Human–tiger conflict reduction in Nepal 659
for use in reducing conflict incidents. For each stakeholder group we calculated the score of each measure as (modified from Maraseni, 2008):
Overall score = i=9,j=9
i=0,j=0 (Wi ×Rj)/N
whereWi is the number of respondents selecting a particu- lar measureW (i = 1–9) corresponding to a particular rank R (j = 1–9), Rj is the assigned rank (j = 1–9) of a particular measure and N is the total number of respondents in the re- spective stakeholder group. The higher the overall score of a particular measure in a stakeholder group, the higher the rank of the corresponding measure in that group.
Results
Of the 22 potential conflict reduction measures identified, 12 were preventative, five reactive and fivemitigative (Table 2). Priority of the nine measures that were identified in the workshop varied substantially between potential tiger vic- tims, tourism beneficiaries and National Park managers (Fig. 2). Both farmer and fisher groups assigned the highest priority to the construction of tiger-proof fences around set- tlements and farmlands (electric, barbed or mesh wire) and the second highest to compensation payments. Farmers gave third priority to the improvement of livestock corrals, whereas fishers chose the enhancement of conservation
awareness amongst communities. Beneficiaries of tiger con- servation through tourism assigned the highest priority to habitat and prey management and selected compensation payments and conservation awareness as their second and third priorities, respectively. National Park managers as- signed the highest priority to compensation payments, fol- lowed by habitat and prey management and then conservation awareness (Fig. 2). On average, compensation payments received the highest priority score (6.60), followed by tiger-proof fencing (6.39) and habitat and prey manage- ment (6.07).
Discussion
Human–tiger conflict reduction measures primarily involve the implementation of certain interventions to manage ti- gers, people or livestock. However, the feasibility of any measure depends on the magnitude, nature and extent of its impact, the characteristics of the species involved, the socio-ecological context and the availability of the resources necessary for implementation. This study identified a wide range of measures, from direct management of tigers, habi- tat and prey to infrastructure development, the regulation of people entering the Park and management of domesticated animals. Over 50% of the conflict reduction measures identified in this studywere preventative, indicating that the conservation
TABLE 2 The 22 potential human–tiger conflict reduction measures for Chitwan National Park, Nepal (Fig. 2). Asterisks (*) mark the nine measures identified by workshop participants as potentially being the most useful.
Preventative measures (1) Zoning to regulate presence of people & livestock in tiger habitats (2) Improve livestock corrals* (3) Avoid livestock grazing in depredation hotspots* (4) Replace unproductive livestock with a smaller number of improved breeds (5) Promote stall feeding of livestock & avoid tethering outside corrals, particularly at night (6) Research tigers, including conflict dynamics, food habits, habitat use & spatial distribution (7) Manage habitat & tiger prey* (8) Construct tiger-proof fences around settlements & farmlands* (9) Install early-warning technology to provide information on potentially dangerous tigers (10) Relocate settlements whenever acceptable to local people (11) Raise conservation awareness amongst communities* (12) Reduce injury to tigers by people
Reactive measures (1) Capture, translocate & manage (including lethally) potentially dangerous tigers* (2) Track & monitor tigers already or likely to be involved in conflict incidents* (3) Deter tigers from settlements & farmlands using scare tactics (e.g. auditory, visual & material)* (4) Provide emergency rescue & medical services to people in case of tiger attacks (5) Strengthen the Rapid Response Team of Chitwan National Park
Mitigation measures (1) Administer compensation payments for tiger attacks on people & livestock* (2) Promote an insurance scheme by provisioning subsidized premiums for deprived households (3) Provide scholarships to children of persons killed or permanently disabled in tiger attacks (4) Provide job and livelihood opportunities to the families of individuals killed by tigers (5) Improve the stewardship of local communities & local governments in conflict reduction
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
