656 R. Dhungana et al.
conflict reduction strategies is most likely to succeed be- cause such an approach considers concerns and priorities from a range of people whose roles are critical for achieving conservation goals (Treves et al., 2009; Barlow et al., 2010). Identifying mutually acceptable conflict reduction measures can help reconcile differences amongst stakeholders and de- velop the joint ownership and social acceptability (Treves et al., 2009) of measures that could meet most stakeholder expectations. The tiger is a flagship species in Nepal. As a result of suc-
cessful conservation, in 2022 Nepal became one of the first countries to nearly triple its tiger population compared to 2009 estimates. Tigers in Nepal occur mainly in three iso- lated subpopulations in and around five national parks (DNPWC & DFSC, 2022). The increase of the tiger popula- tion began in the late 1990s, associated with the better man- agement of national parks, designation of managed buffer zones around national parks and the implementation of community forestry programmes (CNP, 2018). This fol- lowed the introduction of a landscape approach through the Terai Arc Landscape Strategy and Action Plan (2005– 2015) and associated enhancement of transboundary co- operation between India and Nepal for conservation. The landscape approach involves the conservation of eco- systems of the Terai and Churia hills to ensure ecological, economic and socio-cultural integrity across multiple land uses (MoFSC, 2015; Acharya et al., 2019). These initiatives resulted in the growth of tiger populations in Nepal from 121 individuals in 2009 (Karki et al., 2009)to 198 in 2013 (Dhakal et al., 2014) and 355 in 2022 (DNPWC & DFSC, 2022). However, this conservation success has come at a cost. In Nepal, human casualties attributed to tigers have quadrupled from nine people/year during 2010–2014 (Acharya et al., 2016)to 36 people in the fiscal year 2021/ 2022 (DNPWC, 2022). In Bardia National Park in particu- lar, the tiger population increased from 18 in 2009 (Karki et al., 2009)to 125 in 2022 (DNPWC & DFSC, 2022), and human casualties attributed to tigers increased from one person/year during 1994–2007 (Bhattarai & Fischer, 2014) to 18 people in the fiscal year 2020/2021 (BNP, 2021). Various conflict reduction measures such as removal of ti- gers, compensation payments and livestock husbandry im- provements have been implemented (Silwal et al., 2017; BNP, 2021; DNPWC, 2022), although these require regular review and improvement to reduce conflict further. ChitwanNationalPark has the largest population of tigers
in Nepal, with an increase from91 in 2009 (Karki et al., 2009) to 128 in 2022 (DNPWC & DFSC, 2022). Incidents of human–tiger conflict are frequent in this Park (Silwal et al., 2017), with an increase in annual human casualties attributed to tigers from two to 10 during 2007–2014 (Dhungana et al., 2018) and the removal of 17 tigers involved in conflict during 2007–2016 (Lamichhane et al., 2017). Previous studies of human–tiger conflict in Chitwan
National Park have mainly investigated conflict patterns (Silwal et al., 2017; Dhungana et al., 2018; Lamichhane et al., 2018), local attitudes towards tigers (Carter et al., 2014; Dhungana et al., 2022) andmanagement approaches such as removal, compensation payments and electric fencing (Sapkota et al., 2014, Dhungana et al., 2016; Lamichhane et al., 2017). Given that conflict patterns tend to change over time and the success of conflict- mitigation measures depends largely on the support of key conservation stakeholders, understanding the per- spectives of different stakeholders regarding conflict re- ductionmeasuresisvital
forsuccessful management
interventions (Treves et al., 2009). Information on the viewsofthe variousstakeholdersregarding conflict re- ductionmeasuresislacking forChitwan National Park (Silwal et al., 2017; Lamichhane et al., 2018). We aimed to identify a set of potential measures to miti-
gate human–tiger conflict in and around Chitwan National Park and to assess the prioritization of potential conflict re- duction measures amongst the various stakeholders (vic- tims, tiger conservation beneficiaries and National Park managers). Our overall objective was to enhance the ability of managers to mitigate human–tiger conflict and conserve tigers. The identification of the priorities of stakeholders re- garding adoption of conflict reduction measures has impli- cations for human–tiger conflict mitigation in Chitwan National Park and in other areas with similar socio- ecological settings.
Study area
Chitwan National Park (Fig. 1), a UNESCO World Heritage Site, is the oldest protected area in Nepal and is home to globally threatened species including the tiger, Asian elephant Elephas maximus, gaur or Indian bison Bos gaurus, greater one-horned rhinoceros Rhinoceros uni- cornis, gharial Gavialis gangeticus and leopard Panthera pardus. The interior area of the National Park (952 km2) encompasses wooded sal Shorea robusta-dominated forest and riparian habitats supporting a mosaic of grasslands, wetlands and rivers. The 729 km2 National Park buffer zone includes human settlements (nearly 70,000 house- holds in 2011; CBS, 2012). The majority of inhabitants en- gage in farming and livestock husbandry. The buffer zone is one of the historical settlement areas of marginalized ethnic groups (e.g. Bote, Majhi, Kumal and Tharu), who are provided with regulated permission for fishing and other customary activities to preserve their Indigenous heritage and support their daily livelihoods (CNP, 2018). A total of 22 buffer zone user committees have been formed to provide regulated access to the resources avail- able in the National Park and its buffer zone for the local communities, and to engage them in conservation activ- ities. The tiger in Chitwan National Park is regarded as
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
