An analytical approach to assess the level of tolerance among farmers towards wildlife conflict 

DOI: 10.18805/asd.v0iOF.7335    | Article Id: D-4476 | Page : 22-26
Citation :- An analytical approach to assess the level of toleranceamong farmers towards wildlife conflict .Agricultural Science Digest.2017.(37):22-26

Mukesh Kumar*, H.R.Meena, Pampi Paul and B.S. Meena

Address :

Dairy Extension Division, ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal-132001, India.

Submitted Date : 17-08-2016
Accepted Date : 10-11-2016


Farmers’ tolerance towards wild animals are affected by a variety of factorsand understanding those factors influencing low tolerance among people is essential for designing strategies to alleviate livestock owners–wildlife conflict.Conflict between human and wildlife are reported to be increasing over the time that leads to negative consequencescause low tolerance towards wild animalsin local communities. In this context, aLikert’s scale was developed to measure the farmers’tolerance towards conflict between wildlife and livestock. A list of 30 positive and negative (60:40) statements were prepared which indicated the tolerance of farmers and irrelevant statements were discarded. Remaining 17 statements were sent to the 50 judges who were the experts in the field of livestock or wildlife and requested to rate on five point continuum. On the basis of total individual scores of judges, the top 25 per cent judges with the highest scores and bottom 25 per cent judges with lowest total scores were consideredfor the study. On the basis of calculated ‘t’ values, 10 statements (8 positive and 2 negative) were retained for the final scale and  this scale could be used to measure livestock owners’ tolerance beyond the study area with suitable modifications.


Livestock owners Scale Tolerance Wildlife conflict.


  1. Brown, W. (1910). Some experimental results in the correlation of mental abilities. British Journal of Psychology. 3: 296-322.
  2. Edwards, A. L. (1957). Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. Vakils, Feffer and Simons Private Ltd., Bombay.
  3. Eniang, E. A., Ijeomah,H. M.,Okeyoyin,G., and Uwatt,A. E.(2011). Assessment of human–wildlife conficts in Filinga range of Gashaka Gumti National Park, Nigeria. Production Agriculture and Technology Journal.1:15–35.
  4. Hemson, G., Maclennan, S., Mills, G., Johnson, P. and Macdonald, D. (2009). Community, lions, livestock and money: A spatial and social analysis of attitudes to wildlife and the conservation value of tourism in a human–carnivore conflict in Botswana. Biological Conservation.142:2718–2725.
  5. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychology, No.140.
  6. Madden, F. (2004a). Can traditions of tolerance help minimize conflict? An exploration of cultural factors supporting human–wildlife coexistence. Policy Matters.13:234–41.
  7. Messmer, T. A. (2009). Human–wildlife conflicts: Emerging challenges and opportunities. Human–Wildlife Conflicts. 3:10-17.
  8. Naughton-Treves L., Grossberg, R. and Treves, A. (2003). Paying for tolerance: The impact of livestock depredation and compensation payments on rural citizens’ attitudes toward wolves. Conservation Biology.17: 1500–1511.
  9. Organ, J. F., Decker.D. J., Carpenter. L. H., Siemer. W. F. and RileyS. J.(2006). Thinking like amanager: Reflections on wildlife management. Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute. 
  10. Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science.236: 280-285.
  11. Spearman, C. C. (1910). Correlation calculated from faulty data. British Journal of Psychology. 3: 271–295.
  12. Treves, A., Wallace R. B., NaughtonTrevesL. and Morales,A. (2006). Co-managing human– wildlife conflicts: a review. Human Dimensions of Wildlife.11:383–396
  13. Treves, A. (2009). Hunting for large carnivore conservation. Journal of Applied Ecology. 46:1350–1356.
  14. Treves, A. and Martin, K. A. (2011). Hunters as stewards of wolves in Wisconsin and the Northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Society and Natural Resources.24: 984–994.
  15. Treves, A. (2012). Tolerant attitudes reflect an intent to steward: A reply to Bruskotter and Fulton. Society & Natural Resources.25:103–104.
  16. Treves, A.&Bruskotter, J. T. (2014). Tolerance for predatory wildlife. Science. 344: 476–477. 

Global Footprints