Human–tiger conflict in the Khata Corridor, Nepal 811


FIG. 5 Probability curves for recording a tiger with respect to the shortest distance from tiger record locations (consisting both presence and pseudo-absence points; N= 66) to forest, grazing land, households, roads and water features within human settlements in the Khata Corridor. The curves illustrate how proximity to these features influences the probability of encountering a tiger, accounting for both confirmed records and areas where tigers are likely absent. (Readers of the printed journal are referred to the online article for a colour version of this figure.)


addition of distance to nearest household had a ΔAICc of 2.28 but included a higher number of variables. Compared with Thakurdwara (high economic benefit), records of ti- gers were significantly higher in both Pattharbhuji (low eco- nomic benefit) and Dalla (medium economic benefit). Records of tigers in Pattharbhuji and Dalla were 119 and 18 times higher than in Thakurdwara, respectively (Supplementary Table 4). With respect to distance to the nearest forest, there was a 1% decrease in tiger records with every 100 m. Similarly, probability of tiger records in- creased with proximity to grazing land and water features but decreased with proximity to households and roads (Fig. 5).


Discussion


We aimed to investigate the dynamics of human–tiger con- flict risk and provide insights for potential solutions to this ongoing problem in the Khata Corridor, to help maintain a robust tiger population and meet the needs of the poor and marginalized communities of this region. Although we ac- knowledge the possibility that the unique perspectives of each surveyor could have influenced their approach to data collection (Jafar, 2018), our findings highlight that (1) forest visitation by people differed across settlement types, and the frequency of forest visits was higher in settlements farther from Bardiya National Park, (2) tiger records within


settlements varied across settlement types and were posi- tively associated with proximity to forests and negatively as- sociated with proximity to households, and (3) tiger attacks on livestock in settlements occurred more frequently in households near to the forest edge and with an open live- stock shelter. Taken together, these findings support our primary hypothesis (H1) that human–tiger conflict risk in the Khata Corridor is driven by the dependency of people on forest resources to meet their needs, which is higher for those living farther from Bardiya National Park. In add- ition, we reject our secondary hypothesis (H2) that conflict risk is associated with tigers entering human habitation. These findings are probably shaped by a combination of factors, including an unequal distribution of benefits from tiger tourism and unequal access to forest resources, all of which are related to the geographical proximity of settle- ments to Bardiya National Park. From an environmental justice perspective, effective miti-


gation of human–tiger conflictriskmustensurethathuman communities and tigers can coexist in a balanced and equitable manner. This perspective also emphasizes the need to ensure that marginalized communities are not disproportionately burdened by conflict risk and that they have equal access to environmental resources and benefits (McInturff et al., 2021). Whenthere are disparities in the distribution of environmental costs and benefits associated with human–tiger coexistence, coexistence inequalities can arise that further increase conflict risk (Jordan et al., 2020). Our study suggests this is the case within the Khata Corridor. People in the settlement farthest from the National Park (Pattharbhuji) had the highest frequency of forest visitation, received lower economic benefits fromtourismandfacedahigher riskof conflictswithtigersthan the settlement nearest to the National Park (Thakurdwara). Furthermore, people’sforest usepatternsweredrivenmore by the economic category of their settlement than the monthly income of their family. This suggests there is an unequal dis- tribution of both environmental benefits and costs, resulting in inequalities and divergent societal identities and norms amongst settlements because of differential access to the National Park and its resources. Environmental justice issues resulting from the geo-


graphical location of settlements with respect to protected areas are widespread (Inskip & Zimmermann, 2009). In general, economically disadvantaged and marginalized settlements tend to lose a significantly greater number of livestock to large carnivores compared to wealthier settle- ments, resulting in greater economic burdens and forest de- pendency and higher conflict risk coupled with lower ability to cope with conflict (Saberwal et al., 1994; Agrawal & Redford, 2009; Carter & Linnell, 2016). In Nepal, the estab- lishment of protected areas has been successful in terms of increasing population densities of tigers, but conflict risk in these regions has consequently increased. Of even greater concern is that increased conflict risk is disproportionately


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