Using participatory risk mapping (PRM) to identify and understand people's perceptions of crop loss to animals in Uganda

PLoS One. 2014 Jul 30;9(7):e102912. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102912. eCollection 2014.

Abstract

Considering how people perceive risks to their livelihoods from local wildlife is central to (i) understanding the impact of crop damage by animals on local people and (ii) recognising how this influences their interactions with, and attitudes towards, wildlife. Participatory risk mapping (PRM) is a simple, analytical tool that can be used to identify and classify risk within communities. Here we use it to explore local people's perceptions of crop damage by wildlife and the animal species involved. Interviews (n = 93, n = 76) and seven focus groups were conducted in four villages around Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda during 2004 and 2005. Farms (N = 129) were simultaneously monitored for crop loss. Farmers identified damage by wildlife as the most significant risk to their crops; risk maps highlighted its anomalous status compared to other anticipated challenges to agricultural production. PRM was further used to explore farmers' perceptions of animal species causing crop damage and the results of this analysis compared with measured crop losses. Baboons (Papio anubis) were considered the most problematic species locally but measurements of loss indicate this perceived severity was disproportionately high. In contrast goats (Capra hircus) were considered only a moderate risk, yet risk of damage by this species was significant. Surprisingly, for wild pigs (Potamochoerus sp), perceptions of severity were not as high as damage incurred might have predicted, although perceived incidence was greater than recorded frequency of damage events. PRM can assist researchers and practitioners to identify and explore perceptions of the risk of crop damage by wildlife. As this study highlights, simply quantifying crop loss does not determine issues that are important to local people nor the complex relationships between perceived risk factors. Furthermore, as PRM is easily transferable it may contribute to the identification and development of standardised approaches of mitigation across sites of negative human-wildlife interaction.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Animals
  • Animals, Wild
  • Attitude
  • Crops, Agricultural / supply & distribution*
  • Humans
  • Perception*
  • Psychology, Social
  • Risk
  • Uganda

Grants and funding

Funding was provided by an Oxford Brookes University Scholarship, a Wildlife Conservation Society Research Fellowship, grants from the Parkes Foundation, Wenner Gren Foundation, Primate Conservation, Incorporated and a British Airways/Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) Travel Bursary. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.