where agriculture and livestock are the primary livelihood sources. Understanding human attitudes toward wildlife, including economic impacts and cultural values, is critical for developing effective management strategies [13].
In addition to wildlife behavior, human activities significantly exacerbate HWC. The expansion of agricultural land, infrastructure development, and overgrazing by livestock are key drivers of conflict, as they directly encroach upon natural wildlife habitats, reducing the available space and resources for wildlife. Illegal hunting of natural prey species further strains wildlife populations, particularly large carnivores, which are often forced to prey on livestock when their natural food sources diminish. Additionally, livestock management practices such as bringing animals into wildlife habitats for grazing increase their vulnerability to predation, thereby escalating the conflict. These human-driven factors are critical to understanding the dynamics of HWC, as they create situations where both wildlife and humans bear the costs of conflict. HWC is a global conservation challenge, especially in areas where wildlife coexist with humans [14,15,16]. Large mammalian carnivores including grey wolves (Canis lupus), lions (Panthera leo), jaguars (Panthera onca), snow leopards (Panthera uncia), and common leopards (Panther pardus) are known as the primary suspects for livestock depredation [17,18,19,20], whereas wild boars are known as a serious threat to crops [9,10,21,22,23]. Economic losses due to predators through livestock predation and crop damage by wild boars vary widely in nature and intensity across the globe. However, these losses are very severe when they occur in rural areas, where people heavily rely on livestock rearing and agricultural products for their livelihoods [24].
For communities vulnerable to human–wildlife conflicts, wildlife-induced damage can be financially devastating, jeopardizing their survival, wildlife coexistence, and conservation efforts [17,25,26,27]. In some regions, livestock predations cause economic losses of up to 18% of annual household income, straining pastoral communities already living below the poverty line, while wildlife frequently exacerbate hardships by damaging crops [27]. Retaliatory killings remain a leading threat to predator populations, directly undermining global conservation efforts and contributing to population decline or even extinction of numerous wildlife species [28,29,30]. These challenges highlight the urgency of well-designed and well-thought-out conservation efforts, particularly in areas where livelihoods and biodiversity are deeply intertwined. In regions such as South Asia, similar conflicts are escalating due to growing populations and expanding agricultural frontiers, which increasingly encroach upon wildlife habitats [7,11,31]. Studies from India [7,8,32,33] and Nepal highlight comparable challenges, where wildlife species are perceived as significant threats to crops and livestock, driving retaliatory actions and deepening negative perceptions of wildlife among local communities
Human–wildlife conflict is particularly severe in Pakistan due to rapid population growth, and the conversion of natural habitat into agricultural land and infrastructure. These changes increase the frequency of human–wildlife encounters, most of which have adverse effects on both humans and wildlife. In Pakistan, where agriculture contributes 22.04% to the gross domestic product (GDP) and supports 35.9% of employment, the stakes of HWC are particularly high [34,35]. Approximately 62% of the country’s population resides in rural areas and depends directly or indirectly on agro-pastoral livelihoods. Pakistan’s rich biodiversity includes several wildlife species that frequently damage crops and livestock, leading to substantial retaliatory killings [5,31]. Among the wildlife species contributing to HWC, wild boars (Sus scrofa) are particularly destructive, causing significant crop losses across their rapidly expanding range [36], while carnivores such as the grey wolf (Canis lupus), golden jackal (Canis aureus), striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena), and red fox (Vulpes vulpes) prey on livestock, pets, and poultry, further exacerbating economic and ecological tensions in agro-pastoral regions [37,38].
This study focused on District Lakki Marwat, where five species—grey wolf, golden jackal, striped hyena, red fox, and wild boar—have been identified as significant contributors to economic losses to the rural communities. Despite ongoing wildlife-related economic losses, Lakki Marwat has remained largely unstudied in terms of human–wildlife conflicts. This study attempts to fill this gap by providing a systematic assessment of WHC in the study area. Moreover, while many HWC studies primarily focus on a single species or only large carnivores, this research adopts a broader approach by incorporating both carnivores and an omnivorous species—wild boars—to provide a more comprehensive understanding of conflict dynamics in agro-pastoral landscapes. By surveying local communities, we aimed to quantify the impacts of these species, evaluate the economic consequences of livestock predation and crop damage, and assess community attitudes toward wildlife. The findings of this study provide critical insights into species-specific conflict dynamics and offer a foundation for targeted, evidence-based mitigation strategies that balance the needs of biodiversity conservation and community livelihoods. Our research adds to the growing body of knowledge on HWC [8,33,37,38,39] and emphasizes the global relevance of the issue, with lessons that can be applied to other regions facing similar challenges in balancing conservation and rural livelihoods.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

This study was carried out across the rural communities of District Lakki Marwat in the southern regions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Figure 1). This district has an area of 3164 km2 and a total of 131,800 households. It has a population of 1,040,856, resulting in a population density of approximately 329 individuals per square kilometer. The district’s predominantly rural population relies on agriculture and livestock, producing crops like wheat, maize, peanuts, and chickpeas, along with cash crops such as melons and vegetables, with potential for growth through improved irrigation [40].

2.2. Field Surveys

We interviewed a total of 117 respondents from the rural communities of District Lakki Marwat. It is crucial to emphasize that the survey was deliberately designed to focus on rural villages with distinct agricultural and ecological characteristics, which are integral to the research objectives. These selected villages are representative of the areas most impacted by human–wildlife conflict, primarily due to their higher levels of agricultural and livestock activity. Additionally, the ecological richness of these regions, characterized by diverse habitats and intensive land use, makes them particularly relevant for understanding the complex interactions between human activities and wildlife. By concentrating on these specific villages, this study aimed to obtain a more targeted and in-depth analysis of the local dynamics driving human–wildlife conflict, which would provide more nuanced insights compared to a broader, less focused sampling approach. The inclusion of 5–10% of households from each surveyed village ensures that the sample is both statistically meaningful and representative, offering a robust basis for assessing the key factors contributing to human–wildlife conflict within these high-impact areas [37,38]. This approach allows for a deeper understanding of the localized phenomena, ensuring the findings are relevant and applicable to the regions under study. Due to social constraints and cultural context, only male respondents were interviewed, as they are primarily involved in agricultural and related activities [37,38].
Questionnaire surveys are useful in collecting information about the presence, tolerance, and perception of local communities toward predators [38,41]. Moreover, the local people could be a valuable source of information regarding their ecosystems [42,43]. Participants were selected based on their pre-existing knowledge about wildlife species reported from the study area including grey wolf, golden jackal, red fox, striped hyena, and wild boar [44]. The respondents included herders, farmers, businessmen, government servants, and local hunters. The interviews were conducted using a predesigned, semi-structured questionnaire form having a series of open-ended questions. To obtain credible information on the species in question, color photographs of wild boars along with other species including grey wolf, golden jackal, common leopard, striped hyaena, and red fox were shown to respondents, who were then asked to identify them [38]. Before questioning, respondents were informed about this study’s purpose, the anonymity of the data, and their freedom to withdraw from the survey at any point, which helps prevent biased responses and exaggerated information [42]. Formal consent from each respondent was obtained prior to commencing the questionnaire (Supplementary Materials, Table S1).
The questionnaire contained a total of 15 items divided into several sections (Supplementary Materials, Table S2). The initial section gathered demographic data of the respondents, such as age, household size, education level, profession, monthly income, number of earning members in the family, and agriculture land ownership. The next main section of the questionnaire inquired about the number of sightings of the species and their status (absent, rare, and common). Then, they were asked about the perceived danger of the species to their livestock and crops, and the extent of damage and associated estimated economic losses due to particular species in the last two years. Economic losses due to wildlife-induced damage were estimated based on the market prices of affected crops and livestock. The respondents were requested to provide the estimated quantity of crop damage due to wildlife and associated estimated economic loss. For accuracy, we cross-checked the reported crop prices with those in the respective Union Council (lowest administrative unit in local governments) markets, where prices are generally uniform due to government regulation and price control. For livestock, as prices are typically determined through negotiation between buyers and sellers, we relied on the estimated prices provided by the respondents. Additionally, the first and fourth authors are residents of the surveyed area, providing them with firsthand knowledge of the typical price ranges for both crops and livestock. Moreover, the respondents were asked about the desired outcome for species population trends (want to increase, decrease, maintain, or eliminate). The intensity of each species' threat to crops and livestock was measured on a five-point Likert scale [45], with categories ranging from “no threat” to “extreme threat”. This scale also assessed the dependency of respondents on agriculture and livestock for their livelihood and allowed for comparisons in the severity of perceived damage due to the species. The interviews were taken from the respondents in the study area with the help of written semi-structured questionnaires designed with open-ended questions [37,38,42,46].

2.3. Data Analysis

The data were analyzed in R (4.3.2) using packages like dplyr, ggplot2, vcd, and gridExtra [47] for data management, analysis, and visualizations. For statistical insights, a Chi-squared test was used to assess the relationship between the species status reported by the respondents and their attitude toward its population trend. We conducted multiple linear regression analysis using R to assess the relationship between economic losses and negative attitudes toward wildlife. The dependent variable (Y) was negative perceptions toward wildlife, while independent variables (X) included economic losses due to crop damage (PKR), economic losses due to livestock predation (PKR), land size (hectares), livestock ownership (number of livestock), and household income (PKR) (Equation (1)). For analysis, the ordinal categories for negative attitudes were coded as numerical values (eliminate = 4, reduce = 3, maintain = 2, and increase = 1), allowing them to be treated as a continuous variable in the regression model. We used functions from the ggplot2 and ggpubr packages in R to visualize relationships between variables. Scatter plots with linear regression lines and confidence intervals were generated to illustrate these relationships, and Pearson correlation coefficients [48] and p-values were calculated to quantify the strength and significance of associations. The geographical map of the studied area was developed using the Arc Global Positioning System (Arc GIS) (Version 10.5). Equation (1) was calculated as follows:
Y = β 0 + β 1 X 1 + β 2 X 2 + β 3 X 3 + β 4 X 4 + ε
where Y (dependent variable): negative attitudes toward species (measured on a Likert scale); X1 (independent variable): agricultural land size (hectares); X2 (independent variable): livestock herd size (total number of livestock owned); X3 (independent variable): total economic losses (crop + livestock PKR); X4 (independent variable): species type (categorical variable: wild boar, grey wolf, etc., converted into dummy variables); β0 (intercept): baseline level of negative attitudes when all predictors are zero; β1 to β4 (regression coefficients): estimated effect of each independent variable on negative attitudes; and ε (error term): residual variance not explained by the model.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic Details of the Surveyed Respondents

A total of 117 respondents volunteered for the surveys (Table 1). The respondent profession data indicate that the majority of participants identified as farmers, accounting for 38.46% (45 respondents). Herders formed the second-largest group at 24.79% (29 respondents), followed by businessmen at 19.66% (23 respondents) and government servants at 17.09% (20 respondents). The analysis of agricultural land ownership among respondents revealed that the largest proportion of participants (45.30%) own land in the 1 to 8.1-hectare range (1 to 20 Kanal), totaling 53 respondents. This is followed by an 8.1 to 12.1-hectare range (21 to 30 Kanal), representing 27.35% (32 respondents). Respondents owning land 12.1 hectares (31 Kanal and above) account for 23.08% (27 respondents), while a small proportion (4.27%, five respondents) reported having no agricultural land. An analysis of livestock ownership among respondents shows that sheep are the most commonly owned livestock, accounting for 42.02% of the total (321 animals). This is closely followed by goats, which represent 38.74% (296 animals). Cows and donkeys are less prevalent, contributing 12.43% (95 animals) and 6.81% (52 animals) to the total livestock count, respectively.

3.2. Species Status as Perceived by Respondents

The analysis evaluated community perceptions of species’ statuses (common, rare, and absent) across five species: wild boar, striped hyena, grey wolf, golden jackal, and red fox (Figure 2). Descriptive statistics revealed significant variation in the frequency of responses across categories. Wild boars and golden jackals were most frequently reported as “common,” with 93 and 103 responses, respectively. In contrast, grey wolves and striped hyenas received higher “absent” responses (43 and 57, respectively), reflecting a general perception of lower prevalence in the study area. The “rare” status showed moderate frequency for most species, with grey wolves receiving the highest (51 responses).

3.3. Perceived Danger of Species to Livestock and Crops

Community perceptions of species’ danger to livestock were analyzed across five species. The distribution of responses highlights significant differences in perceptions about the species in the study area. Grey wolves (78 responses) and golden jackals (67 responses) were most frequently categorized as posing extreme danger, while wild boars were predominantly perceived as posing a negligible danger to livestock, with 109 responses (Figure 3, Supplementary Materials, Table S3). Striped hyenas received mixed perceptions, with the majority of respondents categorizing them as posing low danger (89 responses). A Pearson’s Chi-squared test was conducted to evaluate the association between species and their perceived danger rankings. The results indicate a highly significant association (χ2 = 901.29, df = 20, p < 2.2 × 10−16), suggesting that perceptions of danger varied significantly across species. The analysis of crop damage perceptions (perceived threat/danger of a species for crop damage) revealed that only wild boars were held responsible, with the majority of responses categorizing them under extreme danger (103 responses) and high danger (14 responses). Other species, such as striped hyena, grey wolf, golden jackal, and red fox, were not perceived as contributors to crop damage.

3.4. Temporal and Seasonal Patterns in Crop Raiding and Damage

The analysis of crop raiding events revealed a clear nocturnal tendency, with night accounting for 48.72% (57 events) of all incidents, followed by morning (22.22%, 26 events), evening (17.95%, 21 events), and day being the least frequent (11.11%, 13 events) (Supplementary Materials, Table S4). A Chi-Square Goodness-of-Fit test confirmed these differences as statistically significant (χ2 = 38.043, df = 3, p < 0.001), indicating an uneven distribution of raiding events across times of the day. The seasonal crop damage analysis identified spring as the most affected season (Supplementary Materials, Table S4), accounting for 35.04% (41 incidents), followed by autumn (31.62%, 37 incidents), winter (17.95%, 21 incidents), and summer with the lowest damage (15.38%, 18 incidents). A Chi-Square Goodness-of-Fit test (χ2 = 13.427, df = 3, p = 0.0038) highlighted significant seasonal variations, emphasizing spring and autumn as critical periods for crop damage mitigation.

3.5. Predation Patterns and Economic Impact of Species

The analysis of predation patterns revealed notable distinctions among the studied predators regarding their impact on livestock, pets, poultry, and crops (Table 2). Grey wolves caused an estimated PKR 113,000 in losses over two years, affecting 5% of the surveyed households. The annual loss per household due to grey wolves was PKR 56,500 (or USD 281.1), with affected families incurring a financial burden of PKR 9417 annually on average. Golden jackals and red foxes primarily target poultry, with predation losses of PKR 37,100 (approximately USD 92.3) for golden jackals and PKR 25,900 (around USD 92.5 for red foxes. Golden jackals affected 20% of the surveyed households, while red foxes were reported by 16% of the households. The average annual loss per affected household was PKR 807 for golden jackals and PKR 682 for red foxes. Striped hyenas caused an estimated loss of PKR 55,000 (approximately USD 136.8) over the two years. Striped hyenas impacted 4% of the surveyed households, resulting in an average annual loss of PKR 5500 per affected household.
In contrast, wild boars are solely responsible for significant crop losses, which exceed all other forms of wildlife damage combined. The estimated total crop damage caused by wild boars amounts to PKR 1,055,429 (equivalent to USD 5250.89) over the two years (Figure 4, Supplementary Materials, Table S5). Wild boars have caused substantial losses to crops, especially maize and groundnuts, with the highest financial impact from maize losses, amounting to PKR 265,973 (approximately USD 1323.25). The total annual loss due to crop damage caused by wild boars was PKR 527,714.5 (USD 2625.45). On average, each of the 117 surveyed households experienced an annual loss of PKR 4510.38. A significant 39% of the households surveyed reported crop losses due to wild boars. The annual loss per reported household was PKR 11,727, which was notably higher than the average annual loss across all surveyed households, underscoring the severity of impact on those specifically affected by wild boar-related crop damage.

3.6. Community Attitudes Toward Species Population

This study examined community attitudes regarding five species and revealed that the highest count for “eliminate (eliminate the entire population of the species from the area)” was recorded for wild boar (78 responses), while “maintain” attitudes were most frequent for golden jackal (42 responses) (Figure 5, Supplementary Materials, Table S6). Attitudes toward population “increase” remained low across all species, with the highest being for golden jackal (25 responses).
A Chi-squared test revealed a highly significant association between wildlife species and community attitudes (χ2 = 215.68, df = 32, p < 2.2 × 10−16), highlighting that negative perceptions vary substantially across species. An ANOVA test confirmed significant differences in negative attitudes across species (F = 637.4, p < 0.001). Pairwise t-tests with Bonferroni adjustments indicated statistically significant differences between negative attitudes toward wild boars and all other species (p < 0.001), further underscoring the disproportionately negative perception toward wild boars. The analysis of negative attitudes toward wildlife species revealed that wild boars experienced the highest negative perception, with an aggregated score exceeding 200, significantly differing from all other species (p < 0.001) (Figure 6). The negative attitudes score for each species is derived from the sum of individual ratings (1–4) provided by the respondents, where higher values indicate more negative attitudes. Grey wolves and striped hyenas also received relatively high negative scores, reflecting moderate concerns about their impact on livestock and human–wildlife conflict. In contrast, red foxes and golden jackals were perceived less negatively, with scores below 130, suggesting they are considered less threatening. The negative attitude score represents the sum of respondents’ ratings based on perceived threat and the extent of damage caused by each species. The multiple linear regression model revealed significant predictors of negative attitudes toward wildlife species, explaining 79% (Adjusted R2 = 0.79) of the variance (Table 3). Total economic losses (crop damage and livestock predation combined) emerged as the strongest predictor of negative attitudes (β = 0.48, t = 6.86, p < 0.001), indicating that financial burdens significantly influence community perceptions of wildlife. Among the socio-economic variables, livestock herd size was positively associated with negative attitudes (β = 0.25, t = 4.17, p < 0.001), suggesting that larger herds correlate with higher negative perceptions. Conversely, agricultural land size showed a significant negative relationship (β = −0.10, t = −2.50, p = 0.013), indicating that households with larger landholdings tend to exhibit greater tolerance toward wildlife. When considering species type, wild boars were associated with the highest negative attitudes (β = 0.75, p < 0.001), reflecting their significant impact on crop damage and subsequent economic losses. Among carnivores, grey wolves (β = 0.32, p = 0.002) and striped hyenas (β = 0.28, p = 0.003) were the most negatively perceived, likely due to their predation on livestock and domestic animals. In contrast, red foxes and golden jackals were associated with lower negative perceptions, and their coefficients were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). These findings highlight the critical role of economic losses and species type in shaping community attitudes toward wildlife, emphasizing the need for targeted, species-specific mitigation strategies to address human–wildlife conflict effectively.

4. Discussion

This study identified, quantified, and analyzed the magnitude of human–wildlife conflict in rural communities of District Lakki Marwat located in northwest Pakistan. It focused on the economic impacts, crop damage, predation patterns and intensities, and communities’ perceptions and attitudes toward the species of grey wolf, golden jackal, striped hyena, red fox, and wild boar. This study employed the questionnaire survey method, which is a widely utilized approach in studies addressing similar objectives [37,38]. Community-based surveys allow locals to express their perspectives about wildlife, which are critical for designing effective management plans [49,50,51]. This study offers a unique perspective by focusing on four carnivore species and one omnivore. By integrating both carnivores and omnivores, this work provides a broader understanding of multi-species HWC dynamics and highlights how different species contribute to economic losses and local perceptions. This study highlights that community perceptions toward wildlife are driven by the economic impacts of the species, whether carnivore or omnivore, rather than behavior or ecological role.
Communities’ attitudes toward wildlife play a pivotal role in determining the success or failure of conservation efforts. Negative perceptions, particularly fueled by economic losses, often result in retaliatory killings and reduced local support for conservation [3,39]. For instance, retaliatory killings of grey wolves have resulted in population declines across their distribution range [52,53]. Moreover, in some parts of Europe, negative public attitudes toward grey wolves have caused conflicts over reintroduction programs [54,55]. HWC causes significant economic losses, with damages to livestock and crops from wildlife species [46] ranging from 3% to 18% of income for rural communities [27], leading to negative perceptions and attitudes toward wildlife [56]. These losses are primarily due to the direct impact of wildlife, while human responses such as preventative measures also contribute to the economic burden.
In our study, wild boars and golden jackals were most frequently reported as common, while grey wolves and striped hyenas were perceived as rare or absent. This variation in the status of the studied species could be attributed to habitat availability, prey density, and human activity in the region. Wild boars’ adaptability to human-dominated landscapes, coupled with their high reproductive rates and lack of natural predators, likely explains their abundance [57]. Golden jackals are also reported from the area [58].
Grey wolves and golden jackals were identified as extreme danger to livestock. These findings align with global research showing that carnivores are often perceived as major threats to livestock [7]. Human–wildlife conflict is a pervasive conservation challenge, particularly in biodiversity hotspots where carnivores coexist with humans [14,15,16]. These conflicts often lead to significant socio-economic losses for rural communities. In areas where wild prey compete with livestock for resources, their decline has exacerbated human–wildlife conflict through livestock predation [32,59]. Ecological, socio-economic, and cultural factors drive these conflicts, with habitat depletion and prey depletion increasing livestock predation risk [18,60]. Globally, large carnivores such as lions, jaguars, pumas, and hyenas conflict with humans, resulting in retaliatory killings and declining populations [17]. These carnivores impose significant economic losses on rural communities [39,61]. In some regions, livestock constitute up to 70% of carnivore diets, leading to economic losses of USD 50 to 300 per household annually.
Conversely, wild boars were predominantly categorized as negligible threats to livestock but were held solely responsible for crop damage. This dual perception underscores the species-specific nature of human–wildlife conflict, where carnivores are linked to livestock predation and omnivorous species like wild boars are associated with crop destruction. Wild boars frequently damage crops and property, resulting in substantial economic losses [9,10,22,23,62]. Their omnivorous diet includes over 400 plant species, among which 40 are staple crops [33]. They damage agrarian lands, orchards, forests, pastures, and nurseries, destroying crops at all growth stages, from seedlings to mature plants [63]. The high reproductive rate, generalist diet, and lack of natural predators that enable rapid population growth have heightened the scale of agricultural damage, significantly contributing to food losses among farmers and intensifying HWC [64]. Additionally, the damage inflicted by wild boars contributes to a more negative public perception of wildlife [5]. Every year, rural communities bear substantial economic losses due to wild boars [65].
In addition, we found that wild boars raid farmlands predominately at night and during certain seasons (autumn and spring seasons) (see Section 3.4: “Temporal and Seasonal Patterns in Crop Raiding and Damage” for details). These patterns reflect the availability of preferred crops, such as maize and wheat, during this season. In particular, maize was the crop most frequently targeted, a finding consistent with other studies [66,67]. Seasonal and nocturnal crop-raiding behaviors are well documented in wild boar populations, as they exploit agricultural fields during harvest seasons when crop density and nutritional value are highest [68,69].
The economic analysis revealed that wild-boar-driven economic losses due to crop damage were significantly higher than other losses (livestock predation or poultry losses) attributed to other predators (see Section 3.5: “Predation Patterns and Economic Impact of Species” for detail). These findings align with studies that identify wild boars as one of the most destructive wildlife species for crops globally [66,70]. The annual economic losses reported in this study, particularly from wild boar crop damages, represent a significant financial burden for affected families. The annual losses due to wild boars exceed the average rural household income in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa [71,72]. These losses are notably higher than those reported in other studies [73,74], highlighting the severity of human–wildlife conflict in general, specifically emphasizing the impact of wild boars in the area.
The study area experiences minimal livestock losses from carnivores like grey wolves and golden jackals, likely due to their low population and sighting rates. In contrast, wild boars are abundant and highly adaptable, thriving in various environments and frequently raiding crops near farmlands. The agrarian nature of the region, with cropland often intersecting natural habitats, further increases the risk of wild boar crop damage. Additionally, locals maintain small, well-managed livestock herds, typically housed securely with adequate fodder, reducing vulnerability to predation. While proper livestock management helps mitigate predation risks, the lack of fencing leaves crops unprotected from wild boar raids, making crop losses significantly higher than livestock losses in the area.
The findings of this study contribute significantly to the broader understanding of human–wildlife conflict (HWC), particularly in rural, agriculture-dependent communities. While our research is based in District Lakki Marwat, Pakistan, it aligns with global trends in HWC, where communities experience significant economic losses from crop damage and livestock predation. Similar conflicts have been documented in other rural areas worldwide, particularly in regions like Europe and Asia, where species such as wild boars and large carnivores, like wolves and hyenas, cause significant agricultural and livestock losses [23,75,76]. These findings underscore the global nature of HWC and highlight the need for integrated, context-specific management strategies that can be adapted to diverse agro-pastoral landscapes [77,78].
The analysis of community attitudes highlights the polarized perceptions of wildlife species. Wild boars were viewed most negatively, with over 70% of respondents advocating for their elimination (see Section 3.6). Grey wolves and striped hyenas also received moderate negative perceptions due to their impact on livestock. Negative attitudes were significantly associated with economic losses, specifically caused due to crop damage, for which wild boars were held responsible. This explains the highest prevailing negative attitude toward wild boars in the area. As in our study area, the majority of the losses were due to crop damage, while losses due to other species (carnivores) were negligible. The results are consistent with studies demonstrating that economic losses intensify negative attitudes toward wildlife and drive retaliatory actions [79,80,81,82].
The intensity of human wild boar conflict is likely to escalate in the region, with the reconstruction and reopening of the Marwat Canal [83]. This development would enable locals to cultivate long-abandoned agricultural lands previously left unused due unavailability of a consistent water supply. The canal will enhance irrigation activities, leading to an expansion of wheat and maize cultivation in the area. As the sowing area increases, the risk of crop damage will rise, potentially escalating human–wild boar conflict. These crops are highly attractive to wild boars, whose population thrives in the area due to the presence of natural dens and species habitat (first author's personal experience).
Protecting crops from wild boar raiding necessitates devising different management strategies. Physical barriers, like electric fencing, are considered the most effective deterrent, causing a mild, non-lethal electric shock to deter wild boars from raiding the crop. Building non-electric fences or trenches around the agricultural land could also work as an effective barrier against wild boars’ intrusion. Other electronic deterrents, including lights, sound alarms, or sprinklers, offer a dynamic approach by discouraging boars during nighttime. In addition to non-lethal methods, sanctioned lethal control measures, when necessary and legally approved, could serve as a last resort for managing severe wild boar infestations, provided they meet regulatory requirements. However, such measures are typically only implemented when other management strategies prove ineffective.
Additionally, crop rotation and planting of less-preferred crops in high-conflict land during peak foraging times may lessen the crop damage and associated economic losses. Employing a combination of these strategies would help protect crops while fostering coexistence between wild boars and agricultural communities [84]. Therefore, site-specific management strategies, such as combining physical barriers with active deterrents, are crucial for mitigating wild boar damage effectively. Additionally, collaborative efforts between local communities and conservation authorities are essential to enhance the effectiveness of these methods. Information sharing and technical support for implementing innovative solutions can help farmers adapt their strategies over time. These measures, alongside tailored approaches like crop rotation or planting less palatable crops near high-risk areas, offer a sustainable pathway to reducing economic losses caused by wild boars [85]. The findings underscore the need for tailored conflict mitigation strategies. For wild boars, measures such as community-based deterrents, fencing, and seasonal crop rotation could help reduce crop damage [86]. Given the socio-economic vulnerabilities of smallholder farmers, compensation schemes or financial incentives for adopting non-lethal control methods could foster coexistence.
This study highlights the socio-economic challenges of HWC in rural Pakistan, emphasizing the dual need to protect livelihoods and conserve wildlife. Community engagement is crucial for developing sustainable conflict mitigation strategies. Participatory approaches that integrate local knowledge and involve stakeholders in decision-making can enhance the effectiveness of conservation efforts [87,88]. Additionally, addressing underlying drivers of conflict, such as habitat degradation and prey depletion, is essential for reducing human–wildlife interactions and fostering coexistence.

5. Conclusions

This study provides a comprehensive assessment of human–wildlife conflict (HWC) in the rural communities of northwestern Pakistan, focusing on both carnivorous and omnivorous species. Unlike conventional narratives that emphasize carnivores as the main drivers of conflict [18,31,37,38,39], our findings highlight that negative community perceptions are largely shaped by the economic impact of a species, rather than ecological role or feeding behavior. The disproportionate hostility toward wild boars, despite their non-predatory nature, underscores the need for mitigation strategies tailored to the economic realities of affected communities. Unlike carnivore conflict, which often centers on livestock predation, wild boar-related losses are predominantly linked to crop damage, requiring a different management approach. The findings underscore the need for a multi-pronged approach, combining traditional deterrents, and advanced methods such as game-proof fencing, trenches, bio-fencing, crop rotation, and watchtowers combined with group vigilance and community-based initiatives to reduce crop and livestock losses. Integrating these methods with education campaigns, habitat management, and government-supported compensation schemes can significantly mitigate conflicts. Beyond direct conflict mitigation, this study also highlights an unintended but valuable outcome: by engaging with local communities, the research itself fostered discussions on the ecological role of wildlife, encouraging greater awareness of conservation issues. Comprehensive field surveys, including camera trapping and sign surveys, are recommended to assess the status of the observed species in the area. Addressing these conflicts holistically is critical for fostering coexistence and ensuring the sustainable management of biodiversity in the region.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/d17030180/s1: Table S1: Consent letter used in this study; Table S2: Questionnaire used in this study; Table S3: Perceived danger of the species as a threat to livestock; Table S4: Temporal and seasonal patterns of crop raiding events; Table S5: Wild boar-induced crop damage: reported losses in Pakistani Rupees (PKRs) and United States Dollars (USDs); Table S6: Community attitudes toward species populations. The percentage distribution of attitudes highlights the dominance of particular attitudes across species.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: T.U.K. and H.H.; methodology: T.U.K., A.I., K.U. and G.N.; software: T.U.K., K.U. and A.I.; validation: T.U.K., K.U., H.H. and A.I.; formal analysis: T.U.K.; investigation: T.U.K., K.U., A.I. and G.N.; resources: H.H.; data curation: T.U.K., A.I., K.U. and G.N.; writing—original draft preparation: T.U.K.; writing—review and editing: H.H., K.U., A.I. and G.N.; visualization: T.U.K. and A.I.; supervision: H.H.; project administration: T.U.K., G.N., K.U. and A.I.; funding acquisition: H.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 31901109), GDAS Special Project of Science and Technology Development (2022GDASZH-2022010105, 2022GDASZH-2022010101), and Dynamic Monitoring of Distribution, Quantity and Activity of Typical Large and Medium-sized Mammals in the Yarlung Tsangpo River Basin (54000022T000000071200, 54000024210200021038).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are already provided in this paper and the Supplementary Materials. For more information, contact with the first author is welcomed.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their sincere gratitude to the relevant government departments for their support in facilitating the field surveys. We extend our thanks to Robin Hacker for her invaluable technical assistance, editorial contributions, and insightful suggestions, which have significantly enhanced the quality of this manuscript. Finally, we express our deep appreciation to the local communities for their support and hospitality extended to our survey teams during the field surveys. We would like to express our gratitude to the anonymous reviewer(s) for their valuable feedback and constructive suggestions, which significantly helped improve the quality of this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
HWCHuman–wildlife conflict
PKRPakistani Rupee
USDUnited States Dollar
kmKilometer

References

  1. Kula, E. Economics of Natural Resources, the Environment and Policies; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  2. del Rio, C.M.; Dugelby, B.; Foreman, D.; Miller, B.; Noss, R.; Phillips, M. The importance of large carnivores to healthy ecosystems. Endanger. Species Update 2001, 18, 202–218. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ripple, W.J.; Estes, J.A.; Beschta, R.L.; Wilmers, C.C.; Ritchie, E.G.; Hebblewhite, M.; Berger, J.; Elmhagen, B.; Letnic, M.; Nelson, M.P. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science 2014, 343, 1241484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ripple, W.; Chapron, G.; López-Bao, J.; Durant, S.; Macdonald, D.; Lindsey, P.; Corlett, R. Saving the world’s terrestrial megafauna. Bioscience 2016, 66, 807e812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Khattak, R.H.; Teng, L.; Mehmood, T.; Ahmad, S.; Bari, F.; Rehman, E.U.; Liu, Z. Understanding the Dynamics of Human–Wildlife Conflicts in North-Western Pakistan: Implications for Sustainable Conservation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Deodatus, F. Wildlife damage in rural areas with emphasis on Malawi. In Wildlife Conservation by Sustainable Use; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2000; pp. 115–140. [Google Scholar]
  7. Karanth, K.K.; Gopalaswamy, A.M.; Prasad, P.K.; Dasgupta, S. Patterns of human–wildlife conflicts and compensation: Insights from Western Ghats protected areas. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 166, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Manral, U.; Sengupta, S.; Hussain, S.A.; Rana, S.; Badola, R. Human wildlife conflict in India: A review of economic implication of loss and preventive measures. Indian For. 2016, 142, 928–940. [Google Scholar]
  9. Miller, R.S.; Sweeney, S.J.; Slootmaker, C.; Grear, D.A.; Di Salvo, P.A.; Kiser, D.; Shwiff, S.A. Cross-species transmission potential between wild pigs, livestock, poultry, wildlife, and humans: Implications for disease risk management in North America. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 7821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Brown, V.R.; Bowen, R.A.; Bosco-Lauth, A.M. Zoonotic pathogens from feral swine that pose a significant threat to public health. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2018, 65, 649–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Su, K.; Ren, J.; Yang, J.; Hou, Y.; Wen, Y. Human-elephant conflicts and villagers’ attitudes and knowledge in the Xishuangbanna Nature Reserve, China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Barua, M.; Bhagwat, S.A.; Jadhav, S. The hidden dimensions of human–wildlife conflict: Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biol. Conserv. 2013, 157, 309–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Decker, D.J.; Riley, S.J.; Siemer, W.F. Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management; JHU Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  14. Jamtsho, Y.; Katel, O. Livestock depredation by snow leopard and Tibetan wolf: Implications for herders’ livelihoods in Wangchuck Centennial National Park, Bhutan. Pastoralism 2019, 9, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Woodroffe, R. 24 The future of coexistence: Resolving human-wildlife conflicts in a changing world Rosie Woodroffe, Simon Thirgood and Alan Rabinowitz. People Wildl. Confl. Co-Exist. 2005, 9, 388. [Google Scholar]
  16. Holmern, T.; Nyahongo, J.; Røskaft, E. Livestock loss caused by predators outside the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 135, 518–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bagchi, S.; Mishra, C. Living with large carnivores: Predation on livestock by the snow leopard (Uncia uncia). J. Zool. 2006, 268, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chetri, M.; Odden, M.; Devineau, O.; Wegge, P. Patterns of livestock depredation by snow leopards and other large carnivores in the Central Himalayas, Nepal. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 17, e00536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Moheb, Z.; Fuller, T.K.; Zahler, P.I. Snow leopard-human conflict as a conservation challenge-a review. In Snow Leopards; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  20. Zaman, M.; Jackson, R.; Hussain, S. Spatio-temporal human snow leopard (Panthera uncia) conflicts and mitigation measures in Baltistan-free-livestock grazing pastoral areas. J. Nat. Conserv. 2024, 82, 126724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gentle, M.; Speed, J.; Marshall, D. Consumption of crops by feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in a fragmented agricultural landscape. Aust. Mammal. 2015, 37, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bolds, S.A.; Lockaby, B.G.; Kalin, L.; Ditchkoff, S.S.; Smith, M.D.; VerCauteren, K.C. Wild pig removal reduces pathogenic bacteria in low-order streams. Biol. Invasions 2022, 24, 1453–1463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Massei, G.; Roy, S.; Bunting, R. Too many hogs? A review of methods to mitigate impact by wild boar and feral hogs. Hum. Wildl. Interact. 2011, 5, 79–99. [Google Scholar]
  24. Wang, S.W.; Macdonald, D. Livestock predation by carnivores in Jigme Singye Wangchuck national park, Bhutan. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 129, 558–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jackson, R.M. HWC ten years later: Successes and shortcomings of approaches to global snow leopard conservation. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2015, 20, 310–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Bergstrom, B.J. Carnivore conservation: Shifting the paradigm from control to coexistence. J. Mammal. 2017, 98, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Namgail, T.; Fox, J.L.; Bhatnagar, Y.V. Carnivore-caused livestock mortality in Trans-Himalaya. Environ. Manag. 2007, 39, 490–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Qamar, Q.Z.; Usman, A.; Minhas, R.A.; Dar, N.I.; Anwar, M. New distribution information on woolly flying squirrel (Eupetaurus cinereus Thomas, 1888) in Neelum Valley of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. Pak. J. Zool. 2012, 44, 1333–1342. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ripple, W.J.; Beschta, R.L. Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: The first 15 years after wolf reintroduction. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 145, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. van der Wal, J.E.; Spottiswoode, C.N.; Uomini, N.T.; Cantor, M.; Daura-Jorge, F.G.; Afan, A.I.; Attwood, M.C.; Amphaeris, J.; Balasani, F.; Begg, C.M. Safeguarding human–wildlife cooperation. Conserv. Lett. 2022, 15, e12886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Khattak, R.H.; Teng, L.; Mehmood, T.; Ahmad, S.; Rehman, E.U.; Basak, S.M.; Liu, Z. A Perspective of the Human–Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) Conflicts in Kumrat Valley, Northern Pakistan. Diversity 2022, 14, 887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mishra, C.; Van Wieren, S.E.; Ketner, P.; Heitkönig, I.M.; Prins, H.H. Competition between domestic livestock and wild bharal Pseudois nayaur in the Indian Trans-Himalaya. J. Appl. Ecol. 2004, 41, 344–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chauhan, N.; Evaluation of crop damage in the eco-development project area to suggest mitigation measures. Wildl. Inst. India. Dehra Dun India. 1999. FREEP-GHNP, 04/1867. Available online: https://www.greathimalayannationalpark.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Research_Crop_Damage_Study_by_Chauhan.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 3 January 2025).
  34. Rehman, A.; Jingdong, L.; Shahzad, B.; Chandio, A.A.; Hussain, I.; Nabi, G.; Iqbal, M.S. Economic perspectives of major field crops of Pakistan: An empirical study. Pac. Sci. Rev. B Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2015, 1, 145–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jatoi, F.Z. Agriculture in Pakistan and its impact on Economic growth. Available SSRN 2021. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3771914 (accessed on 3 January 2025).
  36. Johnson, H.E.; Golden, T.S.; Adams, L.G.; Gustine, D.D.; Lenart, E.A. Caribou use of habitat near energy development in Arctic Alaska. J. Wildl. Manag. 2020, 84, 401–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ahmad, S.; Hameed, S.; Ali, H.; Khan, T.U.; Mehmood, T.; Nawaz, M.A. Carnivores’ diversity and conflicts with humans in Musk deer national Park, azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2016, 62, 565–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Khan, T.U.; Luan, X.; Ahmad, S.; Mannan, A.; Khan, W.; Khan, A.A.; Khan, B.U.; Din, E.U.; Bhattarai, S.; Shah, S. Status and magnitude of grey wolf conflict with pastoral communities in the foothills of the Hindu Kush Region of Pakistan. Animals 2019, 9, 787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Tiwari, M.P.; Devkota, B.P.; Jackson, R.M.; Chhetri, B.B.K.; Bagale, S. What factors predispose households in trans-Himalaya (central Nepal) to livestock predation by snow leopards? Animals 2020, 10, 2187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Board Of Investment And Trade. Lakki Marwat District. Available online: https://kpboit.gov.pk/lakki-marwat-district/ (accessed on 1 September 2024).
  41. White, P.C.; Ward, A.I. Interdisciplinary approaches for the management of existing and emerging human–wildlife conflicts. Wildl. Res. 2010, 37, 623–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Khan, T.; Luan, X.; Khan, W.; Ahmad, S.; Mannan, A.; Shah, S.; Iqbal, A.; Ammara, U.; Din, E.; Khan, H. Status and attitude of local communities towards the grey wolf (Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758) in Lower Dir District, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2020, 18, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mitsui, S.; Kubo, T.; Shoji, Y. Understanding residents’ perceptions of nature and local economic activities using an open-ended question before protected area designation in Amami Islands, Japan. J. Nat. Conserv. 2020, 56, 125857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dar, N.I.; Minhas, R.A.; Zaman, Q.; Linkie, M. Predicting the patterns, perceptions and causes of human–carnivore conflict in and around Machiara National Park, Pakistan. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 2076–2082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 1932, 22, 55. [Google Scholar]
  46. Din, J.U.; Ali, H.; Ali, A.; Younus, M.; Mehmood, T.; Norma-Rashid, Y.; Nawaz, M.A. Pastoralist-predator interaction at the roof of the world: Conflict dynamics and implications for conservation. Ecol. Soc. 2017, 22, 226–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Auguie, B.; Antonov, A.; Auguie, M.B. Package ‘gridExtra’. Misc. Funct. Grid Graph. 2017, 9, 9. [Google Scholar]
  48. Cohen, I.; Huang, Y.; Chen, J.; Benesty, J.; Benesty, J.; Chen, J.; Huang, Y.; Cohen, I. Pearson correlation coefficient. Noise Reduct. Speech Process. 2009, 2, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  49. Lee, D.E.; Bond, M.L. Quantifying the ecological success of a community-based wildlife conservation area in Tanzania. J. Mammal. 2018, 99, 459–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Störmer, N.; Weaver, L.C.; Stuart-Hill, G.; Diggle, R.W.; Naidoo, R. Investigating the effects of community-based conservation on attitudes towards wildlife in Namibia. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 233, 193–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kiffner, C.; Thomas, S.; Speaker, T.; O’Connor, V.; Schwarz, P.; Kioko, J.; Kissui, B. Community-based wildlife management area supports similar mammal species richness and densities compared to a national park. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 10, 480–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Janeiro-Otero, A.; Newsome, T.M.; Van Eeden, L.M.; Ripple, W.J.; Dormann, C.F. Grey wolf (Canis lupus) predation on livestock in relation to prey availability. Biol. Conserv. 2020, 243, 108433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pohja-Mykrä, M.; Kurki, S. Strong community support for illegal killing challenges wolf management. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2014, 60, 759–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Niemiec, R.; Berl, R.E.; Gonzalez, M.; Teel, T.; Camara, C.; Collins, M.; Salerno, J.; Crooks, K.; Schultz, C.; Breck, S. Public perspectives and media reporting of wolf reintroduction in Colorado. PeerJ 2020, 8, e9074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Arts, K.; Fischer, A.; van der Wal, R. Boundaries of the wolf and the wild: A conceptual examination of the relationship between rewilding and animal reintroduction. Restor. Ecol. 2016, 24, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Din, J.U.; Nawaz, M.A.; Mehmood, T.; Ali, H.; Ali, A.; Adli, D.S.H.; Norma-Rashid, Y. A transboundary study of spatiotemporal patterns of livestock predation and prey preferences by snow leopard and wolf in the Pamir. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2019, 20, e00719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Herrero, J.; García-Serrano, A.; García-González, R. Reproductive and demographic parameters in two Iberian wild boar Sus scrofa populations. Mammal Res. 2008, 53, 355–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Batool, A.; Gondal, A.; Malik, I.U.; Shah, S.A. Status of Jackals and Foxes (Family: Canidae) From Selected Hill Areas of Pakistan. J. Bioresour. Manag. 2018, 5, 4. [Google Scholar]
  59. Distefano, E. Human-Wildlife Conflict Worldwide: Collection of Case Studies, Analysis of Management Strategies and Good Practices; Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development Initiative (SARDI): Rome, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  60. Young, J.C.; Alexander, J.S.; Agvaantseren, B.; Bijoor, A.; Butler, A.; Nawaz, M.A.; Piaopiao, T.; Searle, K.R.; Uulu, K.Z.; Zhi, L. Collaborative conservation for snow leopards: Lessons learned from successful community-based interventions. Conserv. Lett. 2024, 17, e13062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Akrim, F.; Khursheed, N.; Belant, J.L.; Mehmood, T.; Mahmood, T.; Rafique, A.; Qasim, S.; Mushtaq, A.; Aslam, S.; Subhani, Z.A. Patterns, costs, and drivers of livestock depredations by leopards, in rural settlements of Pakistan. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2023, 46, e02564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Taylor, D.; Leung, L.-P.; Gordon, I. The impact of feral pigs (Sus scrofa) on an Australian lowland tropical rainforest. Wildl. Res. 2011, 38, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Groot Bruinderink, G.; Hazebroek, E.; Van Der Voot, H. Diet and condition of wild boar, Sus scrofu scrofu, without supplementary feeding. J. Zool. 1994, 233, 631–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sarwar, M. Raiding of agricultural crops and forests by wild boar (Sus scrofa L.) and its mitigation tricks. J. Sci. Agric. 2019, 3, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Pimental, D. Environmental and Economic Costs of Vertebrate Species Invasions into the United States; University of Nebraska: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  66. Barrios-Garcia, M.N.; Ballari, S.A. Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: A review. Biol. Invasions 2012, 14, 2283–2300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Schley, L.; Dufrêne, M.; Krier, A.; Frantz, A.C. Patterns of crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Luxembourg over a 10-year period. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2008, 54, 589–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Geisser, H.; REYER, H.U. Efficacy of hunting, feeding, and fencing to reduce crop damage by wild boars. J. Wildl. Manag. 2004, 68, 939–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mwende Muthoka, C. Landscape factors influencing habitat and crop selection by wild boar in Sweden. Master’s Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Upsala, Sweden, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  70. Hill, C.M. People, crops and primates: A conflict of interests. Commensalism Confl. Hum. Primate Interface 2005, 4, 40–59. [Google Scholar]
  71. Shakoor, U.; Shah, S.A. Multidimensional poverty profile of rural households and its determinants: Evidence from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Sarhad J. Agric. 2022, 38, 372–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dawani, K.; Hasan, S.H.; Sayeed, A. Living Income Report. Rural Pakistan. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), Pakistan; RePEc No. 2021-01-28; Anker Research Institute: New York, NY, USA, 2021; Available online: https://www.globallivingwage.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Rural-Pakistan-LI-Benchmark.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2025).
  73. Khattak, R.H.; Teng, L.; Mehmood, T.; Ahmad, S.; Liu, Z. Impacts of the wild boar (Sus scrofa) on the livelihood of rural communities in Pakistan and understanding public attitudes towards wild boars. Animals 2022, 12, 3381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Chughtai, M.S.; Altaf, M.; Manzoor, I.; Safeer, B.; Yasrub, S. Assessment of human and wild boar (Sus scrofa) conflict from district Bagh, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. J. Wildl. Ecol 2018, 2, 10–21. [Google Scholar]
  75. Nyhus, P.J. Human–wildlife conflict and coexistence. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2016, 41, 143–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Tack, J. Wild boar (Sus scrofa) populations in Europe. A scientific review of population trends and implications for management. Eur. Landowners’ Organ. 2018, 56, 29–30. [Google Scholar]
  77. Redpath, S.M.; Bhatia, S.; Young, J. Tilting at wildlife: Reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx 2015, 49, 222–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Treves, A.; Karanth, K.U. Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on carnivore management worldwide. Conserv. Biol. 2003, 17, 1491–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Naughton-Treves, L.; Grossberg, R.; Treves, A. Paying for tolerance: Rural citizens’ attitudes toward wolf depredation and compensation. Conserv. Biol. 2003, 17, 1500–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kansky, R.; Kidd, M.; Knight, A.T. Meta-analysis of attitudes toward damage-causing mammalian wildlife. Conserv. Biol. 2014, 28, 924–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rode, J.; Flinzberger, L.; Karutz, R.; Berghoefer, A.; Schroeter-Schlaack, C. Why so negative? Exploring the socio-economic impacts of large carnivores from a European perspective. Biol. Conserv. 2021, 255, 108918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Braczkowski, A.R.; O’Bryan, C.J.; Lessmann, C.; Rondinini, C.; Crysell, A.P.; Gilbert, S.; Stringer, M.; Gibson, L.; Biggs, D. The unequal burden of human-wildlife conflict. Commun. Biol. 2023, 6, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. DAWN. Govt Set to Release Water into Marwat Canal After 22 Years. DAWN 2023. Available online: https://www.dawn.com/news/1780068 (accessed on 5 September 2024).
  84. Osborn, F.V. 5 Techniques to reduce crop loss: Human and technical dimensions in Africa Ferrel V. Osborn and Catherine M. Hill. People Wildl. Confl. Co-Exist. 2005, 9, 72. [Google Scholar]
  85. Khorozyan, I.; Waltert, M. Variation and conservation implications of the effectiveness of anti-bear interventions. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 15341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Khorozyan, I.; Waltert, M. A framework of most effective practices in protecting human assets from predators. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2019, 24, 380–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Madden, F. Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: Global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 2004, 9, 247–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Madden, F.; McQuinn, B. Conservation’s blind spot: The case for conflict transformation in wildlife conservation. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 178, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 17 00180 g001
Figure 1. Map of the study area.
Figure 1. Map of the study area.
Diversity 17 00180 g001
Diversity 17 00180 g002
Figure 2. Species status as perceived by respondents. Distribution of responses for each species’ status across the surveyed respondents. The bars representing “common”, “rare”, and “absent” are distinguished by varying grayscale intensities.
Figure 2. Species status as perceived by respondents. Distribution of responses for each species’ status across the surveyed respondents. The bars representing “common”, “rare”, and “absent” are distinguished by varying grayscale intensities.
Diversity 17 00180 g002
Diversity 17 00180 g003
Figure 3. Perceived danger levels of wildlife species to livestock were categorized into five levels: extreme danger, high danger, moderate danger, low danger, and no danger. The graph illustrates the frequency of responses for each species, highlighting the grey wolf and golden jackal as perceived to pose extreme danger.
Figure 3. Perceived danger levels of wildlife species to livestock were categorized into five levels: extreme danger, high danger, moderate danger, low danger, and no danger. The graph illustrates the frequency of responses for each species, highlighting the grey wolf and golden jackal as perceived to pose extreme danger.
Diversity 17 00180 g003
Diversity 17 00180 g004
Figure 4. Reported financial losses across various crop types caused by wild boars (in PKR).
Figure 4. Reported financial losses across various crop types caused by wild boars (in PKR).
Diversity 17 00180 g004
Diversity 17 00180 g005
Figure 5. Community attitude toward species population. The varying grayscale tones for the four attitudes illustrate the response distribution across species and attitudes.
Figure 5. Community attitude toward species population. The varying grayscale tones for the four attitudes illustrate the response distribution across species and attitudes.
Diversity 17 00180 g005
Diversity 17 00180 g006
Figure 6. Negative attitudes (sum of reduced and eliminated scores) toward species, based on the sum of individual ratings (ranging from 1 to 4 per respondent). The total negative score for each species reflects the aggregate of respondent attitude, with the higher scores indicating more negative views. Statistical significance is marked above the bars with asterisks. *** (p < 0.001): very highly significant; ** (p < 0.01): highly significant; and * (p < 0.05): significant.
Figure 6. Negative attitudes (sum of reduced and eliminated scores) toward species, based on the sum of individual ratings (ranging from 1 to 4 per respondent). The total negative score for each species reflects the aggregate of respondent attitude, with the higher scores indicating more negative views. Statistical significance is marked above the bars with asterisks. *** (p < 0.001): very highly significant; ** (p < 0.01): highly significant; and * (p < 0.05): significant.
Diversity 17 00180 g006
Table 1. Demographic details of surveyed respondents, including profession, land ownership, and livestock holdings. The table highlights the distribution of respondents by occupation, size of agricultural land owned, and the number of livestock types, reflecting the agro-pastoral nature of the surveyed population.
Table 1. Demographic details of surveyed respondents, including profession, land ownership, and livestock holdings. The table highlights the distribution of respondents by occupation, size of agricultural land owned, and the number of livestock types, reflecting the agro-pastoral nature of the surveyed population.
ProfessionNo. of RespondentsProportion (%)
Farmer4538.46
Herder2924.79
Businessman2319.66
Govt servant2017.09
Total respondents117
Land Size (Hectares)----
Zero54.27
1 to 8.1 (1 to 20 Kanal)5345.3
8.1 to 12.1 (21 to 40 Kanal)3227.35
12.1 and above (41 Kanal and above)2723.08
Total respondents117--
LivestockNumber of LivestockProportion (%)
Goat29638.74
Sheep32142.02
Cow9512.43
Donkey526.81
Total764--
Table 2. Economic losses caused by different wildlife species, categorized by livestock predation, pet losses, poultry predation, and crop damage (in PKR) as reported by respondents over the past two years.
Table 2. Economic losses caused by different wildlife species, categorized by livestock predation, pet losses, poultry predation, and crop damage (in PKR) as reported by respondents over the past two years.
Economic ImpactSpecies
Grey WolfGolden JackalStriped HyenaRed FoxWild Boar
Livestock (PKR)113,000----
Pets (PKR)--55,000--
Poultry (PKR)-37,100-25,900-
Crop damage (PKR)----1,055,429
Total loss (PKR)113,00037,10055,00025,9001,055,429
Annual loss * (PKR)56,50018,55027,50012,950.00527,714.50
Annual loss * (USD)281.0992.29136.8264.432625.45
Loss per surveyed HH/year (PKR)482.91158.55235.04110.684510.38
Households reporting the loss ** (percent)5%20%4%16%39%
Annual loss per reported household *** (PKR)9417807550068211,727
*: Annual loss (PKR/USD) represents the average economic loss per household across all 117 surveyed respondents, regardless of whether they reported experiencing losses. **: Households reporting the loss represents those households that reported losses due to wildlife. ***: Annual loss per reported household reflects the average actual annual loss per household among those who specifically reported wildlife-related damages.
Table 3. The results of multiple linear regression analysis predicting negative attitudes toward wildlife species. The dependent variable is the negative attitude score. Predictor variables include total economic losses (PKR), agricultural land size (hectares), livestock herd size, and species type. Species type was modeled using dummy variables, with wild boar as the baseline. The model explains 80% of the variance in negative attitudes (R2 = 0.80). Statistically significant predictors are marked with p-values < 0.05.
Table 3. The results of multiple linear regression analysis predicting negative attitudes toward wildlife species. The dependent variable is the negative attitude score. Predictor variables include total economic losses (PKR), agricultural land size (hectares), livestock herd size, and species type. Species type was modeled using dummy variables, with wild boar as the baseline. The model explains 80% of the variance in negative attitudes (R2 = 0.80). Statistically significant predictors are marked with p-values < 0.05.
Predictor VariableCoefficient (β)Standard Errort-Valuep-Value
Total economic losses (PKR)0.480.076.86<0.001
Agricultural land size (hectares)−0.10.04−2.50.013
Livestock herd size0.250.064.17<0.001
Species type (dummy variables)Wild boar: 0.750.116.82<0.001
Grey wolf: 0.320.13.20.002
Striped hyena: 0.280.093.110.003
Red fox: 0.150.081.880.061
Golden jackal: 0.100.071.430.155
Intercept1.90.29.5<0.001
R2 = 0.80, Adjusted R2 = 0.79, F = 56.73, p < 0.001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khan, T.U.; Nabi, G.; Iqbal, A.; Ullah, K.; Hu, H. Fields of Conflict: Public Attitudes and Economic Impacts of Human–Wildlife Conflict on Rural Livelihood in District Lakki Marwat, Pakistan. Diversity 2025, 17, 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17030180

AMA Style

Khan TU, Nabi G, Iqbal A, Ullah K, Hu H. Fields of Conflict: Public Attitudes and Economic Impacts of Human–Wildlife Conflict on Rural Livelihood in District Lakki Marwat, Pakistan. Diversity. 2025; 17(3):180. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17030180

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khan, Tauheed Ullah, Ghulam Nabi, Arshad Iqbal, Kalim Ullah, and Huijian Hu. 2025. "Fields of Conflict: Public Attitudes and Economic Impacts of Human–Wildlife Conflict on Rural Livelihood in District Lakki Marwat, Pakistan" Diversity 17, no. 3: 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17030180

APA Style

Khan, T. U., Nabi, G., Iqbal, A., Ullah, K., & Hu, H. (2025). Fields of Conflict: Public Attitudes and Economic Impacts of Human–Wildlife Conflict on Rural Livelihood in District Lakki Marwat, Pakistan. Diversity, 17(3), 180. https://doi.org/10.3390/d17030180

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop