Chen Huang provides an overview of their investigation into human-wildlife conflict, and explains how research gaps can be turned into opportunities.
Humans and wildlife share the planet, often in proximity. In many parts of the world, villagers see elephants, lions, dolphins, and seabirds as part of their daily lives—much like city dwellers spot starlings feeding in a park. While wildlife is culturally valuable and a tourist attraction, the presence of these animals can lead to significant losses for local farmers, herders, and fishers.
For instance, around 28% of people in Pu’er, Yunnan province of southwest China, suffer losses caused by Asian elephants (Elephas maximus), and large marine predators account for approximately 11% of catch losses in commercial longline fisheries. These losses erode the relationship between local communities and wildlife, often leading to harmful reactions that threaten animal populations. Reducing these losses is essential for peaceful coexistence—a goal emphasized in Target 4 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
My journey in human-wildlife conflict research
After four years of studying material science, my passion for nature led me to pursue a career in biodiversity conservation. My first field trip took me to the mountains of Southwest China, a region within a global biodiversity hotspot. I witnessed the hardships faced by villagers due to wildlife-related injuries and losses. A villager shared how an Asiatic black bear tore off his nose, and many expressed frustrations over the impact of wildlife on their crops and livestock. This trip showed me the complexity of conservation in practice: protecting wildlife often mean protecting local communities first.
Over the latter five years, I studied the spatiotemporal patterns of damage caused by Asian elephants and Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus) in Yunnan, China, proposing long-term land-use and habitat management strategies. However, these solutions are often difficult to implement, especially in resource-poor regions.
The need for short-term solutions
To address immediate challenges, I’ve shifted my focus to evaluating short-term technical interventions for human-wildlife conflict (see more here and here). Despite the increasing body of literature, there’s still a lack of comprehensive evaluations for these interventions.
Interestingly, some sensory stimuli—like toriline to deter seabirds or reflective ribbons for farmland birds—show promise across multiple animal groups. This suggests a potential for behavioral-based strategies to reduce the damage.
Research findings: Gaps and opportunities
Our study found that most research on interventions is concentrated in wealthier countries like the USA, Australia, and Western Europe, while biodiversity-rich but economically disadvantaged regions remain underrepresented. The evidence for interventions is still limited, with 88 interventions evaluated and an average of only three experiments per intervention. More than half (56%) were tested in just one experiment.
The most evaluated approaches included physical, sound, chemical, and light-based stimuli, while less attention was given to the electricity-physical, electricity magnet, and chemical-physical approaches.
While many interventions showed effectiveness in the contexts where they were tested, their success varied. Of the 88 interventions, 61% had statistically significant evidence of effectiveness, but only five showed consistent performance across multiple experiments. About 10% of marine-focused interventions were counterproductive, highlighting the need for more research in this area.
While some types of stimuli were proved more effective than others, results varied significantly within broad stimulus categories. For example, electric fences and wires were effective in deterring carnivores, while rare earth metals used to deter elasmobranchs were ineffective.
Towards action
We identified two key challenges: the lack of sufficient evidence for interventions, and the limited success of interventions in the marine realm. To tackle human-wildlife conflicts, collective efforts are needed to evaluate and implement nonlethal interventions more widely. These solutions should be aligned with other strategies (e.g., the lethal and operational methods) within a sequential mitigation hierarchy to achieve the best outcomes.
Through cross-animal group research, we hope to support stakeholders in achieving the goals outlined in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, ensuring both wildlife protection and human well-being.
Read the full article “Human–wildlife coexistence needs more evidence-based interventions to reduce the losses of crops, livestock and fishery catches” in Journal of Applied Ecology.
