Elephants in the garden: Financial and social costs of crop raiding

Residents near protected areas disproportionately bear conservation costs, in part due to crop raiding by protected animals when protected areas are situated within an agricultural landscape. These costs increase as conservation efforts lead to recovery of animal populations, and human population growth increases the proportion of land outside the parks used for agriculture. Financial and social costs associated with crop raiding were studied in 25 villages around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Perceptions about crop raiding were collected using focus groups and household surveys, while damage was evaluated based on physical monitoring of crop raiding incidents. The average financial loss for farmers around the park over six months was US$74 (1.5% of median household capital asset wealth) and damage was particularly high within 0.5 km of the park boundary. Households experiencing crop raiding were more prone to food insecurity, and higher rates of self-reported human and livestock diseases, while children from villages bordering the park tended to have poorer scholastic achievement. Compensation is not affordable for the wildlife authority, nor is it sustainable as crop raiding is escalating. To mitigate costs for local communities, funding has been justified for the implementation of crop raiding defenses.

► Crop raiding highest within 0.5 km from park boundary. ► Food insecurity, human and livestock disease higher in crop raided households. ► The need for children to guard crops results in lower scholastic achievement. ► Recommend crop raiding defenses rather than compensation. ► Additional elephant trench excavation justified based on losses.