Tiger conservation 893
an important management tool for ensuring a healthy eco- system. Recent research has emphasized the protection of tiger landscapes with the best chance of restoring or stabiliz- ing tiger populations (e.g. Jhala et al., 2015; Thapa et al., 2017; Bisht et al., 2019; Jhala et al., 2020, Thinley et al., 2020). Monitoring of tigers, co-predators and prey has been recom- mended in the upper Himalayan region (e.g. Bhattacharya & Habib, 2016; Adhikarimayum & Gopi, 2018;GTF, 2019; Chatterjee et al., 2020). Several studies have reported that ti- gersmove across country borders in the Terai Arc Landscape andHimalayas (e.g. Kanagaraj et al., 2013;Lahkar et al., 2018).
Human–tiger conflict
Increasing human–tiger interactions pose concerns and chal- lenges for tiger conservation in the Terai Arc Landscape and Himalayan region (Ruda et al., 2020). Conflicts involving tigers have become a delicate issue around protected areas in this region (e.g., Bargali & Ahmed, 2018; Bhattarai et al., 2019). These conflicts often result inmortality through retali- atory killing, or removal of tigers in distress or those causing distress (e.g. Borah et al., 2018; Lamichhane et al., 2018). Conflict between people and tigers is one of the significant challenges threatening tiger conservation, the success of which depends on an abundance of prey and the absence of human disturbance (Letro & Fischer, 2020). Most studies on human–tiger interactions have focused
on livestock depredation by tigers, the degree of conflict and howthis is influenced by cattle availability, or site-specif- ic problems. For instance, Bhattarai et al. (2019) reported that since 1994, 12 and 99 fatal tiger attacks on people were regis- tered in and around Bardya and Chitwan National Parks, re- spectively. Since 1979, 34 tigers from these protected areas have been killed as a result of human–tiger conflicts. Bargali & Ahmed (2018) examined 5,733 livestock depreda- tion incidents by tigers during 2006–2015 in and around Corbett Tiger Reserve. Lamichhane et al. (2018)recorded kill- ing of tigers for various reasons, including the loss of live- stock, property and human lives. Many studies (e.g. Lahkar et al., 2020;Ruda et al., 2020) recommended mitigation of human–tiger conflict by restoring prey populations and redu- cing the level of human disturbance around protected areas.
Human–tiger coexistence
Because implementation and effectiveness of conservation interventions rely on participation from the local commu- nity, investigating attitudes towards human–wildlife coex- istence is important (Gaodirelwe et al., 2020). Rastogi et al. (2014), Aiyadurai (2016) and Allendorf et al. (2020) used social science approaches to understand the challenges of human–tiger coexistence. Their research concluded that human–tiger conflicts and lack of livelihood opportunities
would encourage people to partner with conservation agen- cies in pro-conservation initiatives. Several studies (e.g. Harihar et al., 2015; Lamichhane et al., 2019; Sanderson et al., 2019; Letro & Fischer, 2020) have recommended implementation of preventive measures, addressing depre- dation issues, encouraging sustainable livelihoods and con- ducting education awareness programmes to increase positive attitudes towards tiger conservation. Carter et al. (2019) conducted research about human–tiger coexistence at fine spatial scales, and concluded that tiger conservation could probably be enhanced by abundant tiger prey and low levels of tiger poaching. Researchers have also recommended long-term monitoring to understand the interaction between people and tigers, specifically in local communities living near tiger habitats and corridors (e.g. Lamichhane et al., 2019; Sanderson et al., 2019; Letro & Fischer, 2020).
Community-based tiger conservation
We identified fewer studies on community-based tiger conservation than on other themes. However, the literature indicates that successful tiger conservation at the landscape level requires provision of sustainable livelihood opportu- nities and appropriate compensation for livestock and hu- man depredation. Some studies (e.g. Lyngdoh et al., 2017; Lamichhane et al., 2018; Lele & Sharma, 2019) have recom- mended financial instruments such as eco-tourism and in- surance to reduce human–tiger conflict. Lele & Sharma (2019) suggested that finance through carbon-related pro- jects could be an essential solution for addressing economic loss as a result of conflicts with tigers. Thapa et al. (2017) reported that wildlife tourism pro-
vided economic benefits and financial security to local com- munities. These employment opportunities also motivated local communities to participate in conservation activities, ultimately helping tiger conservation in Nepal. Thinley et al. (2018) described how tiger conservation can provide eco- logical benefits to farmers by reducing crop and livestock losses in Bhutan. One of the most significant challenges in biodiversity conservation is to facilitate protection for species that are highly valued globally but have little or negative value at a local level (Khan et al., 2018). Imperiled species, such as tigers, can impose high economic costs locally (e.g. livestock losses), which often occur in rural and low-income communities where households are not able to tolerate additional expenses (Pooley et al., 2017).
Tiger killing and trade
Targeted killing and trade endanger tigers across their entire range. In the Himalayan region, Karmacharya et al. (2018) noted that western Nepal, notably Bardya National Park, is a poaching hotspot. Considered the flagship species in
Oryx, 2022, 56(6), 888–896 © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605322001156
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
