Effectiveness of community-based livestock protection strategies: a case study of human–lion conflict mitigation L OVEMOR E S IBANDA,PAUL J. JOHNSON,ESTHER VAN DER MEER


COURTNEY HUGHES,BONGANI DLO D L O,LIOMBA J. MAT H E ,J AN E E. HUNT ROGER H. P ARRY,DAV I D W. MAC D O N A L D and ANDREW J. LOVE R I D G E


Abstract Conservation scientists are increasingly recogniz- ing the need to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to improve human–wildlife coexistence across different con- texts. Here we assessed the long-term efficacy of the Long Shields Community Guardians programme in Zimbabwe. This community-based programme seeks to protect live- stock and prevent depredation by lions Panthera leo through non-lethal means, with the ultimate aim of promoting human–lion coexistence. Using a quasi-experi- mental approach, we measured temporal trends in livestock depredation by lions and the prevalence of retaliatory killing of lions by farmers and wildlife managers. Farmers thatwere part of the Long Shields programme experienced a signifi- cant reduction in livestock loss to lions, and the annual number of lions subject to retaliatory killing by farmers dropped by 41% since the start of the programme in 2013, compared to 2008–2012, before the programme was in- itiated. Our findings demonstrate the Long Shields pro- gramme can be a potential model for limiting livestock depredation by lions. More broadly, our study demonstrates the effectiveness of community-based interventions to en- gage community members, improve livestock protection and ameliorate levels of retaliatory killing, thereby reducing human–lion conflict.


Keywords African lion, community-based coexistence intervention, conservation, impact evaluation, livestock depredation, Long Shields Community Guardian pro- gramme, non-lethal, Zimbabwe


Supplementary material for this article is available at doi.org/10.1017/S0030605321000302


Introduction O


ver the past 2 centuries, more than 75% of large carni- vore populations have experienced substantial range


contractions and population declines (Ripple et al., 2014). In particular, negative interactions of large carnivores with people and livestock are a significant threat to the per- sistence of carnivore populations (Wolf & Ripple, 2017). Conflict between people with opposing views on wildlife conservation, commonly referred to as human–wildlife conflict, arises when the needs and behaviour of wild ani- mals negatively affect the goals and well-being of people, and vice versa (Madden, 2004). The human population is increasing, and this is likely to exacerbate conflicts involv- ing wildlife and lead to further declines of large carnivores (Wittemyer et al., 2008). Facilitating long-term coexistence between people and wild carnivores is therefore an urgent conservation priority (Ripple et al., 2014). The African lion Panthera leo, the largest predator in


LOVEMORE SIBANDA (Corresponding author, orcid.org/0000-0002-4960-9242,


lovemore@cheetahzimbabwe.org), PAUL J. JOHNSON,COURTNEY HUGHES* (


orcid.org/0000-0002-2462-5633), LIOMBA J. MATHE,JANE E. HUNT,DAVID


W. MACDONALD and ANDREW J. LOVERIDGE Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, The Recanati-Kaplan Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford OX13 5QL, UK


ESTHER VAN DER MEER ( orcid.org/0000-0001-6784-7837) Cheetah Conservation Project Zimbabwe, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe


BONGANI DLODLO and ROGER H. PARRY Victoria Falls Wildlife Trust, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe


*Also at: Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada


Received 23 July 2020. Revision requested 14 October 2020. Accepted 10 March 2021. First published online 17 December 2021.


the savannah ecosystem, is negatively affected by the conse- quences of the increasing human population (Bauer et al., 2016). Lion populations are extinct in North and Central Africa and declining in East Africa, but stable in Southern Africa. Conflict with people along the boundaries of pro- tected areas threatens the long-term viability of the remain- ing lion populations (Bauer et al., 2016). For example, lions kill livestock, a major source of livelihood for marginalized communities, and farmers kill lions in revenge (Dickman et al., 2014). To safeguard the species, robust interventions are needed to reduce the impact of lions on people, and the resulting retaliatory killing of lions (Bauer et al., 2016). A diverse array of technical tools, both lethal and non-


lethal, have been developed globally to minimize the nega- tive impacts of wild carnivores (Miller et al., 2016). These interventions range from basic methods such as livestock herding (Ogada et al., 2003) to sophisticated techniques such as the use of lightweight metal collars that may protect livestock fromdepredation (McManus et al., 2014).However, many of these interventions have not been evaluated for


This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Oryx, 2022, 56(4), 537–545 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321000302


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164