Bearing the costs of human–wildlife conflict: the challenges of compensation schemes

By P. Nyhus, Steven A. Osofsky, Paul J. Ferraro, H. Fischer, F. Madden. 2005

285 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Economics and Econometrics, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e7d908ad8cb60639402aa2d836151d902bf6c764

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology

1. E. Revilla
2. E. Gese
3. K. Jerina
4. S. Palazón
5. David W. Macdonald
6. Laurence Frank
7. Néstor Fernández
8. N. Selva

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Ruchi Badola
2. Richard T. Corlett
3. David W. Macdonald

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

1. David W. Macdonald
2. S. Cavalcanti
3. Ruchi Badola
4. Richard T. Corlett
5. K. Jerina
6. M. Ogra

Citations in the corpus

• The Impact of Hunting on the Mammalian Fauna of Tropical Asian Forests (2007, background): “At least in theory, direct payments to local communities that are tied to wildlife abundance (e.g., $x per tiger in the reserve) have the potential to compensate for the costs of conservation while not encouraging harmful activities (Nyhus et al. 2005).”
• Evaluation of a compensation scheme to bring about pastoralist tolerance of lions (2009, background): “Despite the obvious importance of the topic, few African compensation schemes have been rigorously analyzed, and their effectiveness in reducing local efforts to eradicate problematic wildlife is largely unknown (Nyhus et al., 2005).”
• Kill rates and predation patterns of jaguars (Panthera onca) in the southern Pantanal, Brazil (2010, methodology): “…claim processes causing lengthy time delays, compensation below market value, lack of sustainable funding, high administrative costs, and moral hazard are some of the drawbacks associated with compensation programs (Bulte and Rondeau 2005; Nyhus et al. 2005; Zabel and HolmMüller 2008).”
• Compensating Human–Wildlife Conflict in Protected Area Communities: Ground-Level Perspectives from Uttarakhand, India (2008, background): “The results of the case study broadly support the findings of the wildlife experts interviewed by Nyhus et al. (2005, 2003) and others who have identified the core problems including inadequate remuneration of direct and indirect costs of HWC, logistical challenges, and delays in payment.”
• Elephants in the garden: Financial and social costs of crop raiding (2012, background): “Programs have to guard against fraudulent claims (Bulte and Rondeau, 2005), verify damage was caused by protected animals (Nyhus et al., 2005), and guard against ‘moral hazard’; a situation where the farmer looses the incentive to protect their crops, because all are equally compensated for losses…”
• Large carnivore damage in Europe: Analysis of compensation and prevention programs (2019, background): “Furthermore, poorly functioning compensation programs, in which damage verification processes are unreliable and slow, may discourage people from claiming damage and fail to promote positive attitudes (Dickman et al., 2011; Nyhus et al., 2005).”
• Ex-post compensation payments for wolf predation on livestock in Italy: a tool for conservation? (2010, methodology): “The theoretical and social justification for the compensation programs is obvious, because they respond to the need for equity in sharing the costs of large-predator conservation in human-inhabited areas (Ferraro and Kiss 2002; Nyhus et al. 2005; Schwerdtner and Gruber 2007).”