660 R. Dhungana et al.


FIG. 2 Prioritization of the nine human–tiger conflict reduction measures (Table 2) by four groups of stakeholders (Table 1) in Chitwan National Park, Nepal, identified using questionnaire surveys. The score of each measure on a scale of 1–9 indicates its priority within the corresponding stakeholder category; the higher the score, the higher its priority (see text for details).


stakeholders prefer to solve problems before they arise. Such an approach is encouraged, to reduce conflict incidents (Goodrich, 2010). The measures identified in our study also include both hard measures (e.g. lethal control of tigers and relocation of villages) and soft measures (e.g. habitat management and conservation awareness). Although the hard measures could have immediate effect, such measures should be employed only when absolutely necessary, consid- ering their ethical, political, socio-economic and ecological ramifications. Softmeasures may takemore time to produce a favourable outcome but are perhaps best from the view- point of applicability and sustainability.Wetherefore recom- mend a combination of measures, to enhance their overall efficiency and effectiveness. However, our study did not identify some previously re-


ported measures, including the use of guard dogs (Khan, 2009), wearing masks and fibreglass headgear, erecting elec- trified dummies, dredging water channels, digging fresh- water ponds (Rishi, 1988; Barlow et al., 2010) and aversive geofencing technologies (Wall et al., 2014). Such measures require further testing and evaluation before they can be considered feasible for use in Chitwan National Park. Prioritization of potential conflict reduction measures is important because of the scarcity of resources and differ- ences in preference amongst stakeholders. We found the various conservation stakeholders had differing priorities for conflict reduction measures (Fig. 2). The primary victims of tiger attacks preferred the construction of tiger-proof


fences, whereas the beneficiary groups preferred habitat and prey management, and National Park managers pre- ferred compensation payments. Compensation payments were the only measure in the top three priorities of all four stakeholder groups. The preference of potential victims for tiger-proof fencing over the other measures indicates the desire of this group to avoid tiger attacks rather than to receive compensation for attacks after they occur. Unlike other preventative measures such as prey man-


agement, victims could have perceived tiger-proof fencing to provide immediate and effective protection against ti- gers. However, this measure was not amongst the top three priorities for the beneficiary groups and National Park managers, perhaps because these stakeholders are un- sure of its effectiveness, perceive that it could disrupt tiger dispersal, or are familiar with the high costs of fence instal- lation and ongoing maintenance (Sapkota et al., 2014; Lamichhane et al., 2017). A study on the efficacy of electric fencing from the eastern sector of Chitwan National Park, where the Asian elephant, greater one-horned rhinoceros, wild boar Sus scrofa and tiger were the main species in- volved in conflict incidents, reported a reduction in live- stock losses of only 30–60% after implementing fencing (Sapkota et al., 2014). As knowledge of the effectiveness of fences for mitigating conflict with tigers appears to be limited, we suggest undertaking pilot studies to evaluate the effectiveness of such structures before any widespread implementation.


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