A Study on Managing Crop Damage by Wild Animals in Himachal Pradesh

Abstract

The economy of Himachal Pradesh is predominantly agricultural and majority of its population is dependent on this sector. However, the farmers are facing the crop damage problems due to the crop raiding by wild animals. The study has mainly intended to study the nature and extent of crop damage by wild animals. The study has also highlighted the types of animals involved in crop damage and it has even reviewed the existing government policies and have extended the suggestive remarks on the policy issues. Study evidently noted that the sudden increase of the population of wild boar has substantially increased the crop damage in the state. Since, wild boar observed to be the most problematic animal for the farmers in regard to crop damage. Study has highlighted the farmers’ suggestions that fencing should be done across the boundaries of the fields so that the wild animals find it difficult to venture in it and cause damage, moreover, festivals like ‘Van Mahotsav’ should be celebrated at regular intervals so as to celebrate nature and natural things which will eventually create a harmony between farmers and wild animals.

Full text

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences
ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 10, Issue 12, 2018
|| Bioinfo Publications ||
6438
Research Article
A STUDY ON MANAGING CROP DAMAGE BY WILD ANIMALS IN HIMACHAL PRADESH
MEHTA PIYUSH *, NEGI ARUN, CHAUDHARY RASHMI, JANJHUA YASMIN AND THAKUR PANKAJ
Department of Business Management, Dr YS Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry, Nauni, Solan, Himachal Pradesh,173230, India
*
Corresponding Author: Email- piyushabm@gmail.com
Received: June 14, 2018; Revised: June 22, 2018; Accepted: June 23, 2018; Published: June 30, 2018
Citation:
Mehta Piyush, et al., (2018) A Study on Managing Crop Damage by Wild Animals in Himachal Pradesh. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences, ISSN: 0975-
3710 & E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 10, Issue 12, pp.-
6438-6442
.
Copyright:
Copyright©2018 Mehta Piyush, et al., This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credit
ed.
Introduction
As human and livestock population has increased immensely, forest
encroachment has been effected, which paved a floor to grazing activities,
cultivation of wastelands and deforestation. Due to such human disturbances and
habitat loss the wild animals have been affected to a great extent, some became
endangered, some extinct, and those who survived, learnt to live in man designed
habitat successfully. For many years, the natural habitats of the country have
been altered because of human [20].Most of the highlands and some of the
lowlands have been modified into agricultural and pastoral land. This has led to
encroachment into wildlife habitats. The constriction of wildlife habitats resulted in
severe competition for natural resources between wild animals and the local
communities. This in turn resulted in wildlife human conflict [24]. These animals
enter human settlement and their fields for food and causes damage to agriculture
and horticulture crops. Until recently, there has been little attention given to
vertebrate species that damage crops, particularly crops of small-scale farmers in
tropical and sub-tropical regions. Birds are also recognized as significant pests.
The main damage is caused by their feeding activities. Herbivorous and
omnivorous species of birds damage the agriculture [22]. Humans have lived in
close relationship with wildlife and have shared resources like space, habitats, and
food for a long time, which have stiffened to a nearly perfect competition [12].
Human encroachment on wildlife habitat has thus resulted in an increase in
conflicts between humans and wildlife [15]. In tropical and subtropical regions, the
extension of farming into the forest interior makes wild animals farm pests, and the
degree of tolerance of the damage caused changes over time [11]. The farmers
try almost every possible method to keep away animals off their fields. They beat
drums at night, try to scare away the animals, some put snares in their fields,
some produce sounds and others want to kill them through guns [19]. The extent
and intensity of damage may also vary depending on the cropping pattern, wildlife
population density and behavior, and food availability in wild habitats [21]. The
people faces a lot of difficulty due to this conflict, sometimes even the farmers are
attacked. Crop losses to wildlife may have various impact on farming households.
These include high guarding investment, disruption of schooling for children who
have to help guard fields and increased risk of injury from wildlife [8]. There are
numerous campaigns and efforts being run by the government and some
organizations to save wildlife. But here in such situation it becomes a need of a
farmer to cull an animal. In India, crop damage is very common along the
immediate periphery of wildlife sanctuaries and national parks [5], as is the case at
many other sites in Africa and Asia. The losses incurred by farmers may make
communities living close to protected areas antagonistic and intolerant towards
wildlife, which can undermine and impede conservation strategies [17]. The
farmers in developing countries often have limited access to cash and are rarely
compensated for their losses hence the individual economic losses suffered from
crop-raiding can be relatively high [4].
The increasing rate of decrease in forests and encroaching agriculture land is
leading to an up rise in animal invasion of fields which has leads to a drastic
change in farmers perception towards them. The harmony between a farmer and
wild animals seems to be a next impossible thing [2]. As far as the compensation
for the damaged crop from wild animal is concerned, once the damage has been
assessed, the victim sends his application for compensation to a compensation
fund which must approve it. This fund is financed by the state as well as by
contributions levied on the issue of hunting licenses [3]. Compensation is funded
by the state alone in respect of those species which may not be hunted, such as
swans. Where damage by geese is involved, the holders of hunting permits must
each pay the sum of 25 florins, which brings in around 750,000 florins to the fund.
The remaining one and a half million florins needed to indemnify damage caused
by geese, including protected species of geese, are contributed by the state [6].
This has led to a resentment among farmers and a hatred towards animals. The
Himachal Pradesh is a mountainous state in Western Himalayas. The state has a
geographical area of 55,673 sq.km. with elevation ranging from 350 mts. to 7000
mts. There are 5 rivers namely Beas, Sutlej, Ravi Chenab and Yamuna. These are
perennial rivers fed by snow and rainfall.
International Journal of Agriculture Sciences
ISSN: 0975-3710 & E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 10, Issue 12, 2018, pp.-6438-6442.
Available online at https://www.bioinfopublication.org/jouarchive.php?opt=&jouid=BPJ0000217
Abstract:
The economy of Himachal Pradesh is predominantly agricultural and majority of its population is dependent on this sector. However, the farmers are facing the crop
damage problems due to the crop raiding by wild animals. The study has mainly intended to study the nature and extent of crop damage by wild animals. The study has also
highlighted the types of animals involved in crop damage and it has even reviewed the existing government policies and have extended the suggestive remarks on the policy
issues. Study evidently noted that the sudden increase of the population of wild boar has substantially increased the crop damage in the state. Since, wild boar observed to be the
most problematic animal for the farmers in regard to crop damage. Study has highlighted the farmers’ suggestions that fencing should be done across the boundaries of the fields
so that the wild animals find it difficult to venture in it and cause damage, moreover, festivals like ‘Van Mahotsav’ should be celebrated at regular intervals so as to celebrate nature
and natural things which will eventually create a harmony between farmers and wild animals.
Keywords:
Crop damage, Wildlife management, Agriculture development, Agriculture disaster management

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences
ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 10, Issue 12, 2018
|| Bioinfo Publications ||
6439
A Study on Managing Crop Damage by Wild Animals in Himachal Pradesh
Material & Methods
The descriptive research design was adopted for the concerned research study. A
Multi Stage Random Sampling design technique was used for the present study.
The selection of the research area in the Kandaghat block of district Solan,
Himachal Pradesh was made purposively. In the present study the total number of
respondents for the collection of primary data in Kandaghat block was 60 reported
from 5 panchayats out of total 24 panchayats. The primary data for the present
study was collected with the help of questionnaire. The secondary data for the
present study was collected from journals, magazines, research articles,
newspapers, and website. Simple mathematical and statistical tools, including
Arithmetic mean, standard deviation and Total Weightage Score method were
used for satisfying the objectives with a view of keeping the analysis simple and
easy to understand. The arithmetic mean has been applied to study the opinion of
the sample respondents on 5-point scale for different statements [10]. Total
weightage score method in which we have to provide different Weights according
to their importance and multiply the values of the items (X) by the weights (W) as
provided. Then add all the values to obtain the total weights of all the items and
the one which get highest score will get the first rank and the one which get the
lowest score will get the lowest rank [13]. Likert scaling (bipolar scaling method),
measuring dual inclined responses in terms of positive or negative response to a
statement [14]. The concerned research paper was initiated with the key
objectives to study the nature and extent of crop damage by wild animals, to study
the types of animals involved in crop damage and to review the existing
government policies and to receive the extension of the suggestive opinions of
farming community on the policy issues crop damage management.
Results and Discussion
1. Nature and the extent of crop damage by wild animals:
2. Village wise distribution of sampled household in study area
It was observed that the total number of respondents for the collection of primary
data in Kandaghat block was 60 reported from 5 panchayats out of 24 panchayats
of the block.
Table-1 Village wise distribution of sampled household in study area
Panchayat
Village
No. of respondent
Mahi
Shamlech
6
Kadhar
6
Kahala
Daunti
6
Kahala
6
Shrinagar
Dhali
6
Adda
6
Bisha
Bisha
6
Dihari
6
Basha
Basha
6
Kohari
6
Total
60
Field Survey, 2017
Demographic profile of the respondent
As far as the demographic profile of the respondent is concerned, it was indicated
that 58 are males compared to the 2 females, as depicted from [Table-2]. The
education status of the respondents was also revealed as 18.33 percent
respondents attained primary education, 50 percent managed to get middle
education and only 19 percent respondents were matric and above. The majority
of respondents have attained their middle education.
Table-2 Demographic profile of the respondent
Particulars
Value
Gender
Male
58
Female
2
Average age of respondent (Year)
49
Education status of respondent
Primary
11 (18.33)
Middle
30 (50.00)
Matric and above
19 (31.67)
Field Survey, 2017
Occupational Pattern of the respondent
It can be seen from the [Table-3] that agriculture was the dominant occupation of
73.33 percent respondents whereas 15 percent of respondents were engaged in
service, 11.67 percent as can be seen runs their business. Thus it can be
concluded that the major occupation of the respondents is agriculture.
Table-3 Occupational Pattern of the respondent
Occupational Pattern
Number
Percentage
Service
9.00
15.00
Business
7.00
11.67
Agriculture
44.00
73.33
Total
60.00
100.00
Field Survey, 2017
Land use pattern of the sampled household
It is shown in [Table-4] that out of total area about 29.59 percent is irrigated land
and about 70.41 percent is unirrigated land. The table shows that cultivated land is
about 61.27 percent. The ghasni is comprising 30.98 percent and barren land in
the area is around 7.75 percent. Therefore, it is revealed that the area is not
having sources of irrigation and has some form of barren land and ghasni as well.
Table-4 Land use pattern of the sampled household
Particulars
Area (Bighas)
Per cent
Total area
15.13
100.00
Irrigated
4.48
29.59
Un-irrigated
10.65
70.41
Cultivated land
9.27
61.27
Ghasni
4.69
30.98
Barren land
1.17
7.75
Field Survey, 2017
Types of crops grown
In reference to the kinds of crops grown in the research area, the research data
was collected from the sample distribution of 60 farmers from the given area, In
result it was observed that among cereals growing farmers, [Table-5] 38.33
percent grow wheat, 46.67 percent grow maize and 41.67 percent farmers grow
barley. And considering vegetables grown in the area 61.67 percent farmers grow
tomato, 53.33 percent grow capsicum, 36.67 percent farmers grow cabbage,
48.33 percent grow pea, 45.00 percent grow cauliflower and 35.00 percent farmer
grow beans. Among fruit crops 55.00 percent grow peach, 50 percent farmers are
cultivating plum and 46.67 percent farmers are cultivating apricot. Therefore, it can
be seen that the farmers grow mostly vegetables crops in the area.
Table-5 Types of crops grown
Particulars
Number of sample farmers (60)
Percent
Cereals
Wheat
23
38.33#
Maize
28
46.67
Barley
25
41.67
Vegetables
Tomato
37
61.67
Capsicum
32
53.33
Cabbage
22
36.67
Pea
29
48.33
Cauliflower
27
45.00
Beans
21
35.00
Fruits
Peach
33
55.00
Plum
30
50.00
Apricot
28
46.67
Field Survey, 2017
Crops mostly damaged by the wild animals
In reference to the kinds of crops grown in the research area, the research data
was collected from the sample distribution of 60 farmers from the given area, in
result it was observed that the damage to crops by wild animals as reported is
given in the [Table-6] stated that the wild animals have caused the damage to the
wheat crop specifically to an extent of 23.33 percent, maize 18.33 percent and
barley 21.67 percent respectively. Among vegetables tomato was the most
damaged crop with 73.33 percent damage, followed by pea and capsicum with
71.67 and 68.33 percent respectively.

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences
ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 10, Issue 12, 2018
|| Bioinfo Publications ||
6440
Mehta Piyush, Negi Arun, Chaudhary Rashmi, Janjhua Yasmin and Thakur Pankaj
The cabbage and cauliflower were almost equally affected, whereas the least
damage was to beans (46.67%). It was also noted that among fruits, peach crop is
highly damaged (51.67%), apricot (48.33%) and the least affected is plum
(43.33%) This finding also matched with the study of [18]. Therefore, it concludes
that large number of vegetable crops are being destroyed by the wild animals.
Table-6 Crops mostly damaged by the wild animals
Particulars
Number of sample farmers (60)
Percent
Cereals
Wheat
14
23.33#
Maize
11
18.33
Barley
13
21.67
Vegetables
Tomato
44
73.33
Capsicum
41
68.33
Cabbage
29
48.33
Pea
43
71.67
Cauliflower
29
48.33
Beans
28
46.67
Fruits
Peach
31
51.67
Plum
26
43.33
Apricot
29
48.33
#14/60 *100=23.33% Field Survey, 2017
Periodicity of invasions
It can be seen from the [Table-7] that most of the wild animal invasions were on
daily basis (55%). The monthly invasions were reported in case f 33.33 percent of
household. The annual invasions were reported by 11.67 percent of sampled
household.
Table-7 Periodicity of invasions
Invasions
Number of sample farmers (60)
Percent
Daily
33
55
Monthly
20
33.33
Annually
7
11.67
Field Survey, 2017
Decrease in family income due to crop damage
In the [Table-8] the Likert scale method was used for analyzing the decrease in
family income due to crop damage. The mean score from the respondents was
calculated and was found 4.07 which indicated that all the respondents agreed for
decrease in their family income due to crop raiding by wild animals.
Table-8 Decrease in family income due to crop damage
Particulars
Average Response
Weightage
Total
Strongly agree
0.38
5.00
1.92
Agree
0.40
4.00
1.60
Indifferent
0.12
3.00
0.35
Disagree
0.10
2.00
0.20
Strongly disagree
0.00
1.00
0.00
Field Survey, 2017
Quantity of produce is affected leading to less production
The [Table-9] depicts that Likert scale method was used for the analysis of effect
of crop damage on livelihood, the mean score from the respondents was
calculated and was found 4.45 which indicates that farmers response falls
between strongly agree and agree. Similar results were found by [23]. It means
that most of the respondents agree that the quantity of produce is affected due to
crop raiding by wild animals which eventually lead to less production.
Table-9 Quantity of produce is affected leading to less production
Particulars
Average Response
Weightage
Less Production
Strongly agree
0.58
5.00
2.92
Agree
0.33
4.00
1.33
Indifferent
0.07
3.00
0.20
Disagree
0.00
2.00
0.00
Strongly disagree
0.00
1.00
0.00
Mean Score
4.45
Field Survey, 2017
Quality of produce is affected fetching less prices in the market
It is shown in [Table-10] that using Likert scale method the mean score from the
respondents was found to be 3.83 which is near about agree. It means that some
of the respondents agree that the quality of produce is affected by crop damage
by wild animals which fetch poor prices in the market to the farmers.
Table-10 Quality of produce is affected fetching less prices in the market
Particulars
Average Response
Weightage
Less Prices
Strongly agree
0.33
5.00
1.67
Agree
0.38
4.00
1.53
Indifferent
0.17
3.00
0.50
Disagree
0.03
2.00
0.07
Strongly disagree
0.07
1.00
0.07
Mean Score
3.83
Field Survey, 2017
Examining the types of animals involved in crop damage
Animal involved in crop raiding
It can be seen from the [Table-11] that the wild boar is the most problematic
animal in this area as was reported by 78.33 percent farmers. The monkeys and
the barking deer also cause a huge damage. The Himalayan langur causes least
disturbances with 21.67 percent response. It is revealed that the wild boar is the
most problematic wild animal in the area. As according to the present study done
in Kandaghat block it was revealed that the wild animals were threatening peoples
lives as was reported by 24.19 percent of respondents.
Table-11 Animal involved in crop raiding
Wild Animals
Number
Per cent
Rats
19
31.67
Monkeys
40
66.67
Porcupine
16
26.67
Wild Boar
47
78.33
Barking Dear
31
51.67
Parakeets
23
38.33
Langur
13
21.67
Field Survey, 2017
Reviewing the existing Government policies on the regulation of animal damage:
There has been a practice of paying compensation/relief due to losses caused to
human beings and domestic livestock by the wild animals. The rates for
compensation in case of livestock are not comparable to the actual loss. In case of
attack on human beings, there are different rates to compensate the loss. In case
of minor injury a sum of Rs.10000/- is paid to the affected person. In case of
grievous injury a sum of Rs.75000/- is paid. In case of death of human being Rs.
150000/- and in case of permanent disability a sum of Rs.1 lakh is paid as
compensation. There is no provision of paying compensation for loss to crops.
The amount of compensation is much below the market value [16]. Suggestions
seek from the farming community regarding government policy issues:
Causes of crop raiding
It is illustrated in [Table-12] that the major reasons of crop damage was sudden
increase in the population of wild boar with a strong response of 61.67 percent.
The majority of farmers also believed that the Government prot ects wildlife to a
large extent (51.67%). However, 50.00 percent farmers argued that the shortage
of the forest land and encroachment into forest land which the habitat of wildlife.
Some of the farmers also said that lack of fencing is also one of the main reason.
This finding also matched with the study of [1]. It can be observed that the wild
boar is the most problematic animal.
Causes of Crop raiding
Number
Percent
Increasing population of monkeys
16.00
26.67
Translocation of monkeys
10.00
16.67
Sudden increase in population of wild boar
37.00
61.67
Lack of fencing
28.00
46.67
Shortage of jungle and encroachment
30.00
50.00
Government is protecting wildlife
31.00
51.67
Wild animals attack during night
7.00
11.67
Field Survey, 2017

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences
ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 10, Issue 12, 2018
|| Bioinfo Publications ||
6441
A Study on Managing Crop Damage by Wild Animals in Himachal Pradesh
Table-13 Suggestions to overcome crop damage problem
How to overcome crop damage problem?
Highly Recommended (3)
Moderately
Recommended (2)
Least Recommended
(1)
Total weightage
Score
Rank
Fencing
31
29
0
151
II
Subsidies/Funds/Assistance
44
16
0
164
I
Permission to kill problem animals
8
18
34
94
V
Compensation of crop damage
32
20
8
144
III
Using poisoning agents in food crops
13
27
20
113
IV
Field Survey, 2017
Table-14 Suggestions to harmonize farmers and wild animals
Farmers and wild animals live in harmony
Highly
Recommended (3)
Moderately
Recommended (2)
Least
Recommended(1)
Total weightage
Score
Rank
Compensation in case of damage
29
31
0
149
I
Catching and Relocating of problem animals
8
13
39
89
V
Scaring off animals
9
19
32
97
IV
To make alternate water points for wild animals
26
26
8
138
II
Celebrating many other festivals like "Van mahotsav"
18
27
15
123
III
Field Survey, 2017
Suggestions to overcome crop damage problem
[Table-13] reveals that the farmers liked the suggestion of subsidies, funds and
assistance the most to overcome the crop damage problem as the suggestion is
given rank 1st. In this analysis, the total weightage method was used for ranking
the suggestions to overcome crop damage problems. Similar results were found
by [7]. The suggestions of fencing and compensation were also liked by farmers
as these were rated rank 2nd and rank 3rd re spectively.
Suggestions to harmonize farmers and wild animals
It is indicated in the [Table-14] that the total weightage method was used in
ranking the suggestions given to the farmers regarding harmonizing farmers and
animals, according to their response in this study. This finding was matched with
the study of [9]. The farmers liked the suggestion of compensation in case of crop
damage the most and they ranked it 1st. The farmers also liked the suggestion of
making alternate water points for wild animals and ranked it 2nd. The farmers
were willing to harmonize with wildlife and liked the suggestion of celebrating
many other festivals like “Van Mahotsav” and ranked it 3rd. The least liked
suggestion was of catching and relocating of wild animals and was ranked 5th
accordingly.
Conclusion
The study concluded that since the economy of Himachal Pradesh is
predominantly agricultural and majority of its population is dependent on this
sector. The vegetables and other cash crops play a crucial role in agricultural
development in the state. However, the farmers are facing the crop damage
problems due to the crop raiding wild animals. The farmers have to cope with
these animals and on the same page forest cover is reducing due to an
encroachment, wildlife habitat is reducing. The crop damage is resulted as when
the animals venture into the agricultural fields in search of food. The study has
observed that the family income of farming community has drastically decreased
due to crop raiding by wild animals. It was also revealed in the study that farmers
agree that the quantity of produce is affected due to crop raiding by wild animals
which eventually lead to less production whereas some of the respondents agree
that the quality of produce is affected by crop damage by wild animals which fetch
poor prices in the market to the farmers. Study categorically reported that wild
boar is the most problematic animal in this area, followed by monkeys and the
barking deer. The Himalayan langur causes least disturbances with 21.67 percent
response. The major reasons of crop damage were the sudden increase of the
population of wild boar with a strong response of 61.67 percent. The majority of
farmers also believed that the Government protects wildlife to a large extent. The
main reason is the shortage of the forest land and the encroachment into forest
land which destroys the habitat of wildlife. Some of the farmers also said that lack
of fencing is also one of the main reason. It can be observed that the wild boar is
the most problematic animal and one of the main cause of crop damage. Thus
considering the menace of wild animals on the crop damage aspects, it was
substantially suggested by the farming community that the fencing should be done
across the boundaries of the fields so that the wild animals find it diffic ult to
venture in it and cause damage. The subsidies and any other financial assistance
to farmers can be of a great assistance in coping with this crop damage problem.
There should be a provision of compensation in case of crop damage by wild
animals just like the compensation is granted in cases of natural calamity. The
alternative water points can be made for wild animals so that they stay away from
the farm lands. The various festivals just like ‘van mahotsav’ should be celebrated
at regular intervals so as to celebrate nature and natural things which will
eventually create a harmony between farmers and wild animals.
Application of research:
This research study would help the policy makers and
the researchers to understand the intensity of crop damage being faced by the
farmers. Moreover, through this research study an attempt has been made to
instigate the government agencies to take an immediate step to control the
catastrophic conditions of farming being faced by the farming community which is
struggling hard to sustain their farming business.
Research Category:
Agriculture disaster management
Abbreviations:
TWS: Total Weightage Score
Acknowledgement / Funding:
Author thankful to Dr YS Parmar University of
Horticulture & Forestry, Nauni, Solan, Himachal Pradesh,173230, India
*Research Guide or Chairperson of research: Dr Piyus Mehta
University: Dr YS Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry, Nauni, Solan,
Himachal Pradesh,173230, India
Research project name or number: A Study on Crop Damage by Wild Animals in
Kandaghat block of district Solan, Himachal Pradesh
Author Contributions: All author equally contributed
Author statement:
All authors read, reviewed, agree and approved the final
manuscript
Conflict of Interest: None declared
Ethical approval:
This article does not contain any studies with human
participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
References
[1]
Amici et al., (2012) Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32(3),
683-692.
[2]
Bayani et al., (2016) PLoS ONE 11(4), e0153854.

International Journal of Agriculture Sciences
ISSN: 0975-3710&E-ISSN: 0975-9107, Volume 10, Issue 12, 2018
|| Bioinfo Publications ||
6442
Mehta Piyush, Negi Arun, Chaudhary Rashmi, Janjhua Yasmin and Thakur Pankaj
[3]
Bhattarai B.P. and Bhasnet K. (2004) Proceedings of IV National
Conference on Science and Technology.
[4]
Bolwar A.C. (2015) Journal of Global Biosciences, 4(1), 1954-1960.
[5]
Chhangani A. K. and Mohnot S. M. (2004) Primate Report, (69), 35-
47.
[6]
Cyrille de Klemm (1996) Compensation for Damage Caused by Wild
Animals, Council of Europe Publishing, 18-84, 28.
[7]
Felix et al., (2013) Brazilian Journal of Biology, 74(4), 779-786.
[8]
Hill C. (2004) Dimen. Wild, 9, 279–286.
[9]
Jayson E.A. (1999) KFRI Research Report, 48.
[10]
Kothari C.R. (2009) Research Methodology, Methods and Techniques.
New Age International Publisher, New Delhi, 15-40.
[11]
Knight J. (2001) Anthropological Perspective, 1–35. Routledge,
London.
[12]
Knowledge Base Review Report. (2003)
http,//www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes /lwec/documents/lwec-pr-
watt-report.pdf[2010 October].
[13]
Kumar R. (2014) Research Methodology. British Library Publications,
New Delhi, India, 37−45.
[14]
Kumar R.C. (2008) Research Methodology. APH Publishing
Corporation, New Delhi, India, 23−29.
[15]
Madden F. (1999) Report to the International African Geography and
Development. Berkeley, University of California Press.
[16]
Musafir S.K. (2015) Man- Animal Conflict in Himachal Pradesh. MCT
Phase IV (7th.Course), 15.
[17]
Nyhus P.J., Tilson R., Sumianto (2000) Crop-Raiding Elephants and
Conservation Implications at Way Kambas National Park, Sumatra,
Indonesia. Oryx 34, 262-274.
[18]
Nyirenda et al., (2013) International Journal of Biodiversity and
Conservation, 5(11), 741-750.
[19]
Sekhar N. U. (1998) Environ. Conserve., 25,160–171.
[20]
Sergey M. Govorushko (2012) Natural Processes and Human Impacts,
Interactions between Humanity and the Environment. Springer
Business Media, New York, 217.
[21]
Vijayan S. and Patil B.P. (2002) Popula. and Environ., 23,541-559.
[22]
Wang S.W., et al. (2006) Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(2), 359-365.
[23]
Woolf Alen and Green Christian D. (2003) Investigations of Crop
Damage by Wild Turkeys in Illinois. Final reports, 17.
[24]
Yalden D.W., Largen M.J. (1992) The Endemic Mammals of Ethiopia.
Mammal Review, 22, 115-150.