Dimensions ofhuman–tiger conflict and solutions for coexistence in the forests of the Khata Corridor, Bardiya, Nepal BASANT SHARMA* 1 , 2 ,ANDREW G. HOPE 2 and DIN E S H NEUP A NE 1 , 3
Abstract Khata Corridor forest, which serves as a border crossing for wildlife between Nepal and India, is one of the areas in Nepal with the highest incidence of human–wildlife conflict. In recent years both the tiger Panthera tigris tigris and human populations in this region have increased, leading to more frequent conflict.We aimed to determinewhether in- creased conflict riskwas primarily fromtigers entering human settlements or whether there are additional drivers associated with human use of forested areas.We conducted the study in four settlements that varied in socio-economic status and dis- tance from Bardiya National Park, through field visits and household surveys.Tiger records (sightings, pugmarks and at- tacks) were most frequent far from Bardiya National Park, in settlements without benefits from tiger-based tourism and nearer the periphery of forest, and were rarely associated with the interior of settlements. Human visitation into forests was also highest in the most remote settlement. Our findings suggestthatconflictriskisdrivenbythe extent of humanac- tivity in forested areas, reflecting an unequal distribution of the conservation benefits of tourism amongst settlements. In the long-term, continued coexistence between people and tigers will depend on minimizing conflict risk across settlements through establishing an equitable distribution of conservation benefits. In the short term, we recommend raising public awareness of tiger behaviour to emphasize that tigers are highly unlikely to enter and occupy the interior of human settlements, mitigating negative perceptions of conflict risk.
Keywords Conflict risk, forest dependency, human settle- ment, human–wildlife interactions, Nepal, Panthera tigris tigris, tiger, tourism
The supplementary material for this article is available at
doi.org/10.1017/S0030605323001849
Introduction H
uman–wildlife conflict (interactions between people and wildlife that result in negative outcomes for one
*Corresponding author,
b.s.sharma237@
gmail.com 1Faculty of Science, Health and Technology, Nepal Open University, Lalitpur,
Nepal 2Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA 3Zoological Society of LondonNepalHead Office, BishalNagarMarg,Kathmandu, Nepal
Received 28 June 2023. Revision requested 14 September 2023. Accepted 30 November 2023. First published online 14 October 2024.
or both) is one of the most challenging issues for effective management and conservation of biodiversity (Nyhus, 2016; Mekonen, 2020). Generally it occurs through spatial overlap of people and wildlife species, and it often results in either damage to habitats or resources, or direct threats to individual animals (both wildlife and livestock) or people (Sillero-Zubiri et al., 2006; Dickman, 2010). Such conflict is often most intense in areas affected by habitat loss and frag- mentation or where there is a high density of megafauna (leading to resource competition between wildlife and peo- ple) or fear of large mammals (particularly predators; Weber & Rabinowitz, 1996; Schwerdtner & Gruber, 2007). Nepal is a hotspot for biodiversity and home to several spe-
cies of megafauna, including the Endangered Bengal tiger Panthera tigris tigris, which inhabits lowland forests (Smith et al., 1998;Carteretal., 2013). These regions are also areas of expanding human settlements (Wikramanayake et al., 2004). In recent decades, tiger populations have decreased as a result of conflict with humans (mostly because of habi- tat fragmentation and illegal hunting), prompting the Government of Nepal to formulate laws, policies and institu- tional arrangements for conserving tigers (Ghimire, 2022). Conservation efforts have relied on both government and local communities, and resulted in the substantial recovery of tiger populations (Budhathoki, 2004;Thapa et al., 2017). These initiatives have included designating protected areas for tigers, regular population monitoring, and implementing community-based conservation approaches by promoting tourism and its associated economic benefits. According to the 2022 tigercensusthere are estimated to be 355 tigers in Nepal, a nearly three-fold increase since the 2009 census (Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, 2022). As tiger numbers increase, support for tiger conserva- tion from local communities residing within tiger-inhabited areas becomes even more critical for ensuring long-term per- sistence of the species (Treves & Karanth, 2003;Chanchani et al., 2016). However, increases in both tiger and human po- pulations also increase the likelihood of conflict, potentially undermining conservation efforts (Goodrich, 2010;White et al., 2010;Struebiget al., 2018). Bardiya National Park and the Khata Corridor form an
area of prime tiger habitat in Nepal (Bhattarai et al., 2019). The forests of the Khata Corridor serve as a connection for tigers between Bardiya National Park in Nepal and KatarniaghatWildlife Sanctuary in India. The corridor sup- ports both resident and transient tigers but is subject to high levels of human disturbance (Kanagaraj et al., 2011). This
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited. Oryx, 2024, 58(6), 806–814 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605323001849
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
