OPINION CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 113, NO. 5, 10 SEPTEMBER 2017 846 Climate change and human–wildlife conflicts in the Indian Himalayan biodiversity hotspot Nishikant Gupta, Asha Rajvanshi and Ruchi Badola Human–wildlife conflict 1,2 is a conserva- tion challenge facing scientists and policy-makers worldwide 3,4 , with an in- creasing demand for holistic resolution strategies 5 . Conflict with wild animals has the potential to negatively affect the livelihood and well-being of communi- ties 3,6–9 , and revengeful killing of the animals to safeguard personal inte- rests 6,10,11 . This is a worrying development, especially for threatened wild species if deemed as ‘conflict species’ 3,6,9,12 , as it can greatly hinder their protection and conservation 5,13 , especially in developing countries. It is important to note that not all human–wildlife interactions give rise to negative experiences, and that humans and wildlife have historically adapted to each other’s presence in many instant- ces 14 . However, increasing human popu- lation and rapid urbanization 3,15 in many areas has fragmented the home ranges of numerous wild animals 12 , especially large carnivores 16 . It is thus not surpris- ing that there is a ‘breach of man-made boundaries’ by these animals 14 , resulting in a dynamic tussle for resource use and the likelihood of increased encounters (often negative) with humans 4,12,16 . Nonetheless, it is also important to point out that some rural areas in India are see- ing declines in human population due to urban migration and this may be ex- pected to decrease such conflicts. Addi- tionally, although fragmentation by urbanization does occur, it could be argued that agriculture, commercial plan- tations, infrastructure (e.g. roads and dams) and industries (e.g. mining) are more serious threats for habitats. The Indian Himalayan biodiversity hotspot harbours numerous endemic species, and is home to over 50 million people 17 . Local communities here are de- pendent on agriculture and animal hus- bandry, and also depend on adjoining forests for resources and livelihoods 17 . The region is affected by anthropogenic stressors 10 , including numerous existing and proposed hydropower projects 18 , and the construction of roads through animal corridors continues to degrade the natu- ral habitat 19 . The changing climatic vari- ables too continue to have a socio- ecological impact on the region 10 . It is therefore not surprising that the Indian Himalaya is facing human–wildlife con- flicts 20 . Over the last few decades (1994– 2016), field studies conducted by the authors and an extensive on-line search of peer-reviewed published and grey literature (using Google Scholar and Google search engines for the time period 1994–2016, and keywords such as ‘human–wildlife conflict’, ‘human– wildlife interactions’, ‘Indian Himalaya’, and ‘Indian Himalayan region’; resulting in 114 regional relevant publications which were downloaded, read in full, and included in the analysis) has revealed numerous wild animals which have a negative impact on the well-being of local communities (Table 1). Our data reveal that a major barrier in understanding the vulnerability, resil- ience and adaptive abilities of communi- ties to human–wildlife conflict is the lack of consideration given to conflicts, which are often complex and deep-rooted local events, governed by attitudes and behav- iour of people and underlying social ten- sions 3 . There are social and cultural perceptions, and religious beliefs of local people towards conflict species 3 , which demand a holistic approach to any con- flict 3,16,21 . It is essential to progress be- yond perceiving a threat to conflict species alone 16,22 . Obtaining information on the food and habitat availability of conflict species 16 , their historical habitat range 23 , and fragmentation of available habitat 24,25 is essential in understanding human–wildlife encounters 24,25 ; however, a multidisciplinary strategy based on communication, trust 25 , and involvement of local stakeholders could go a long way in conflict resolution 21,24,26–28 . Presently, there is a need to understand the impacts of conflict on the existing vulnerabilities of communities 21 due to the current and projected climate change in the Indian Himalayan region 29 ; and the resulting attitude and behaviour towards the conflict species 30 . Any conflict could increase this vulnerability, lessen oppor- tunities for adaptation, and reduce sup- port for species management 3 . For their implementation and long- term success, conflict resolution strate- gies 12,31,32 need to be supported by scientific 2 and legislative provisions benefiting local communities and con- flict species 3,10,26,28 , along with an oppor- tunity to bring about a positive shift in human behaviour 31 . Targeted education and awareness programmes 10 and com- munication 33 with communities could provide them with site- and species- specific information, gender-specific skills to make informed decisions 34 , and develop a level of tolerance towards con- flict species 22 . Print and electronic media can play an important role here 2 . Also, local communities need to be active participants and partners in the entire process of human–wildlife conflict reso- lution. Further, giving voice to and empowering local people, addressing vulnerabilities and human needs, and de- signing locally appropriate measures with local participation will go a long way in this endeavour. The socio-ecological impacts of con- flict should be assessed across multiple habitats 6,12 based on field data collected over spatial and temporal scales to gain knowledge about the patterns of conflict and movements of conflict species 35 . Understanding the habitat continuity, food availability and population structure of conflict species could further assist in formulating resolution strategies 36 amidst the changing climatic variables in the region. The attitude and perception of people to conflict species needs to be monitored, which can change over time 37 . Additionally, the effects of conflicts on the wildlife (i.e. numbers killed, culled), and area of habitat loss also need to be carefully looked into. The current compensatory mechanisms need to be strengthened, become more transparent, and provide locally accept- able incentives and opportunities for communities 38 and conflict species 6,9,39 . Alternatively, approaches such as insur- ance (which is different conceptually and practically from the current compensa- tion mechanism) need to be looked into for local communities. When relying on species distribution models for conflict