Abstract
Wildlife attacks on humans and economic losses often result in reduced support of local communities for wildlife conservation. Information on spatial and temporal patterns of such losses in the highly affected areas contribute in designing and implementing effective mitigation measures. We analyzed the loss of humans, livestock and property caused by wildlife during 1998 to 2016, using victim family’s reports to Chitwan National Park authorities and Buffer Zone User Committees. A total of 4,014 incidents were recorded including attacks on humans, livestock depredation, property damage and crop raiding caused by 12 wildlife species. In total >400,000 US dollar was paid to the victim families as a relief over the whole period. Most of the attacks on humans were caused by rhino, sloth bear, tiger, elephant, wild boar and leopard. A significantly higher number of conflict incidents caused by rhino and elephant were observed during full moon periods. An increase in the wildlife population did not coincide with an equal rise in conflict incidents reported. Underprivileged ethnic communities were attacked by wildlife more frequently than expected. Number of attacks on humans by carnivores and herbivores did not differ significantly. An insignificant decreasing trend of wildlife attacks on humans and livestock was observed with significant variation over the years. Tiger and leopard caused >90% of livestock depredation. Tigers killed both large (cattle and buffalo) and medium sized (goat, sheep, pig) livestock but leopard mostly killed medium sized livestock. Most (87%) of the livestock killing during 2012–2016 occurred within the stall but close (<500m) to the forest edge. Both the percentage of households with livestock and average holding has decreased over the years in buffer zone. Decreased forest dependency as well as conflict mitigation measures (electric and mesh wire fences) have contributed to keep the conflict incidents in control. Strengthening mitigation measures like construction of electric or mesh wire fences and predator-proof livestock corrals along with educating local communities about wildlife behavior and timely management of problem animals (man-eater tiger, rage elephant etc.) will contribute to reduce the conflict.
Highlights
With ongoing fragmentation and degradation of the remaining natural areas [1], wildlife species are forced to live in close proximity to humans leading to frequent human-wildlife interactions [2]
Such interaction is more intense in the areas where large mammals like Asian elephants (Elephas maximus), greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), Bengal tigers (Panthera tigtris tigrris) and common leopards (Panthera pardus ficusa) are in high densities [3,4] in relatively small protected areas within human dominated landscapes [5]
A majority (54%) of the payments was provided to families as a relief for a relative who died in a wildlife attack, followed by treatment of injured ones (21.5%), relief for livestock depredation (13.8%), crop raiding (7.1%) and property loss (3.5%) (Fig 2)
Summary
With ongoing fragmentation and degradation of the remaining natural areas [1], wildlife species are forced to live in close proximity to humans leading to frequent human-wildlife interactions [2] Such interaction is more intense in the areas where large mammals like Asian elephants (Elephas maximus), greater one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), Bengal tigers (Panthera tigtris tigrris) and common leopards (Panthera pardus ficusa) are in high densities [3,4] in relatively small protected areas within human dominated landscapes [5]. The government endorsed a Buffer Zone Policy in 1996 with a provision of 30–50% of the park revenue diverted to the respective buffer zone [17] Following these participatory conservation initiatives, habitat restoration in the buffer zone, especially in community forests, created opportunities to both wildlife and people. Another study from Chitwan showed that human and wildlife (tiger as example) can co-exist with temporal displacement in well protected areas at fine spatial scale [12]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
