Human–wildlife interactions can threaten rural livelihoods and complicate wildlife conservation in agricultural landscapes. We combined community surveys and camera-trap monitoring as complementary sources of information to assess human–Asian badger (Meles leucurus) interactions across four sites in the Meng Mountains, China. We surveyed 400 residents and monitored 82 camera-trap stations from April 2024 to August 2026, representing 72,406 trap-nights. Reported encounter frequency differed significantly among study sites (χ2 = 139.36, p < 0.001), with evening and autumn most frequently reported. Agricultural land ownership was associated with reported crop damage (χ2 = 16.64, p = 0.0002), while livestock ownership was associated with both reported crop damage (χ2 = 36.23, p < 0.001) and conflict awareness (χ2 = 60.47, p < 0.001). Camera traps recorded 103 independent detections at 52 of 82 targeted stations (detection proportion = 0.63). Because stations were selected where badger occurrence was suspected, this proportion should not be interpreted as landscape-wide occupancy. Detections differed among diurnal, crepuscular, and nocturnal periods (χ2 = 14.99, p < 0.001), with greater representation during diurnal and crepuscular periods. Together, the ecological and questionnaire data provide complementary evidence on badger occurrence, agricultural exposure, livelihood activities, and human perceptions relevant to reported human–badger conflict. Integrating ecological monitoring with community information may help inform targeted, non-lethal conflict mitigation and coexistence planning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: