Exclude wild mammals using ditches, moats, walls or other barricades to reduce human-wildlife conflict

Overall effectiveness category Likely to be beneficial
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

70%
Certainty

50%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

This intervention includes the use of a range of barriers to prevent access to livestock by mammalian predators. If successful, this could reduce incentives for carrying out lethal control of predators.

Study locations

Key messages

Two studies evaluated the effects of excluding wild mammals using ditches, moats, walls or other barricades to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Cameroon and Benin and one was in Cameroon.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (2 STUDIES)

Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study and one site comparison), in Cameroon and Benin and in Cameroon, found that fewer livestock were predated when they were kept in enclosures, especially when these were reinforced.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, before-and-after study in 2004–2006 at a national park in Cameroon and a national park in Benin (Bauer et al. 2010) found that when livestock enclosures were reinforced, fewer livestock were predated. In Cameroon, no cattle or pigs were predated from reinforced enclosures compared to six cattle predated (by lions Panthera leo) and 20 pigs predated (three by lions, 17 by hyenas Crocuta crocuta) from non-reinforced enclosures. In Benin, four cattle were predated (by lions) and 16 pigs (2 by lions, 14 by hyenas) from reinforced enclosures compared to 13 cattle predated (12 by lions, one by hyenas) and 53 pigs (28 by lions, 25 by hyenas) before reinforcements were added. In Cameroon, 75% of pastoralists across six villages in a national park buffer zone upgraded livestock enclosures. Enclosures comprised a thick layer of thorny shrubs and/or earth walls, with a safe gate (wood, or a complete tree Acacia seyal crown as a ‘gate-plug’). Their performance was compared with that of non-reinforced enclosures over an unspecified period. In Benin, 13 enclosures were improved in 10 villages around a national park. The improved enclosures comprised sundried clay bricks covered with a clay/cement mixture (‘banco’), similar to local houses. Livestock predation figures before (2004) and after (2005–2006) improvements were collated.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Bauer H., de-Iongh H. & Sogbohossou E. (2010) Assessment and mitigation of human-lion conflict in west and central Africa. Mammalia, 74, 363–367.
A site comparison study in 2008 of savanna around a national park in Cameroon (Tumenta et al. 2013) found that barricading livestock inside enclosures overnight reduced losses through predation by lions Panthera leo. Households owning enclosures lost an average of one animal/year to lion predation compared to two animals/year for households not owning enclosures. Owning enclosures did not reduce overall numbers of livestock predated by all mammalian predators (lions, spotted hyaenas Crocuta crocuta and jackals Canis aureus) (with enclosure: 4 animals predated/year; without enclosure: 5). However, fewer animals were lost by households that owned solid enclosures (2 animals/year) than those that owned enclosures made of thorny bushes (7 animals/year). In total, 207 resident pastoralists were interviewed for this study. Pastoralists reported the incidence of predation on livestock by large carnivores as well as whether their livestock were confined in enclosures at night. Villages were selected based on the tracking of movements of radio-collared lions.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Tumenta P.N., de Iongh H.H., Funston P.J. & Udo de Haes H.A. (2013) Livestock depredation and mitigation methods practised by resident and nomadic pastoralists around Waza National Park, Cameroon. Oryx, 47, 237-242.

Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Use fire to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	2	Synopsis Link
Fit livestock with protective collars to reduce risk of predation by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Install automatically closing gates at field entrances to prevent mammals entering to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link