Multi-stakeholder identification and prioritization of human–tiger conflict reduction measures in Chitwan National Park, Nepal
RAJ EN D R A DHUNGAN A * 1 ,TEK MAR A S E N I 2 ,BEN JAM I N L. ALL EN 2 , 3 , 4 RAM CHANDRA KAN D E L 1 ,PASHUP A TI NAT H KOI RAL A 1 GANESH PANT5 and RIS HI RANABHAT 6
Abstract The identification and implementation of conflict reduction measures are necessary to reduce predator attacks on people and livestock and to minimize human encroach- ment into predator habitats. We identified potential human–tiger conflict reduction measures and prioritized these measures for Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Weiden- tified these measures through a literature review, key in- formant interviews and a local stakeholder workshop. Weprioritized the identified measures using a questionnaire survey of victims of tiger attacks (farmers, forest users and fishers), beneficiaries of tiger conservation (tourist guides, Jeep and elephant safari operators, tour and hotel operators and business operators) and National Park managers. We identified 22 measures (12 preventative, five reactive and five mitigative) as having potential for reducing negative in- teractions between people and tigers. Amongst these, we identified compensation payments, tiger-proof fences and habitat and prey management as high-priority measures. Conflict reduction priorities also varied amongst stakehold- er groups. The victims assigned the highest priority to the construction of tiger-proof fences, whereas beneficiaries identified the management of habitat and prey as their high- est priority. Compensation payments were the first prefer- ence of National Park managers and were amongst the top two priorities of all stakeholder groups. We recommend the adoption of the identified stakeholder priorities for re- ducing human–tiger conflict around Chitwan National Park and encourage consideration of the variations in prior- ities between stakeholder groups during policy development and decision-making.
Keywords Chitwan National Park, human–tiger conflict, Nepal, Panthera tigris, reduction measures, stakeholders
*Corresponding author,
rajendra.dhungana2@gmail.com 1Ministry of Forests and Environment, Singha Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal 2University of Southern Queensland, Institute for Life Sciences and the Environ-
ment, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia 3University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Queensland, Australia 4Nelson Mandela University, Centre for African Conservation Ecology, Port
Elizabeth, South Africa 5Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal 6Tribhuvan University, Institute of Forestry, Pokhara, Nepal
Received 16 February 2023. Revision requested 13 June 2023. Accepted 13 November 2023. First published online 9 September 2024.
Introduction L
arge carnivores are declining, mostly as a result of habi- tat loss and conflict with people (Ripple et al., 2014).
This conflict is often characterized by predation of livestock and in some cases by predation on people, and human en- croachment on predator habitat. The identification of ap- propriate and acceptable conflict reduction measures is important for conserving large carnivores and addressing human societal goals. Including the perspectives and expec- tations of multiple stakeholders, especially grassroots stake- holders, is critical for developing acceptable measures (Redpath et al., 2017). Unresolved conflict between people and tigers Panthera
tigris in Asia is one of the most critical threats to conserva- tion of this species. Tigers attack and threaten both people and livestock (Goodrich et al., 2011). This leads to socio- economic and psychological distress amongst affected local communities (Barua et al., 2013), retaliatory killings of tigers and reduced support for their conservation (Lamichhane et al., 2017; Dhungana et al., 2022). Although such conflicts are reported from all areas where tigers and people co-occur, their extent and nature vary widely (Goodrich, 2010). Historical efforts were focused on lethal control of tigers,
but with the precipitous decline of tiger populations in the 20th century the use of non-lethal measures has gainedmo- mentum (Treves& Karanth, 2003). Conflict reduction mea- sures are of three types: (1) preventative measures to avoid conflict before it occurs, (2) reactive measures to end or al- leviate an existing conflict, and (3) mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of ongoing conflict (Goodrich, 2010). Commonly adopted conflict reduction measures include tiger translocations, predation early-warning systems, use of deterrents, insurance and compensation payments, habi- tat management and conservation education about tigers (Goodrich, 2010; Lamichhane et al., 2017; Karanth et al., 2018). Decision-makers are often responsible for mitigating conflict despite the differences of opinion amongst stake- holders, lack of resources and uncertainty of success (Barlow et al., 2010). Although selection of appropriate mea- sures to reduce conflict depends on multiple socio- economic, ecological and technological factors, a multi- stakeholder approach to developing human–carnivore
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(5), 655–663 © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605323001734
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
