Anti-Poaching for Endangered Megafauna Conservation in Assam, India: Examining Stakeholder Perception

Sudha Balajapalli; Younsung Kim

doi:doi:10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Anti-Poaching for Endangered Megafauna Conservation in Assam, India: Examining Stakeholder Perception

Sudha Balajapalli^*

, Younsung Kim

Published in Journal of Public Policy and Administration (Volume 8, Issue 1)

Received: 21 February 2024 Accepted: 7 March 2024 Published: 2 April 2024

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

India is the stronghold for endangered species and poaching and illegal trade have seriously threatened wildlife conservation. Against this backdrop, Indian regulatory authorities have strengthened workforce capacity for monitoring and enforcement actions against poaching, employed patrolling systems, and adopted lethal deterrence-based policies. However, efforts to control poaching and conserve biodiversity are often at odds with local communities' needs and interests, and stakeholder participation in management is integral to successful wildlife conservation. This research aims to understand stakeholder perception of anti-poaching management practices and tribal customs in protected areas. A survey was conducted to gather information from forest staff and fringe villagers at the four national parks and one wildlife sanctuary in Assam, India. The results indicate that villagers around protected areas generally perceive that the Forest Department and patrolling effectively prevent poaching. However, stakeholders' perceptions of the lethal deterrence-based policies and tribal customs were split, depending on the local communities' unique social, economic, and political situations. Leveraging these responses, wildlife managers in India can collaborate with villagers around the protected areas to address the threats of poaching to wild megafauna. Further, this research underpins the reason to strengthen the enforcement capacity of forest staff, as they stand at the frontline of endangered species protection in biodiversity-rich, developing countries.

Published in	Journal of Public Policy and Administration (Volume 8, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15
Page(s)	33-43
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Poaching, Anti-poaching Management Practices, Tribal Customs, National Parks, Protected Areas, Stakeholder Perception

References

[1]	Altman, J., & Cochrane, M. (2005). Sustainable development in the indigenous-owned savanna: Innovative institutional design for cooperative wildlife management. Wildlife Research, 32(5), 473–480. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR04074
[2]	Annecke, W., & Masubelele, M. (2016). A review of the impact of militarisation: The case of rhino poaching in Kruger National Park, South Africa. Conservation and Society, 14(3), 195–204.
[3]	Assam Project on Forest and Biodiversity Conservation. (2018). Evaluation of Assam Project on Forest and Biodiversity Conservation (APFBC) followed by Drafting of Phase II of the Project. http://www.Evaluation-Report-APFBC%20Nov%202018.pdf
[4]	Assam State Biodiversity Board. (2022). Assam State Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2017-2030. Assam State Biodiversity Board. https://www.asbb.gov.in/booklets/ASBSAP%20Report%20(2).pdf
[5]	Dang Vu, H. N., & Nielsen, M. R. (2018). Understanding utilitarian and hedonic values determining the demand for rhino horn in Vietnam. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 23(5), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2018.1449038
[6]	Das, D., & Hussain, I. (2016). Does ecotourism affect economic welfare? Evidence from Kaziranga National Park, India. Journal of Ecotourism, 15(3), 241–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2016.1192180
[7]	Decker, D. J., Forstchen, A. B., Pomeranz, E. F., Smith, C. A., Riley, S. J., Jacobson, C. A., Organ, J. F., & Batcheller, G. R. (2015). Stakeholder engagement in wildlife management: Does the public trust doctrine imply limits? Journal of Wildlife Management, 79(2), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.809
[8]	Devi, M. K. (2012). Ecotourism in assam: A promising opportunity for development. South Asian Journal of Tourism and Heritage, 5(1), 179–192.
[9]	Dickman, A., Johnson, P., Coals, P., Harrington, L., Tyrrell, P., Somerville, K., Cotterill, A., & Whetham, D. (2020). Wars over Wildlife: Green Militarisation and Just War Theory. Conservation and Society, 18(3), 293. https://doi.org/10.4103/cs.cs_19_34
[10]	Duffy, R., St John, F. A., Büscher, B., & Brockington, D. A. N. (2015). The militarization of anti-poaching: Undermining long term goals? Environmental Conservation, 42(4), 345–348. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892915000119
[11]	Dunn, O. J. (1964). Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics, 6(3), 241–252.
[12]	Dutta, A. (2020). Forest becomes frontline: Conservation and counter-insurgency in a space of violent conflict in Assam, Northeast India. Political Geography, 77, 102117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2019.102117
[13]	Dutta, A., & Simlai, T. (2022). If the Army Cuts Trees, Why Can’t We? Resource Extraction, Hunting and the Impacts of Militaries on Biodiversity Conservation. In Enforcing Ecocide (pp. 199–225). Springer.
[14]	Frank, B., & Glikman, J. A. (2019). Human-wildlife conflicts and the need to include coexistence. Human–Wildlife Interactions: Turning Conflict into Coexistence, 23, 1–19.
[15]	Gogoi, D., & Gogoi, B. (2022). Endangering the Endangered: The Poaching and Conservation Conundrum Facing the Greater Indian One-Horned Rhinoceros in Kaziranga National Park, Assam, India. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2022.2124609
[16]	Gogoi, M. (2018). Emotional coping among communities affected by wildlife–caused damage in north-east India: Opportunities for building tolerance and improving conservation outcomes. Oryx, 52(2), 214–219. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605317001193
[17]	Gosling, J. (2018). Skinned, the growing appetite for Asian elephants. An Investigative Report from Elephant Family.
[18]	Government of Assam--Environment and Forest. (2022). National Parks. National Park \| Environment & Forest \| Government of Assam, India. https://environmentandforest.assam.gov.in/information-services/national-park
[19]	Haas, T. C., & Ferreira, S. M. (2016). Combating Rhino Horn Trafficking: The Need to Disrupt Criminal Networks. PLOS ONE, 11(11), e0167040. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167040
[20]	Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 65–70.
[21]	Hotte, M. H. H., Kolodin, I. A., Bereznuk, S. L., Slaght, J. C., Kerley, L. L., Soutyrina, S. V., Salkina, G. P., Zaumyslova, O. Y., Stokes, E. J., & Miquelle, D. G. (2016). Indicators of success for smart law enforcement in protected areas: A case study for Russian Amur tiger (Panthera tigris altaica) reserves. Integrative Zoology, 11(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/1749-4877.12168
[22]	IFAW, K. (2010). Ivory market in China: China ivory trade survey report. International fund for animal welfare.
[23]	Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab) use them? Medical Education, 38(12), 1217–1218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02237.x
[24]	Janaki, M., Pandit, R., & Sharma, R. K. (2021). The role of traditional belief systems in conserving biological diversity in the Eastern Himalaya Eco-region of India. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 26(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2020.1781982
[25]	Jhala, Y., Gopal, R., Mathur, V., Ghosh, P., Negi, H. S., Narain, S., Yadav, S. P., Malik, A., Garawad, R., & Qureshi, Q. (2021). Recovery of tigers in India: Critical introspection and potential lessons. People and Nature, 3(2), 281–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10177
[26]	Juntadach, S., Sponsel, L. E., Natadecha-Sponsel, P., & Ruttanadakul, N. (1998). Sacred and/or secular approaches to biodiversity conservation in Thailand. Worldviews: Global Religions, Culture, and Ecology, 2(2), 155–167.
[27]	Kiruba-Sankar, R., Lohith Kumar, K., Saravanan, K., & Praveenraj, J. (2019). Poaching in Andaman and Nicobar coasts: Insights. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 23(1), 95–109.
[28]	Kothari, A., Suri, S., & Singh, N. (1995). Conservation in India: A new direction. Economic and Political Weekly, 2755–2766.
[29]	Kruskal, W. H., & Wallis, W. A. (1952). Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47(260), 583–621. https://doi.org/10.2307/2280779
[30]	Kummitha, H. R. (2020). Stakeholders involvement towards sustaining ecotourism destinations: The case of social entrepreneurship at mangalajodi ecotourism trust in India. Geo Journal of Tourism and Geosites, 29(2), 636–648. https://doi.org/10.14321/aehm.024.02.13
[31]	Lepcha, L. D., Shukla, G., Pala, N. A., Vineeta, Pal, P. K., & Chakravarty, S. (2019). Contribution of NTFPs on livelihood of forest-fringe communities in Jaldapara National Park, India. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 38(3), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2018.1528158
[32]	Louchouarn, N., Santiago-Ávila, F. J., Parsons, D. R., & Treves, A. (2021). Supplementary material from “Evaluating how lethal management affects poaching of Mexican wolves.” https://doi.org/10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.C.5324949.V1
[33]	Mangattuthazhe, T. (2008). Violence and search for peace in Karbi Anglong, Assam. Guwahati: NESRC.
[34]	Milda, D., Ramesh, T., Kalle, R., Gayathri, V., & Thanikodi, M. (2020). Ranger survey reveals conservation issues across Protected and outside Protected Areas in southern India. Global Ecology and Conservation, 24, e01256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01256
[35]	Mishra, M. (2002). Evolution, impact, and effectiveness of domestic wildlife trade ban in India. The Trade in Wildlife: Regulation for Conservation. Earthscan, London, United Kingdom, 78–88.
[36]	Mogomotsi, G. E., & Mogomotsi, P. K. (2021). Law of Armed Conflict in Non-International Hostilities: The Militarisation of Wildlife Conservation in Africa. Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, 24(3–4), 366–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2021.2059239
[37]	Moilanen, A., Anderson, B. J., Eigenbrod, F., Heinemeyer, A., Roy, D. B., Gillings, S., Armsworth, P. R., Gaston, K. J., & Thomas, C. D. (2011). Balancing alternative land uses in conservation prioritization. Ecological Applications, 21(5), 1419–1426. https://doi.org/10.1890/10-1865.1
[38]	Moreto, W. D., & Matusiak, M. C. (2017). “We fight against wrong doers”: Law enforcement rangers’ roles, responsibilities, and patrol operations in Uganda. Deviant Behavior, 38(4), 426–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2016.1197015
[39]	Nath, H. K. (2019). Ecotourism and Economic Development. Available at SSRN 3488557.
[40]	Negi, C. S. (2005). Religion and biodiversity conservation: Not a mere analogy. The International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, 1(2), 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/17451590509618083
[41]	Niraj, S. K., Krausman, P. R., & Dayal, V. (2012). A stakeholder perspective into wildlife policy in India. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 76(1), 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.263
[42]	Constitution of India, Sixth Schedule (1952). https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/pdf1/S6.pdf
[43]	Patankar, V. J. (2019). Attitude, perception and awareness of stakeholders towards the protected marine species in the Andaman Islands. Ocean & Coastal Management, 179, 104830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104830
[44]	Patil, I. (2021). Visualizations with statistical details: The’ggstatsplot’approach. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(61), 3167. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03167
[45]	Pell, G. (2005). Use and misuse of Likert scales.
[46]	R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
[47]	Raman, T. S. (2011). Framing ecologically sound policy on linear intrusions affecting wildlife habitats. Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysuru, India.
[48]	Seidensticker, J. (2010). Saving wild tigers: A case study in biodiversity loss and challenges to be met for recovery beyond 2010. Integrative Zoology, 5(4), 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4877.2010.00214.x
[49]	Shackelford, G. E., Steward, P. R., German, R. N., Sait, S. M., & Benton, T. G. (2015). Conservation planning in agricultural landscapes: Hotspots of conflict between agriculture and nature. Diversity and Distributions, 21(3), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/ddi.12291
[50]	Siemer, W. F., & Decker, D. J. (2006). An assessment of black bear impacts in New York. Human Dimensions Research Unit Series Publication 06–6, Department of Natural Resources.
[51]	Singh, T. P., & Hegde, R. (2004). Stakeholder analysis in joint forest management in India: A case study of Haryana Shivaliks. Environmental Economics in Practice. Oxford University Press, Delhi, India, 204–239.
[52]	Talukdar, B. K. (2003). Importance of anti-poaching measures towards successful conservation and protection of rhinos and elephants, north-eastern India. Pachyderm, 34, 59–65.
[53]	United Nations Office of Drug and Crime. (2020). World Wildlife Crime Report. United Nations.
[54]	UNODC. (2010). The globalization of crime: A transnational organized crime threat assessment. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
[55]	Weeks, P., & Mehta, S. (2004). Managing people and landscapes: IUCN’s protected area categories. Journal of Human Ecology, 16(4), 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2004.11905747
[56]	Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (2nd ed. 2016). Springer International Publishing : Imprint: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4
[57]	World Wildlife Fund for Nature. (2018). LIFE ON THE FRONTLINE 2018 A global survey of the working conditions of rangers. http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/wwf_rangers_survey_report_181005_hires_page_2.pdf
[58]	WWF-India. (2021). Caretakers of Conservation. Recognizing the Efforts of Forest Frontline Workers as Caretakers of Conservation. https://www.wwfindia.org/?20222/Recognizing-the-efforts-of-forest-frontline-workers-as-caretakers-of-conservation

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Balajapalli, S., Kim, Y. (2024). Anti-Poaching for Endangered Megafauna Conservation in Assam, India: Examining Stakeholder Perception. Journal of Public Policy and Administration, 8(1), 33-43. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Balajapalli, S.; Kim, Y. Anti-Poaching for Endangered Megafauna Conservation in Assam, India: Examining Stakeholder Perception. J. Public Policy Adm. 2024, 8(1), 33-43. doi: 10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Balajapalli S, Kim Y. Anti-Poaching for Endangered Megafauna Conservation in Assam, India: Examining Stakeholder Perception. J Public Policy Adm. 2024;8(1):33-43. doi: 10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15,
  author = {Sudha Balajapalli and Younsung Kim},
  title = {Anti-Poaching for Endangered Megafauna Conservation in Assam, India: Examining Stakeholder Perception},
  journal = {Journal of Public Policy and Administration},
  volume = {8},
  number = {1},
  pages = {33-43},
  doi = {10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jppa.20240801.15},
  abstract = {India is the stronghold for endangered species and poaching and illegal trade have seriously threatened wildlife conservation. Against this backdrop, Indian regulatory authorities have strengthened workforce capacity for monitoring and enforcement actions against poaching, employed patrolling systems, and adopted lethal deterrence-based policies. However, efforts to control poaching and conserve biodiversity are often at odds with local communities' needs and interests, and stakeholder participation in management is integral to successful wildlife conservation. This research aims to understand stakeholder perception of anti-poaching management practices and tribal customs in protected areas. A survey was conducted to gather information from forest staff and fringe villagers at the four national parks and one wildlife sanctuary in Assam, India. The results indicate that villagers around protected areas generally perceive that the Forest Department and patrolling effectively prevent poaching. However, stakeholders' perceptions of the lethal deterrence-based policies and tribal customs were split, depending on the local communities' unique social, economic, and political situations. Leveraging these responses, wildlife managers in India can collaborate with villagers around the protected areas to address the threats of poaching to wild megafauna. Further, this research underpins the reason to strengthen the enforcement capacity of forest staff, as they stand at the frontline of endangered species protection in biodiversity-rich, developing countries.},
 year = {2024}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Anti-Poaching for Endangered Megafauna Conservation in Assam, India: Examining Stakeholder Perception
AU  - Sudha Balajapalli
AU  - Younsung Kim
Y1  - 2024/04/02
PY  - 2024
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15
T2  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
JF  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
JO  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
SP  - 33
EP  - 43
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-2696
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15
AB  - India is the stronghold for endangered species and poaching and illegal trade have seriously threatened wildlife conservation. Against this backdrop, Indian regulatory authorities have strengthened workforce capacity for monitoring and enforcement actions against poaching, employed patrolling systems, and adopted lethal deterrence-based policies. However, efforts to control poaching and conserve biodiversity are often at odds with local communities' needs and interests, and stakeholder participation in management is integral to successful wildlife conservation. This research aims to understand stakeholder perception of anti-poaching management practices and tribal customs in protected areas. A survey was conducted to gather information from forest staff and fringe villagers at the four national parks and one wildlife sanctuary in Assam, India. The results indicate that villagers around protected areas generally perceive that the Forest Department and patrolling effectively prevent poaching. However, stakeholders' perceptions of the lethal deterrence-based policies and tribal customs were split, depending on the local communities' unique social, economic, and political situations. Leveraging these responses, wildlife managers in India can collaborate with villagers around the protected areas to address the threats of poaching to wild megafauna. Further, this research underpins the reason to strengthen the enforcement capacity of forest staff, as they stand at the frontline of endangered species protection in biodiversity-rich, developing countries.
VL  - 8
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Sudha Balajapalli

Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, United States

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0009-0008-6698-3085
Younsung Kim

Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, United States

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7498-9865

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Balajapalli, S., Kim, Y. (2024). Anti-Poaching for Endangered Megafauna Conservation in Assam, India: Examining Stakeholder Perception. Journal of Public Policy and Administration, 8(1), 33-43. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Balajapalli, S.; Kim, Y. Anti-Poaching for Endangered Megafauna Conservation in Assam, India: Examining Stakeholder Perception. J. Public Policy Adm. 2024, 8(1), 33-43. doi: 10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Balajapalli S, Kim Y. Anti-Poaching for Endangered Megafauna Conservation in Assam, India: Examining Stakeholder Perception. J Public Policy Adm. 2024;8(1):33-43. doi: 10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15,
  author = {Sudha Balajapalli and Younsung Kim},
  title = {Anti-Poaching for Endangered Megafauna Conservation in Assam, India: Examining Stakeholder Perception},
  journal = {Journal of Public Policy and Administration},
  volume = {8},
  number = {1},
  pages = {33-43},
  doi = {10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.jppa.20240801.15},
  abstract = {India is the stronghold for endangered species and poaching and illegal trade have seriously threatened wildlife conservation. Against this backdrop, Indian regulatory authorities have strengthened workforce capacity for monitoring and enforcement actions against poaching, employed patrolling systems, and adopted lethal deterrence-based policies. However, efforts to control poaching and conserve biodiversity are often at odds with local communities' needs and interests, and stakeholder participation in management is integral to successful wildlife conservation. This research aims to understand stakeholder perception of anti-poaching management practices and tribal customs in protected areas. A survey was conducted to gather information from forest staff and fringe villagers at the four national parks and one wildlife sanctuary in Assam, India. The results indicate that villagers around protected areas generally perceive that the Forest Department and patrolling effectively prevent poaching. However, stakeholders' perceptions of the lethal deterrence-based policies and tribal customs were split, depending on the local communities' unique social, economic, and political situations. Leveraging these responses, wildlife managers in India can collaborate with villagers around the protected areas to address the threats of poaching to wild megafauna. Further, this research underpins the reason to strengthen the enforcement capacity of forest staff, as they stand at the frontline of endangered species protection in biodiversity-rich, developing countries.},
 year = {2024}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Anti-Poaching for Endangered Megafauna Conservation in Assam, India: Examining Stakeholder Perception
AU  - Sudha Balajapalli
AU  - Younsung Kim
Y1  - 2024/04/02
PY  - 2024
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15
DO  - 10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15
T2  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
JF  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
JO  - Journal of Public Policy and Administration
SP  - 33
EP  - 43
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-2696
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jppa.20240801.15
AB  - India is the stronghold for endangered species and poaching and illegal trade have seriously threatened wildlife conservation. Against this backdrop, Indian regulatory authorities have strengthened workforce capacity for monitoring and enforcement actions against poaching, employed patrolling systems, and adopted lethal deterrence-based policies. However, efforts to control poaching and conserve biodiversity are often at odds with local communities' needs and interests, and stakeholder participation in management is integral to successful wildlife conservation. This research aims to understand stakeholder perception of anti-poaching management practices and tribal customs in protected areas. A survey was conducted to gather information from forest staff and fringe villagers at the four national parks and one wildlife sanctuary in Assam, India. The results indicate that villagers around protected areas generally perceive that the Forest Department and patrolling effectively prevent poaching. However, stakeholders' perceptions of the lethal deterrence-based policies and tribal customs were split, depending on the local communities' unique social, economic, and political situations. Leveraging these responses, wildlife managers in India can collaborate with villagers around the protected areas to address the threats of poaching to wild megafauna. Further, this research underpins the reason to strengthen the enforcement capacity of forest staff, as they stand at the frontline of endangered species protection in biodiversity-rich, developing countries.
VL  - 8
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download