Human–tiger conflict reduction in Nepal 661 An emerging alternative measure to conventional fen-
cing is aversive geofencing technology. This involves captur- ing an animal, fitting it with an aversive geofencing device, releasing it, and creating virtual fence lines around areas such as farmlands. If the animal approaches the virtual fence, it is repelled by an automated audio warning or a mild electric shock. This technology has been used to limit conflicts with the African elephant Loxodonta africana in Kenya (Wall et al., 2014) and Asian elephant in Sri Lanka (Cabral de Mel et al., 2022), has been trialled with success on lions Panthera leo in Botswana (Weise et al., 2019) and is being deployed on dingoes Canis familiaris in Australia (B. Allen, pers. comm, July 2022). Because of its lower cost compared to physical fencing structures (Wall et al., 2014) and the proportion of problemanimals beingsmall (e.g.,5% of tigers in Chitwan National Park; Lamichhane et al., 2017), this approach could potentially revolutionize tiger conflict management in key situations.We recommend trialling this technology in Chitwan National Park on tigers involved in conflict and perhaps also on other species. The habitat and prey management measure received the
highest priority amongst tourism beneficiaries and also ranked second highest amongst National Park managers (Fig. 2). Globally, the management of grassland, forest and wetland habitats is a commonly recommended preventative measures to reduce incidents of human–carnivore conflict (Goodrich, 2010). Such habitat management programmes aimto increase wild prey densities and the carrying capacity of protected areas for predators, thus reducing the likelihood of predators roaming beyond the protected area. As habitat management interventions in Chitwan National Park are mainly concentrated inside the Park, expansion of such ac- tivities to community forests and other forested areas out- side the National Park has been encouraged (CNP, 2018). The prey density in Chitwan National Park and the sur- rounding areas is 100 animals/km2 (DNPWC & DFSC, 2022). Prey populations could be further augmented by re- introducing prey species such as the swamp deer Cervus du- vaucelii, wild water buffalo Bubalus arnee and blackbuck Antilope cervicapra from other areas in Nepal, and by redu- cing poaching of prey and their killing by feral or stray do- mestic dogs. Such prey augmentation programmes should, however, also consider the potential for associated crop damage on local farms. National Park managers gave the highest priority to com-
pensation payments, which was also the second most pre- ferred measure amongst farmers, fishers and tourism beneficiaries (Fig. 2). A preference for this measure could be attributed to the feasibility of implementation and be- cause it directly supports the victim or their dependents. We recommend further studies to determine whether there are any additional reasons for the prioritization of this measure. Compensation payments aim to succeed by developing community tolerance towards wildlife, by
alleviating impacts rather than by reducing conflict inci- dents (Goodrich, 2010), so implementation of this measure alone should not be encouraged. A better approach may be to focus on preventativemeasures to avoid the occurrence of conflict incidents. Compensation payment measures have been adopted globally yet are controversial (Karanth et al., 2018). Proponents argue that compensation enhances com- munity tolerance and ownership and decreases retaliatory killings of wildlife (Agarwala et al., 2010; Persson et al., 2015), but opponents claim it is subject to fraud and is non- transparent, inadequate and bureaucratic, and time- consuming to implement (Ogra & Badola, 2008;Watve et al., 2016). Putting an economic value on human life is also ethically problematic (Shilongo et al., 2018). The cre- ation of an insurance scheme is also an option because of the increasing financial liabilities and the priorities of Nepal for physical infrastructure and economic develop- ment rather than wildlife conservation (Aryal et al., 2021). Despite these issues, considering the prioritization of this measure by several stakeholder groups and the absence of any indication of fraud or misappropriation of compensa- tion payments in the study area (Dhungana et al., 2016), we recommend that the current compensation payment scheme continues alongside the other prioritized preventa- tive and reactive measures that we identified. The differences in priorities thatwe documented between
groups of stakeholders could have resulted from variation in the costs and benefits of different measures and in the roles and responsibilities amongst these stakeholders in tiger con- servation and any previous experiences with tigers. Considering the discrepancies in priorities between stake- holder groups, we recommend that National Park managers take a leadership role in mediating the different priorities amongst stakeholders when selecting conflict reduction measures. Differences could be addressed through mini- mization of the costs of conflict on affected communities, sharing conservation benefits amongst affected communi- ties, the optimal and equitable allocation of available re- sources, the involvement of the private sector in conflict reduction, and the strengthening of trust and cooperation amongst all stakeholders. Implementing the measures we identified in this research in and around Chitwan National Park could address human–tiger conflicts sustain- ably in ways that benefit both people and tigers.
Author contributions Study conception and design: all authors; material preparation, fieldwork, analysis: RD, TM, GP, RR; writing: RD; revision: all authors.
Acknowledgements We thank The Rufford Foundation (28875-B) for financial support and the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation and Chitwan National Park staff, Prakash Upreti, field assistants and community members for their help in data collection and stakeholder consultations.
Conflicts of interest None. 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
