Integrating social and ecological information to identify high-risk areas of human-crocodile conflict in the Indonesian Archipelago

• Published in: Biological conservation 2023-04, Vol.280, p.109965, Article 109965
• Main Authors: Ardiantiono, Henkanaththegedara, Sujan M., Sideleau, Brandon, Sheherazade, Anwar, Yogie, Haidir, Iding A., Amarasinghe, A.A. Thasun
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Crocodylus porosus; Human-wildlife conflict; Media content analysis; Risk prioritization; Socio-ecological framework
• ISSN: 0006-3207; 1873-2917
• DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109965

Crocodile attacks on humans and subsequent retaliations are a pressing issue for saltwater crocodile conservation. As human-crocodile conflict is complex, integrating social and ecological information better explains the drivers and patterns of these interactions. Our study aims to incorporate ecological factors associated with the intensity of crocodile attacks together with social factors of mass media reports to identify high-risk areas of human-crocodile conflict in Indonesia. We compiled reports of crocodile attacks in the 2010–2019 period from media reports, field surveys, and local informants. The presence of attack was estimated by evaluating the influence of habitat, climate, human, and reporting effort. As tone of media coverage can reflect and shape reader's tolerance about a certain issue, we assessed the headline's tone from each media article that reported crocodile attacks from 2017 to 2019. A total of 665 crocodile attacks were recorded and mainly distributed in western and central Indonesia. The estimated number of crocodile attacks was higher in areas with lower forest biomass and human density, and wider cellular network coverage. Negative media coverages were frequently reported in western Indonesia. By combining social information of negative media reporting and the ecological information of crocodile attacks hotspots, we identified 170,500 km2 priority risk areas in the western part of Indonesia, a notable 65.8 % reduction in area size compared to the attack hotspots. We highlight the application of socio-ecological information in risk prioritization to address the rising trends of negative human-wildlife interactions.