Economic loss assessment in farming due to human wildlife conflict in Idukki district of Kerala

Abstract

Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) refers to interactions between humans and wildlife that result in negative impacts on human life, property, livelihoods, or safety, as well as on wildlife conservation and habitat preservation. These conflicts arise primarily at the interface between human settlements and wildlife habitats, where competition for space and resources occurs. Kerala state possesses a remarkable forest coverage of 11,521 square kilometres, constituting 56.78 per cent of its total geographical area, significantly higher than the national average. Among the districts in Kerala, Idukki has the highest forest cover and has extensive collection of flora and fauna. This creates a tension in the human settlements near the forest fringes. “Economic loss assessment in farming due to human wildlife conflict in Idukki district of Kerala” was undertaken to identify the nature and type of damage caused by wild animals, quantify the magnitude of direct loss associated with HWC and estimate the magnitude of the indirect cost of HWC. The study was carried out in Marayoor Forest Division which comes under the High Range Circle Kottayam, in which 90 farmers each from Marayoor and Kanthalloor range were surveyed using a well-structured and pre-tested interview schedule. The socioeconomic characters revealed that most of the farmers belonged to the age group of 45-60 and depended on agriculture as their major occupation. Primarily, it was essential to identify the types of damages experienced by farmers. The findings revealed that trampling, breaking, and feeding constituted the most damaging forms of wildlife activity, with elephants, wild gaur, wild boar, sambar deer, and monkeys being the primary species responsible for conflict. Results obtained through the Garrett ranking technique, together with perceptions of the farmers, indicated that conflict intensity was not uniform throughout the year, rather, it tended to peak during the summer months when resource scarcity and animal stress drove wildlife closer to agricultural fields. The economic assessment of direct costs underscored the alarming scale of crop losses in the region. Using the market price method, the study estimated that farmers collectively incurred direct losses amounting to nearly ₹72 lakh, demonstrating the substantial economic vulnerability of households dependent on agriculture. Banana, ii beans, sugarcane, and several perennial crops displayed particularly high susceptibility, especially when damage occurred during critical crop growth stages. Despite the magnitude of such losses, only 13 per cent of affected farmers applied for compensation. Their reluctance originated from disproportionately high transaction costs including the time, effort, and expenses involved in navigating bureaucratic procedures relative to the ex-gratia amounts received. This mismatch illustrated structural deficiencies in the existing compensation system, which neither reflected the true extent of economic loss nor incentivised farmers to report incidents formally. The study’s examination of indirect costs, which were often overlooked in conventional assessments of HWC, revealed a far deeper socioeconomic burden. Farmers incurred considerable opportunity costs due to the time spent in guarding crops and monitoring animal movement. The average opportunity cost of labour was estimated at ₹19,863 per year, while average annual household expenditure on preventive measures such as fencing, lighting, and deterrent devices was ₹10,959. When transaction costs were included, the total indirect cost incurred by an average household reached ₹30,928. These estimates demonstrated that indirect costs represented a substantial and persistent economic drain, one that was not compensated under existing policies. This evidence indicated the need for more comprehensive valuation frameworks in future HWC assessments. A notable contribution of the study lay in its assessment of farmer wellbeing through a beta-weighted regression index. By standardising indicators and estimating beta coefficients using multiple regression, a composite wellbeing index was constructed to capture the economic and social effects of HWC. The results indicated that although 163 farmers fell within the moderate wellbeing category, a significant proportion experienced negative wellbeing outcomes. Variables such as income, age, education, and the extent of area damaged significantly influenced wellbeing. High economic losses, prolonged stress, sleep disruption, and recurring fear of wildlife attacks adversely affected psychological stability and livelihood security, as further illustrated through heatmap analysis of stress indicators. The study also applied the Contingent Valuation Method (CVM) to estimate farmers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for improved mitigation measures. Farmers were

presented with a hypothetical scenario of enhanced conflict mitigation system and were asked to indicate their maximum WTP. The mean stated annual WTP amounted to ₹6,404 , while the regression estimated WTP was approximately ₹6,200 per year. These findings indicated that farmers recognised the need for collective action and were willing to contribute financially to community led mitigation initiatives. Based on these insights, the study proposed several policy recommendations. First, animal specific deterrent mechanisms particularly for elephants, gaur, and wild boar should be implemented through cluster level solar fencing, automated detection systems, and strategically placed physical barriers. Second, ex-gratia payment structures needed revision to incorporate both direct and indirect costs, thereby ensuring fair and adequate compensation. Third, administrative procedures required simplification, and verification processes needed decentralisation to reduce transaction costs and improve accessibility. Fourth, wellbeing oriented approaches, such as clinical ethnographic assessments, should be integrated into long term HWC management to monitor stress, trauma, and behavioural changes among affected communities. Finally, strengthening Jan Jagratha Samithis and fostering community led initiatives supported partly through farmer WTP could promote sustainable, participatory mitigation systems that addressed both ecological and livelihood concerns.