Human–tiger conflict in the Khata Corridor, Nepal 807
area supports low densities of wild tiger prey, and conse- quently tigers in the Khata Corridor supplemented their diet with livestock (Wegge et al., 2018). However, during 1998–2014, tiger predation on livestock significantly de- creased because of improvements in herding practices and reductions in forest degradation. This area has experienced dramatic growth in the resident tiger population, from 18 individuals in 2009 to 125 in 2022 (Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, 2022; Ojha, 2022). Coincident with more tigers and an increasing human population, there have been increases in encounters with tigers (Wegge et al., 2018; Rauniyar, 2021). The resurgence of large carnivore populations in their
historical habitats can have both negative and positive im- pacts. Potential conflict with humans may be offset by en- hancements in ecosystem services triggered by cascading ecological change, as seen with the reintroduction of the grey wolf Canis lupus to Yellowstone National Park, USA (Ripple & Beschta, 2012). Additionally, recovery efforts for apex carnivores can benefit both people and wildlife, as ex- emplified by the successful recovery of the Eurasian lynx Lynx lynx coupled with economic benefits from tourism (Wilson, 2004). Similarly, conflict may not always be di- rectly associated with increases in carnivores but rather with inequitable realization of environmental benefits (e.g. tourism revenue and access to local natural resources) and risks (e.g. human–wildlife conflict and pollution), as has been highlighted within an environmental justice framework (McInturff et al., 2021). This framework aims to mitigate uneven allocations of both environmental bene- fits and risks by focusing on disadvantaged communities to ensure they do not bear an unfair burden of risk. Unequal distribution of benefits and risks create localized (i.e. settlement-specific) coexistence issues, which can lead to the intensification of conflicts for some residents but not for others (Fig. 1; Jordan et al., 2020). This subsequently leads to disparate societal identities and descriptive norms amongst communities (Coria & Calfucura, 2012;Marchini& Macdonald, 2012). When conflict results in negative economic outcomes, communitiesmay relymore on forest resources, in- creasing the risk of further conflict (Braczkowski et al., 2023). The current situation in the Khata Corridor is challen-
ging because, although tiger populations are increasing across the region, there are disparities amongst communi- ties in how they experience such changes. These communi- ties are located at varying distances from Bardiya National Park (Fig. 2), and experience an unequal distribution of tourism benefits, differential enforcement of forest use laws and varying intensities of human–wildlife conflict risk (Wegge et al., 2018; Sharma & Neupane, 2023). These circumstances highlight several environmental justice issues (McInturff et al., 2021; Van Horne et al., 2023). Following an environmental justice framework, here we explore the dri- vers of spatiotemporal overlap that increase the risk of
conflict between people and tigers. Specifically, we examine whether human–tiger conflict risk is primarily a result of ti- gers encroaching into human habitat or because of in- creased human visitation in tiger forest habitat. To achieve this, we analyse forest visitation patterns of people, generate spatial data on tiger records around human settlements, and explore the connection between settlement-specific eco- nomic well-being, forest visitation and tiger encounters. We hypothesize that conflict risk is driven by the frequency with which people enter forested areas and the proximity of settlements to Bardiya National Park (H1).Wealso consider whether these factors are correlated with the economic sta- tus of each settlement and whether they are therefore driven by reliance on forest resources. This hypothesis would be supported by significantly distinct patterns of forest visit- ation based on the distance of settlements from the National Park and on their economic status. Alternatively, we hy- pothesize that conflict risk is primarily caused by tigers en- tering human settlements, regardless of the proximity of settlements to the National Park or reliance upon forest re- sources (H2). If thiswas the case, we would expect to find no significant differences in tiger records across settlement types and a greater probability of records near settlement boundaries than at the forest edge.
Methods
We conducted this work in Thakurbaba Municipality Ward 9 (Thakurdwara settlement) and Ward 3 (Neulapur settle- ment) and Madhuwan Municipality Ward 1 (Dalla and Pattharbhuji settlements) during December 2021 (Table 1). Weselected these settlements on the basis of evident but un- quantified differences in economic benefit received from tiger tourism (e.g. number of hotels, shops and homestays) and the unequal distribution of government subsidies corre- lated with distance from Bardiya National Park (Table 1). The four settlements had a total of 1,720 households,
from which we selected 177 (c. 10% of households in each settlement; Table 1), using systematic random sampling, for in-person surveys (i.e. we conducted a survey in every 9th or 10th house). Household surveys consisted of semi- structured questionnaires presented to any family member of.18 years of age in each house. If the selected house was empty, we selected the next proximate house. The survey team comprised two individuals, including author BS, both of whom were external to the study area and early- career graduate students in the field of natural resource management. They had not previously conducted research focusing on tigers. We collected information on the demog- raphy and socio-economic condition of respondents, in- cluding age, gender, monthly family income, number of livestock owned, and frequency, purpose and duration of forest visitation (Supplementary Material 1). We also asked respondents to provide anecdotal information on
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
