Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Effectiveness of Solar Fence in Reducing Human–Elephant Conflicts in Manchahalli Village, Mysuru, Karnataka, India


Affiliations
1 Division of Environmental Sciences, Department of Water and Health-Faculty of Life Sciences, JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research, Mysuru 570 015, India
2 Department of Studies in Environmental Science, Manasagangotri, University of Mysore, Mysuru 570 006, India
 

Human–elephant conflict is not a new issue in the state of Karnataka, India. Primary conflict involves loss of lives on both sides, loss of property and damage to crops. Solar fencing is considered to be the most effective way to mitigate the conflict between humans and elephants. An assessment on the effectiveness of solar-powered fencing was carried out in Manchahalli village, which is located adjacent to Bandipur National Park (BNP), Karnataka and is prone to frequent raids by elephants. Hence, this area was chosen as the study site. Field survey was conducted between March and April 2019, to estimate whether the installation of solar fencing had reduced the damage caused by elephants on the crops. During the survey, questions related to the following factors were considered: area of land owned by farmers, distance from the forest boundary to the croplands, types of crops grown, types of crops damaged, year of installation of solar fence, damage caused to the solar fence, methods used before the installation of solar fencing and the perceived effectiveness of the solar fence. Among the 30 croplands that were surveyed, majority were at less than 2 km from the forest, followed by others ranging between 1 and 1.5 km. Although solar fencing was not helpful in reducing the raids completely, it proved to be more effective than any other conventional method previously used.

Keywords

Croplands, Field Survey, Human–elephant Conflict, Solar Fence.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Oswin Perera, B. M. A., The human–elephant conflict: a review of current status and mitigation methods. Gajaha, 2009, 30, 41–52.

  • Desai, A. A. and Riddle, H. S., Human Elephant Conflict in Asia, Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2015.

  • Chakraborty, S., Boominathan, D. and Desai, A. A., Using genetic analysis to estimate population size, sex ratio, and social organization in an Asian elephant population in conflict with humans in Alur, southern India. Conserv. Genet., 2014, 15, 897–907.

  • Ranjan, K. B. and Nabami, B., A comprehensive study of human– elephant conflict in the bordering areas of the three reserve forests of Lakhimpur district, Assam. Int. J. Interdiscip. Res. Sci. Soc. Cult., 2016, 2(1).

  • Senthilkumar, K., Mathialagan, P., Manivannan, C., Gomathinayagam, S. and Jayathangara, G., Human–elephant conflict: case study from Tamil Nadu. Int. J. Sci., Environ. Technol., 2017.

  • Bal, P., Nath, D. and Garcia, C., Drivers of human–elephant interactions in coffee agroforestry landscapes in Kodagu (Western Ghats), India, 2008.

  • Ramkumar, K., Ramakrishnan, B. and Saravanamuthu, R., Human–elephant conflict in southern India: people’s perception on conflict and elephant conservation in Coimbatore Forest Division. J. Sci. Trans. Environ. Technol., 2013, 7(2), 69–76.

  • Osborn, F. V. and Parker, G. E., Towards an integrated approach for reducing the conflict between elephants and people: a review of current research. Oryx, 2003, 37(1), 80–84.

  • Gunaratne, L. H. P. and Premarathne, P. K., The effectiveness of electric fencing in mitigating human–elephant conflict in Sri Lanka, 2006.

  • Kumar, A., Bargali, Harendra, S., David, A and Edgaonkar, A., Patterns of crop rading by wild ungulates and elephants in Ramnagar Forest Division, Uttarakhand. Human–Wildl. Interact., 2017, 11(1), 41–49.

  • Sukumar, R., Elephant–human conflict in Karnataka. In Karnataka State of the Environment Report (ed. Saldanha, C. J.), 1986, pp. 46–59.

  • Bal, P., Nath, C. D. and Nanaya, K. M., Elephants also like coffee: trends and drivers of human–elephant conflicts in coffee agroforestry landscapes of Kodagu, Western Ghats, India. Environ. Manage., 2011, 47, 789–801.

  • Jener, W. G., Electric fencing. Report submitted to the Dept of Elect. and Info. Engineering, University of Nairobi, 2011.

  • Sridevi, S. N. and Reddy, V., Human–elephant conflict in Tumkur district, Karnataka, India. Int. J. Life Sci., 2018, 6(2), 625–634.

  • Khanum, F., Swamy, M. S., Sudarshana, K. K. R., Santhanam, K. and Viswanathan, K. R., Dietary fibre content of commonly fresh and cooked vegetables consumed in India. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr., 2000, 55, 207–218.

  • Sangamithra, A., Swamy, G. J., Sorna, P. R., Chandrasekar, V., Sasikala, S. and Hasker, E., Coconut: an extensive review on value added products. Indian Food Ind. Mag., 2013, 32(6), 29–36.

  • Simmonds, N. W., The Evaluation of Bananas, Tropical Science Series, Longmans, London, UK, 1962.

  • Sampath, K. K., Ekanayaka, A., Campos-Arceiz and Fernando, P., Patterns of crop raiding by Asian elephants in a human-dominated landscape in southeastern Sri Lanka. Gajah, 2011, 34, 20–25.

  • Bhandara, R. and Tisdell, C., Asian elephants as agricultural pests: damages, economics of control and compensation in Sri Lanka. Economics, Ecology and Environment Working Papers 48735, University of Queensland, School of Economics, 2002.

  • Ankur, K., Harendra, S. B., Ashish, D. and Advait, E., Human– wildlife interactions patterns of crop raiding by wild ungulates and elephants in Ramnagar Forest Division, Uttarakhand. Spring, 2017, 11(1), 41–49.

  • Sudip, P. and Siddhartha, B. B., Crop protection and its effectiveness against wildlife: a case study of two villages of Shivapuri National Park, Nepal. J. Sci. Technol., 2015, 16(1), 110.

  • Graham, M. D., Gichohi, N., Kamau, F., Aike, G. and Craig, B., The use of electrified fences to reduce human–elephant conflict: a case study of the Ol Pejeta Conservancy, Laikipia District, Kenya, Working Paper 1, Laikipia Elephant Project, Nanyuki, Kenya, 2009.

  • John, K., Philip, M., Patrick, O. and Patrick, I. C., The performance of electric fences as elephant barriers in Amboseli, Kenya, 2007.

  • Lamarque, F., Anderson, J., Fergusson, R. and Lagrange, M., Human–wildlife conflict in Africa: causes, consequences and management strategies. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 2009.

  • Neupane, B., Khatiwoda, B. and Budhathoki, S., Effectiveness of solar powered fence in reducing Human–Wild Elephant Conflict (HEC) in Northeast Jhapa District, Nepal. Forestry: J. Inst. Forest., 2018, 15, 13–27.


Abstract Views: 341

PDF Views: 161




  • Effectiveness of Solar Fence in Reducing Human–Elephant Conflicts in Manchahalli Village, Mysuru, Karnataka, India

Abstract Views: 341  |  PDF Views: 161

Authors

G. Vibha
Division of Environmental Sciences, Department of Water and Health-Faculty of Life Sciences, JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research, Mysuru 570 015, India
H. G. Lingaraju
Division of Environmental Sciences, Department of Water and Health-Faculty of Life Sciences, JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research, Mysuru 570 015, India
G. V. Venktaramana
Department of Studies in Environmental Science, Manasagangotri, University of Mysore, Mysuru 570 006, India

Abstract


Human–elephant conflict is not a new issue in the state of Karnataka, India. Primary conflict involves loss of lives on both sides, loss of property and damage to crops. Solar fencing is considered to be the most effective way to mitigate the conflict between humans and elephants. An assessment on the effectiveness of solar-powered fencing was carried out in Manchahalli village, which is located adjacent to Bandipur National Park (BNP), Karnataka and is prone to frequent raids by elephants. Hence, this area was chosen as the study site. Field survey was conducted between March and April 2019, to estimate whether the installation of solar fencing had reduced the damage caused by elephants on the crops. During the survey, questions related to the following factors were considered: area of land owned by farmers, distance from the forest boundary to the croplands, types of crops grown, types of crops damaged, year of installation of solar fence, damage caused to the solar fence, methods used before the installation of solar fencing and the perceived effectiveness of the solar fence. Among the 30 croplands that were surveyed, majority were at less than 2 km from the forest, followed by others ranging between 1 and 1.5 km. Although solar fencing was not helpful in reducing the raids completely, it proved to be more effective than any other conventional method previously used.

Keywords


Croplands, Field Survey, Human–elephant Conflict, Solar Fence.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv120%2Fi4%2F707-711