Assessment of Different Aspects of Elephant Depredation …
257
Due to severe crop raid by elephants, 40% of the owners abandoned a total of 56.69
acres of agricultural land (including partial and complete abandonment) during the
same period. The area of land in which paddy cultivation was quit ranged from 0.50
to 7.9 acres per household. This amounted to an average loss of 1.89 ± 1.68 acres of
agricultural land among such households and resulted in an average annual economic
loss of 41,833.33 ± 24,826.41 INR. In addition, some owners (16%) converted their
agricultural lands into tea gardens in course of five years (a total of 11.73 acres of
paddy fields were converted). The average area converted to tea gardens was 0.98 ±
0.48 acres per household.
The villagers were asked to rank the overall intensity of human–elephant conflicts
on a scale of one to five across three seasons (summer, rainy season and winter). In
this regard, there was as significant difference in the number of people who assigned
various ranks to the seasons (H = 10.35, p < 0.05). Nobody awarded one to the
level of elephant depredation in summer, whereas nobody awarded five to the level
of elephant depredation in rainy and winter seasons. A significant majority awarded
two (52%), three (38.67%) and four (65.33%) to the intensity of elephant depredation
during the rainy season (χ
2
= 37.27, df = 4, p < 0.01), summer (χ
2
= 70.87, df =
4, p < 0.01) and winter (χ
2
= 16.25, df = 4, p < 0.01) respectively.
A majority opined that the overall agricultural loss (89.33%) had been increasing,
while human attacks (66.67%) and property damage (45%) had been decreasing in
the course of ten years. The significant majority (85.33%) of the villagers identified
forest loss as the sole cause of man–elephant conflict in the area; some (12%) stated
that both forest loss and increase of elephant population together were responsible
and the remaining (2.67%) mentioned an increase in elephant population as the only
reason for the problem (χ
2
= 92.27, df = 2, p < 0.01).
3.4 Control Measure
The villagers were asked to rank the level effectiveness of the measures (crackers, fire
and noise), applied to control elephant depredation in the village, on a scale of 1–5.
There was a significant difference in the number of respondents who assigned various
ranks to the three measures in this regard (H = 12.99, p < 0.05). A majority assigned
4 (42.67%), 3 (45.33%) and 2 (37.33%) to the level of effectiveness of crackers,
fire and noise respectively (Table 2). A few respondents (12%) also guarded their
agricultural fields at a weekly frequency of four to seven days (@ two to twelve hours
per day) when the paddy ripens. The annual expenditure on control measures per
household ranged from 100 to 15,000 INR (3252 ± 2768.81 INR on an average). A
major proportion (77%) of the surveyed households spent within the range of 1500–
6000 INR per year. Afforestation was identified as the sole effective control measure
to mitigate human–elephant conflicts in the area by a significant majority (60%);
other suggestions included electric fencing (17%); trench (8%) elephant translocation
257
Due to severe crop raid by elephants, 40% of the owners abandoned a total of 56.69
acres of agricultural land (including partial and complete abandonment) during the
same period. The area of land in which paddy cultivation was quit ranged from 0.50
to 7.9 acres per household. This amounted to an average loss of 1.89 ± 1.68 acres of
agricultural land among such households and resulted in an average annual economic
loss of 41,833.33 ± 24,826.41 INR. In addition, some owners (16%) converted their
agricultural lands into tea gardens in course of five years (a total of 11.73 acres of
paddy fields were converted). The average area converted to tea gardens was 0.98 ±
0.48 acres per household.
The villagers were asked to rank the overall intensity of human–elephant conflicts
on a scale of one to five across three seasons (summer, rainy season and winter). In
this regard, there was as significant difference in the number of people who assigned
various ranks to the seasons (H = 10.35, p < 0.05). Nobody awarded one to the
level of elephant depredation in summer, whereas nobody awarded five to the level
of elephant depredation in rainy and winter seasons. A significant majority awarded
two (52%), three (38.67%) and four (65.33%) to the intensity of elephant depredation
during the rainy season (χ
2
= 37.27, df = 4, p < 0.01), summer (χ
2
= 70.87, df =
4, p < 0.01) and winter (χ
2
= 16.25, df = 4, p < 0.01) respectively.
A majority opined that the overall agricultural loss (89.33%) had been increasing,
while human attacks (66.67%) and property damage (45%) had been decreasing in
the course of ten years. The significant majority (85.33%) of the villagers identified
forest loss as the sole cause of man–elephant conflict in the area; some (12%) stated
that both forest loss and increase of elephant population together were responsible
and the remaining (2.67%) mentioned an increase in elephant population as the only
reason for the problem (χ
2
= 92.27, df = 2, p < 0.01).
3.4 Control Measure
The villagers were asked to rank the level effectiveness of the measures (crackers, fire
and noise), applied to control elephant depredation in the village, on a scale of 1–5.
There was a significant difference in the number of respondents who assigned various
ranks to the three measures in this regard (H = 12.99, p < 0.05). A majority assigned
4 (42.67%), 3 (45.33%) and 2 (37.33%) to the level of effectiveness of crackers,
fire and noise respectively (Table 2). A few respondents (12%) also guarded their
agricultural fields at a weekly frequency of four to seven days (@ two to twelve hours
per day) when the paddy ripens. The annual expenditure on control measures per
household ranged from 100 to 15,000 INR (3252 ± 2768.81 INR on an average). A
major proportion (77%) of the surveyed households spent within the range of 1500–
6000 INR per year. Afforestation was identified as the sole effective control measure
to mitigate human–elephant conflicts in the area by a significant majority (60%);
other suggestions included electric fencing (17%); trench (8%) elephant translocation