Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 November 2022 | 14(11): 22156–22163
ISSN 0974-7907
(Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6659.14.11.22156-22163
#6659 | Received 02
September 2020 | Final received 15 May 2022 | Finally accepted 18 September
2022
Crop raiding
and livestock predation by wildlife in Khaptad
National Park, Nepal
Ashish Bashyal
1, Shyam Sharma 2, Narayan Koirala
3, Nischal Shrestha 4, Nischit Aryal 5, Bhupendra
Prasad Yadav 6 & Sandeep Shrestha 7
1–5 Biodiversity Conservancy Nepal,
Rupandehi-32903, Nepal.
6 Department of National Parks and
Wildlife Conservation, P.O. Box 860, Kathmandu, Nepal.
7 Department of Environmental
Science and Engineering, Kathmandu University, P.O. Box 6250, Dhulikhel, Nepal.
1 a.bashyal@bioconnepal.org
(corresponding author), 2 sharmashyam1729@gmail.com, 3 nkoirala78@gmail.com,
4 mgnischal@gmail.com, 5 nischit.aryal@gmail.com, 6 bhupendra.dnpwc@gmail.com,
7 sandeep@ku.edu.np
Editor: Priya Davidar, Sigur Nature Trust, Nilgiris,
India. Date of
publication: 26 November 2022 (online & print)
Citation: Bashyal,
A., S. Sharma, N. Koirala, N. Shrestha, N. Aryal,
B.P. Yadav & S. Shrestha (2022). Crop raiding and livestock predation by wildlife in Khaptad National Park, Nepal. Journal of Threatened Taxa 14(11): 22156–22163. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.8025.14.11.22156-22163
Copyright: © Bashyal et al. 2022. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the
author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: Keidanren Nature Conservation
Fund, Japan and Biodiversity
Conservancy Nepal
Competing interests: The authors
declare no competing interests.
Author details: Ashish Bashyal is a co-founder of Biodiversity Conservancy Nepal — a non-profit
dedicated to wildlife conservation in Nepal. He has been studying genetics and
ecology of globally endangered yet neglected wildlife since 2009. Shyam Sharma is a young wildlife scientist.
He is interested in the human dimension of conservation biology and working in
research and conservation of endangered species since 2017. Narayan Koirala is a graduate student at
the University of Northern British Columbia pursuing masters in Natural
Resources and Environmental Studies. He has been studying scientific management
of biodiversity with focus on safeguarding the habitat for endangered wildlife
since 2017. Nischal Shrestha has been working in the field
of wildlife and conservation in Nepal since 2018. Nischal
is interested in ecology and biology of endangered wildlife of Nepal. Nischit Aryal is a
development professional interested in exploring social perspectives of human
wildlife conflicts, and specializes in employing social science tools in
wildlife research. Bhupendra Prasad Yadav
has been working under the Department of National Parks and Wildlife
Conservation for the past 20 years. He graduated in forestry and natural
resource management and served numerous national parks and wildlife reserve
during his working period. Sandeep
Shrestha is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Environmental
Science and Engineering, Kathmandu University and has 15 years of experience in
teaching and conducting research in wildlife conservation and management
including human-wildlife conflicts.
Author contribution: AB, S. Shrestha, NA and BPY
conceptualized and designed the study. AB, S. Sharma, NK and NS conducted
surveys, collected and compiled data. AB performed data analysis. AB and S.
Sharma prepared the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Acknowledgements: We thank the Department of
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation and Khaptad
National Park (KNP) for permission and facilitation (Permit: 075/76; Eco 240
–2661). We are grateful to Mr. Prakash Shah (conservation officer, KNP), Mr. Dhruba Shahi (game scout, KNP), Mr. Ganesh Thagunna (senior game scout, KNP) and Mr. Ram Prasad Upadhaya (president, KNP Buffer Zone User Committee) for
their help during the survey. We thank Mr. Brandon Gross (Texas Tech
University, USA) and anonymous reviewers for improving the quality of our
manuscript. We are grateful to respondents for their time and response, and to
the buffer zone management committees for facilitation. This project was funded
by Keidanren Nature Conservation Fund, Japan to Biodiversity Conservancy Nepal.
Abstract: Crop raiding and livestock
predation are major conservation problems throughout most protected areas in
Nepal, including the Khaptad National Park (KNP).
However, no information exists on the extent of crop raiding, livestock
predation, and animal attacks among villages surrounding KNP. We conducted a
survey of 304 households in 30 villages in four districts (Bajhang, Bajura,
Doti, and Achham) in the
buffer zone of KNP between 24 May and 20 June 2019, using the snowball sampling
technique. All
households experienced numerous major incidents of crop raiding between April
2017 and May 2019. Major wildlife involved were Wild Boar Sus
scrofa, Himalayan Black Bear Ursus
thibetanus, Rhesus Macaque Macaca
mulatta, Barking Deer Muntiacus
vaginalis, Common Leopard Panthera pardus, Golden Jackal Canis
aureus, and Porcupine Hystrix spp. Of the
304 households, all had their crops raided over the past two years, 55.5% (n =
169) faced livestock predation, and 2% (n = 6) attacks resulting in death or
injury. Over 40% of
households reported taking mitigation measures to minimize crop raiding. Common
measures such as night guarding, noise making, use of scarecrows, watch dogs,
and fencing were practiced. More than half of respondents had negative opinions towards wildlife but
they still believed that wildlife should be conserved. There was no or
negligible correlation between general opinion of respondents towards wildlife
and wildlife conservation with their education, sex, or involvement in natural
resources management group. We established baseline information on crop raiding
and livestock predation in villages surrounding KNP. Gathered information will
be transmitted to relevant authorities to design and implement measures to
mitigate such conflicts.
Keywords: Buffer zone, Common Leopard,
protected area, Wild Boar.
Abbreviations: BNP—Bardiya
National Park | CNP—Chitwan National Park | GCA—Gaurishankar
Conservation Area | KCA—Kanchenjunga Conservation Area | KNP—Khaptad National Park | SNNP—Shivapuri
Nagarjun National Park.
INTRODUCTION
Nepal has designated 23% of its
total land mass as protected areas, and approximately 29% of the country’s
forestland outside protected areas are designated as community forests, managed
sustainability by local communities (Acharya et al. 2016). Success of community
forestry programs nationwide and the initiation of buffer zone programs
surrounding protected areas from 1990s in Nepal created an additional habitat
beyond protected areas (Gurung et al. 2008; Acharya et al. 2016). This resulted
in an increase in both movement of wildlife in newly developed habitats and
consequently the frequency of crop raiding, livestock predation as well as
animal and human attacks (Gurung et al. 2008). Conflict between humans and
wildlife has become a significant problem on a global scale (Wang &
Macdonald 2006) and one of the most complex conservation challenges faced by
conservationists and local communities around protected areas (Banikoi et al. 2017). Such conflicts bring many social,
economic and ecological consequences and if the damages severely affect the
livelihood of local communities, getting their active support for conservation
will be challenging (Mishra 1997). Thus, careful planning and management is
required if the dual goal of wildlife conservation and support of communities
is to be achieved (Madden 2004; Acharya et al. 2016).
The mid-hill mountain zone is
under-represented in Nepal’s protected system (Acharya et al. 2016). One such
protected area that encompasses the mid-hill to lower Himalayan region of Nepal
is the Khaptad National Park (KNP). Crop raiding and
livestock predation are major conservation problems in most protected areas in
Nepal (Banikoi et al. 2017). Various dimensions of
human-wildlife negative interactions have been assessed in different protected
areas of Nepal, including Gaurishankar Conservation
Area (GCA; Awasthi & Singh 2015), Kanchenjunga Conservation Area (KCA; Sherchan & Bhandari 2017), Shivapuri
Nagarjun National Park (SNNP; Pandey et al. 2016; Pandey & Bajracharya 2016), Bardiya
National Park (BNP; Thapa 2010), and Chitwan National Park (CNP; Banikoi et al. 2017; Lamichhane
et al. 2018). However, no information exists on the extent of crop raiding,
livestock predation and animal attacks across the buffer zone of KNP.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area
Khaptad National Park (29.37°N, 81.15°E;
Image 1) is situated in Province 7 of Nepal that covers an area of 225 km2
with an elevation range 1,000–3,276 m (GoN/MoFSC 2014). It is the only national park in mid-hill to
lower Himalayan region in western Nepal and represents a unique and important
ecosystem (DNPWC 2019). KNP harbors dense forest of genus Shorea,
Pinus, and Alnus in subtropical zone; Quercus,
Aesculus, Daphniphyllum,
Abies, & Peceea,
in temperate zone and Quercus, Taxus, & Betula in
subalpine zone (DNPWC 2019). It is home to 266 species of migratory and
residential birds, 20 species of mammals, 15 species of butterfly, 192 species
of flowering plants (Mishra 2000) and 224 species of medicinal plants (Kunwar
& Duwadee 2006). The buffer zone in KNP was
established in 2006 spreading over four districts (Doti,
Achham, Bajhang, and Bajura) and covering an area of 216 km2 (DNPWC
2019).
Data collection and analysis
We employed open-ended questionnaires to households in various villages in the buffer
zone of KNP using
the snowball sampling technique between 24 May 2019 and 20 June 2019 (Image 1).
We collected data on five major topics including general socio-economic
information of respondents, crop-raiding incidents, livestock predation, animal
attacks, and attitude towards wildlife. We took prior informed consent of
respondents (generally head of the family) before administering questionnaire.
We gathered information on conflict incidences that occurred from April 2017 to
May 2019. We performed data analysis using Deducer
package (Fellows 2012) in R (R Core Team 2018) and presented mean values with
standard deviation. We tested for association between variables by performing
Spearman’s rank correlation test.
RESULTS
Socio-economic status of
respondents
We covered 120 km on foot and
surveyed a total of 304 households from various villages across the buffer zone
of KNP (Image 1). The highest representation surveyed was from
villages in the Bajhang district (32.2%; n = 98), and
the lowest representation was from Doti (17.1%; n =
52; Table 1). Majority of the
respondents were male (71.7%, n = 218) and average age of the respondent was
44.98 ± 15.35 years (17–82 years; Table 1). An average family size was 7.59 ±
2.99 (range = 2–28; n = 304). Although we highly encouraged females to
participate in our surveys, female individuals were either shy and nominate
males in their house to participate or were occupied with household chores.
Around half of respondents (58.6%; n = 178) did not have any formal schooling
(Table 1). Agriculture was the dominant occupation (91.1%; n = 277) and average
land holding was 1.20 ± 2.43 acres (range = 0.04–36.82 acres; n = 304).
Although majority of population were engaged in farming, 34.2% (n = 104) were
dependent on remittance as a major source of income (Table 1).
Almost all households were
dependent on nearby forest for fodder (99.3%; n = 302) and firewood collection
(99.7%; n = 303). A small fraction of respondents (14.15%; n = 43) were
involved in natural resources management groups (KNP buffer zone management
committee, and community forest users group etc.) with an average involvement
of 0.87 ± 2.81 years (range = 0–28 years). Major livestock raised were cows
(91.7%; n = 279 households), bulls (66.2%; n = 201 households), goats (62%; n =
189 households) and buffalos (27.2%; n = 83) with an average holding
size of 1.85 ± 1.31 (range = 0–30) for cows, 0.49 ± 0.97 (range = 0–-5) for
buffalos, 3.52 ± 5.47 (range = 0–-60) for goats and 1.18 ± 1.06 (range =0–-6)
for bulls.
Crop raiding
All of the surveyed households (n
= 304) had experienced numerous incidents of crop raiding between April 2017
and May 2019. Most of the households had experienced crop raiding so frequently
during the harvest season that they couldn’t recall the exact number of
incidents during that time frame. Major crops included rice, corn, wheat,
barley, millet, and potatoes. Major wildlife responsible for crop raiding were
Wild Boars Sus scrofa,
Himalayan Black Bears Ursus thibetanus, Rhesus Macaque Macaca
mulatta, Barking Deer Muntiacus
vaginalis, and porcupines Hystrix sp.
(Table 2). Rhesus Macaques, Porcupines, Himalayan Black Bears, and Wild Boars
were frequent crop raiders and responsible for more than 80% of the raids
claimed by households (Table 2). Respondents ranked Rhesus Macaques as first,
Wild Boars as second, Himalayan Black Bears and porcupines as joint third based
on burden to households considering crop-raiding frequency, severity of damage
and economic loss incurred (Table 3). Majority of respondents suggested that
population of crop-raiding wildlife (98.4%; n = 299) and trend of crop-raiding
frequency (97.7%; n = 297) were both increasing.
Livestock depredation
A large number of respondents
(55.5%; n = 169) reported their livestock being killed/injured between 2017 and
2019 (Table 4). Common Leopard Panthera pardus and Golden Jackal Canis
aureus were the two species most frequently involved in livestock
predation, and some by Himalayan Black Bears (Table 4). Almost all respondents
suggested that population of wildlife involved in livestock predation (98.4%; n
= 299) and frequency of livestock depredation (98.4%; n = 299) were both
increasing. Majority of respondents (78.3%; n = 238) employed herders to graze
their livestock in nearby grasslands to discourage wildlife, whereas a small
number (1.3%; n = 7) let their livestock graze without a herder. However, we
did not find any correlation (ρ= 0.23; P <0.05) between
grazing system (presence/absence of herder) and incidents of livestock
predation.
Animal attacks
Only 2% (n = 6) households had
cases of animal attacks. Out of the six, four cases were of injury and all
involved Himalayan Black Bears and two cases involved loss of human life that
resulted from attacks by Common Leopards. Although attacks on human are low,
respondents mentioned that they had to live under constant fear of being
attacked by wildlife while performing their daily chores such as collecting
fodder and firewood, and taking livestock for grazing.
Mitigation measures
From the 304 respondents, almost
half of the households (41.4%; n = 126) reported to have used some form of
mitigation measures to minimize crop raiding. Guarding crops during night by
kudo (Nepali: Burning fire) was the most common measure (65.8%; n = 83) and
considered most effective. This practice was used to prevent crop raiding by
Himalayan Black Bears and Wild Boars, but proved tiresome and put villagers at
risk from potential wildlife attacks. Noise making using metal utensils was the
second most used practice (46.03%; n = 58). Approximately 18.25% (n =
23) of households used scarecrows which worked only for the initial few days.
Some household used watch dogs (11.9%, n = 15) to chase wildlife (Rhesus
macaques) during the daytime. Dogs were ineffective, as they were often
outnumbered by the macaques. Similarly, some households (7%; n =10) fenced
their farm, but proven ineffective against macaques and Wild Boars. Stone fence
was found to be comparatively more effective than wood and bamboo fencing, but
was time consuming and expensive to set up. Interestingly, one (0.79%)
respondent worshipped ‘Hanuman’ (Nepali: Hindu Monkey god) during harvest
season and believed it helped to prevent crop raiding by monkeys.
Attitude toward wildlife
Around half of respondents (53%;
n = 198) had a negative opinion towards wildlife (Table 5). Nonetheless, a good
proportion of respondents (52.7%; n = 160) still believed that wildlife should
be conserved. Majority of respondents (85.2%; n = 259) agreed that if
appropriate compensation was provided for their loss, it would encourage them
towards wildlife conservation (Table 5). These respondents generally cited
“wildlife also has right to live despite the trouble they are causing us by
raiding our crops and depredating on our livestock” as a reason for their
support for wildlife conservation. Similarly, 84.2% (n = 254) of respondents
agreed that if provided with effective measures to alleviate crop-raiding and
livestock predation and if the intervention worked effectively, it would
encourage them in wildlife conservation. Half of the respondents (51.6%; n =
157) positively believed that their community could benefit from eco-tourism
based on wildlife and landscape (forest, alpine meadows) in this region.
Whereas 45.7% (n = 139) were neutral in their opinion and mentioned that they
had no idea about how eco-tourism could benefit their community and therefore
chose to remain neutral.
There was no or negligible
correlation between general opinion of respondents towards wildlife and their
education (ρ =-0.30; P <0.05), sex (ρ =-0.20; P
<0.05) or involvement in any sort of natural resources management group (ρ
=-0.05; P >0.05). Similarly, there was no or negligible correlation
between opinions of respondents on wildlife conservation and their education (ρ
=-0.30; P <0.05), sex (ρ =-0.28; P <0.05) or
involvement in any sort of natural resources management group (ρ =-0.09;
P <0.05). These findings indicate that negative attitude of
respondents towards wildlife and their conservation is most likely due to
negative impacts from crop-raiding and livestock predation over other factors.
DISCUSSION
Our findings revealed that
crop-raiding is widespread and frequent in villages in the buffer zone of the
KNP. Our findings corroborate with other studies and identify Wild boars,
Rhesus macaques, porcupines and Himalayan black bears as main crop raiding
wildlife among various protected areas in Nepal (Thapa 2010; Awasthi &
Singh 2015; Pandey & Bajracharya 2016; Pandey et
al. 2016; Banikoi et al. 2017; Sherchan
& Bhandari 2017; Lamichhane et al. 2018). Almost
all respondents in our study area mentioned that frequency of both crop raiding
and livestock predation have increased over time. Although almost all
respondents believed that the wildlife populations involved in crop raiding and
livestock predation are also increasing over time, respondent’s idea on
increasing population of crop-raiding wildlife could very well be based on the
increasing frequency of crop-raiding incidents, and as such should be treated
cautiously.
Crop raiding with varying levels
of magnitude have been reported from various protected and human dominated
landscapes in Nepal. Awasthi & Singh (2015) assessed crop-raiding incidents
by wildlife in GCA and reported that 84% of households surveyed (n = 170), had
their crops raided by monkeys, porcupines and Himalayan Gorals. Himalayan Black
Bears were also involved in crop-raiding to a smaller extent, but there were no
cases on conflicts involving Wild boars in GCA (Awasthi & Singh 2015). In
KCA, Civet, Barking Deer, porcupines, squirrel and monkeys have been reported
to be frequent crop raiders (Sherchan & Bhandari
2017). The same study also reported recent involvement of Himalayan Black Bears
since 2010, but no involvement by Wild Boars. Gurung (2002) identified Wild
Boar, Himalayan Black Bear, monkey and porcupine as the major crop raiders in
SNNP. Similarly, Ulak (1992), Kattel
(1993), and Poudyal (1995) all reported Wild Boar as
the frequent crop raider. Maize was the most raided crop by wildlife in SNNP.
Although the crops raided varied among regions, the major crops raided included
rice, wheat, corn, millet, barley, and potato (Ulak
1992; Kattel 1993; Poudyal
1995; Gurung 2002; Awasthi & Singh 2015; Sherchan
& Bhandari 2017). In protected areas of low-land Nepal, such as BNP, CNP
and Parsa National Park, Elephants are the main crop
raiders (Thapa 2010; Pandey & Bajracharya 2016; Banikoi et al. 2017; Lamichhane
et al. 2018).
Protected areas in central and
western mid-hill regions of Nepal (SNNP and KNP) appeared to have very high
extent and frequency of crop raiding involving Wild Boars and Himalayan Black
Bears. Respondents in villages surrounding KNP revealed that crop damage caused
by wildlife, like the Wild Boar, was historically low. Traditionally, hunting
kept the Wild Boar population in check, but the establishment of the KNP
increased the forest area and made it illegal to own a gun and hunt wild
animals, thus increasing crop raiding frequency. The increase in forest area
would reduce the forest proximity to farms, which has been determined as one of
the factor associated with wildlife damage to crops (Genov
et al. 1996; Geisser 2000; Saj
et al. 2001; Naughton-Treves et al. 2003; Linkie et
al. 2007).
Common Leopards and Golden
Jackals were mostly involved in livestock predation in villages surrounding
KNP. Adhikari et al. (2018) also reported Common Leopards as the major
livestock depredator in Panchase protected forest in
the mid-hill region of western Nepal. In Chitwan National Park, Tigers and
Common Leopards were involved in >90% of reported livestock depredation (n =
2213) between 1998 and 2016 (Lamichhane et al. 2018).
The same study also reported that livestock predation by Common Leopards was
higher than tigers between 2014 and 2016. Leopards are generalist predators,
consuming wide variety of prey, including ungulates, carnivores, rodents, bird
and fish. Lack of natural prey and poor husbandry makes domestic animals more
vulnerable to attacks by wildlife (Shehzad et al. 2015). A nation-wide survey
between 2010 and 2014 showed that the Common Leopard and Himalayan Black Bear
along with the Tiger, Elephant, and Rhinoceros as major drivers of attacks on human (death and injury) in Nepal
(Acharya et al. 2016).
Due to success of community
forestry in Nepal, the spatial distribution of both Common Leopards and
Himalayan Black Bears has increased (Acharya et al. 2016). Since these two
species have wider distribution in mid-hill region of Nepal, including the
buffer zone of the KNP, they are found to be responsible for majority of crop
raiding, livestock predation and animal attacks outside protected areas
(Acharya et al. 2016). Common Leopards are known to adapt well in
human-modified landscapes as well (Acharya et al. 2016). Although more than
half of respondents had their livestock predated, they had more negative
feelings towards crop-raiding wildlife than those involved in livestock
depredation. Livestock predation was only occasional, but crop-raiding occurred
frequently all year round.
As the crop yields were severely
impacted by the wild animals such as Wild Boars and Rhesus Macaque, we found locals using
combinations of measures to minimize crop raiding. Farmers often produced loud
noise or fire to deter crop raiding wildlife. Pandey & Bajracharya
(2016) reported
similar techniques used by the locals during their study in Shivapuri
National park. However, they reported that producing loud noises and flames
were only effective for shorter period. Saraswat et al. (2015) reported the use of loud noise
from firecrackers, tin cans and dogs to chase away macaques in India. However,
such measures were not effective in preventing/minimizing crop raiding
(Saraswat et al. 2015). Sterilization of macaques were also tested in Himachal
Pradesh of India, but they were not effective either (Saraswat et al. 2015; Anand
& Radhakrishna 2020). Sekhar (1998) reported watch tower was the
most effective and safer measure in Rajasthan, India but according to our respondents
it was not financially feasible in KNP. Farmers worshipping “Hanuman” the monkey
god during the harvest season were also reported across India. Sekhar (1998) and Saraswat et
al. (2015). In other
regions of Nepal techniques like mesh wire fencing, electric fencing, beehive
fencing and chilly fencing, trenches are being used (Banikoi
2012; Lamichhane et al. 2018). Habitat enrichment program-
which addresses the food shortage faced by the Rhesus Macaque by planting of
fruit plantations in forests might help them to reduce dependence on human
crops (Anand &
Radhakrishna 2020).
In general, respondents had
negative attitudes towards KNP and blamed the national park for their losses
and believed that the national park prioritized wildlife over residents and
their crops. Respondents also complained that process of receiving compensation
from the national park was lengthy and financially burdensome. For instance,
respondents from some villages had to travel 2–3 days to reach the KNP office
just to file a case for compensation. So, respondents had to spent good amount
of money to pay for their food and accommodation. In many cases, respondents
also mentioned that the compensation received for dead livestock, especially
horses was less than the actual price of the lost animal. We did not, however,
verify these claims with the KNP authority.
Conservation
recommendations
During the survey, we observed
that most of the respondents were not fully aware of process and paperwork
required to claim compensations from KNP office for the economic loss they had
incurred due to crop raiding, livestock predation and animal attacks. We
distributed brochures (in Nepali) explaining process for claiming compensations
to villagers during our survey and was received positively. We recommend that
KNP office and the KNP buffer zone management committee take steps to raise
awareness among villagers regarding the process in claiming compensation.
Similarly, to the possible extent, the KNP office should consider simplifying
and shortening the compensation process since some of the villagers had to
travel 2–3 days to claim compensation. Site and species-specific mitigation
measures could be put in place. Exchange of best practice and success stories
between farmers from different villages mediated by the KNP office and buffer
zone management committee could be helpful in promoting human-wildlife
coexistence and fostering healthy park-people relation.
Table 1. Detailed information on
socio-economic attributes of respondents (n = 304) across villages in the
buffer zone of the Khaptad National Park, Nepal.
|
Variable |
Variable categories |
n |
Percentage |
|
Education Level |
Illiterate |
178 |
58.6 |
|
Primary |
43 |
14.1 |
|
|
Lower-secondary |
10 |
3.3 |
|
|
Secondary |
43 |
14.1 |
|
|
Higher secondary |
22 |
7.2 |
|
|
Bachelors |
8 |
2.6 |
|
|
District |
Achham |
93 |
30.6 |
|
Bajhang |
98 |
32.2 |
|
|
Bajura |
61 |
20.1 |
|
|
Doti |
52 |
17.1 |
|
|
Major occupation |
Agriculture |
277 |
91.1 |
|
Service |
14 |
4.6 |
|
|
Business |
7 |
2.3 |
|
|
Student |
6 |
2 |
|
|
Main source of income |
Agriculture |
170 |
55.9 |
|
Remittance |
104 |
34.2 |
|
|
Others |
30 |
9.9 |
Table 2. Major wildlife involved
in and total cases of crop raiding across villages in the buffer zone of the Khaptad National Park, Nepal.
|
Wildlife |
Cases involved |
Percentage |
|
Wild Boar |
301 |
99 |
|
Rhesus Macaque |
296 |
97.4 |
|
Porcupine |
255 |
83.9 |
|
Himalayan Black Bear |
252 |
82.9 |
|
Barking Deer |
100 |
32.9 |
|
Golden Jackal |
60 |
19.7 |
|
Himalayan Goral |
26 |
8.6 |
|
Himalayan Thar |
20 |
6.6 |
|
Others |
7 |
2.3 |
Table 3. Crop raiding wildlife
ranked by respondents (n = 304) based on burden to them across villages in the
buffer zone of the Khaptad National Park, Nepal.
|
Wildlife |
Respondent (n) |
Percentage |
Rank |
|
Rhesus Macaque |
140 |
46.1 |
1 |
|
Wild Boar |
127 |
41.8 |
2 |
|
Himalayan Black Bear |
18 |
5.9 |
3 |
|
Porcupine |
18 |
5.9 |
4 |
|
Golden Jackal |
1 |
0.3 |
5 |
Table 4. Major wildlife involved
in and total cases of livestock predation across villages in the buffer zone of
the Khaptad National Park, Nepal.
|
Wildlife |
Cases involved |
Percentage |
|
Common Leopard |
121 |
39.8 |
|
Golden Jackal |
39 |
12.8 |
|
Himalayan Black Bear |
5 |
1.6 |
|
Others |
4 |
1.3 |
Table 5. Attitude of respondents
(n = 304) towards wildlife involved in crop raiding, livestock predation and
animal attacks across villages in the buffer zone of the Khaptad
National Park, Nepal.
|
Factor |
Value |
Respondent (n) |
Percentage |
|
What is your general opinion on
wildlife involved in conflicts? |
Strongly positive |
4 |
1.3 |
|
Positive |
108 |
35.5 |
|
|
Neutral |
31 |
10.2 |
|
|
Negative |
161 |
40.8 |
|
|
Strongly negative |
37 |
12.2 |
|
|
In your opinion, should
wildlife be conserved? |
Strongly positive |
2 |
0.7 |
|
Positive |
158 |
52 |
|
|
Neutral |
81 |
26.6 |
|
|
Negative |
48 |
15.8 |
|
|
Strongly negative |
15 |
4.9 |
|
|
Would appropriate compensation
encourage you in wildlife conservation? |
Strongly positive |
26 |
8.6 |
|
Positive |
233 |
76.6 |
|
|
Neutral |
26 |
8.6 |
|
|
Negative |
17 |
5.6 |
|
|
Strongly negative |
2 |
0.7 |
|
|
Would implementation of
conflict mitigation measures encourage you in wildlife conservation? |
Strongly positive |
14 |
4.6 |
|
Positive |
242 |
79.6 |
|
|
Neutral |
40 |
13.2 |
|
|
Negative |
8 |
2.6 |
|
|
Strongly negative |
0 |
0 |
|
|
Would wildlife based
eco-tourism be beneficial to your community? |
Strongly positive |
12 |
3.9 |
|
Positive |
145 |
47.7 |
|
|
Neutral |
139 |
45.7 |
|
|
Negative |
7 |
2.3 |
|
|
Strongly negative |
1 |
0.3 |
For image - -
click here for full PDF
REFERENCES
Acharya,
K.P., P.K. Paudel, P.R. Neupane
& M. Köhl (2016). Human-Wildlife Conflicts in
Nepal: Patterns of Human Fatalities and Injuries Caused by Large Mammals. PloS ONE 11(9): e0161717. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161717
Adhikari,
J.N., B.P. Bhattarai & T.B. Thapa (2018). Human- Wild Mammal Conflict in a
Human Dominated Landscape: A Case Study from Panchase
Area in Chitwan Annapurna landscape, Nepal. Journal of Institute of Science
and Technology 23(1): 30–38. https://doi.org/10.3126/jist.v23i1.22158
Anand, S.
& S. Radhakrishna (2020). Is human–rhesus macaque (Macaca
mulatta) conflict in India a case of human–human
conflict? Ambio 49(10): 1685–1696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01324-w
Awasthi, B.
& N. Singh (2015). Status of Human-Wildlife Conflict and Assessment of Crop Damage by Wild
Animals in Gaurishankar Conservation Area, Nepal. Journal
of Institute of Science and Technology 20: 107. https://doi.org/10.3126/jist.v20i1.13918
Banikoi, H., S. Thapa, N. Bhattarai, R.
Kandel, S. Chaudhary, S. Chaudhary & C. Pokheral
(2017). Mitigating
Human-Wildlife Conflict in Nepal: A case study of fences around Chitwan
National Park. International
Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, Kathmandu.
DNPWC
(Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation) (2019). Khaptad
National Park and its buffer zone management plan (2076/77-2080/81). Department
of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation. Kathmandu, Nepal.
Fellows, I.
(2012). Deducer: A Data Analysis GUI for R. Journal of
Statistical Software 49(8): 1–15. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v49/i08/
Geisser, H. (2000). Das Wildschein
(Sus scrofa) im Kanton Thurgau (Schweiz): Analyse
der Populationsdynamik, der Habitatansprüche
und der Feldschäden in einem
anthropogen beeinflussten
Lebensraum. PhD Thesis, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
Genov, P.V., L. Tonini
& G. Massei (1996). Crop damage by wild ungulates in
a Mediterranean area. The Game and the Man. Proc. IUGB 214–215.
Government of
Nepal (2014). Nepal
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2014–2020. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and
Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal, 191 pp.
Gurung, B.,
J.L.D. Smith, C. McDougal, J.B. Karki & A. Barlow (2008). Factors associated with
human-killing tigers in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Biological
Conservation 141(12): 3069–3078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.013
Gurung, D.P.
(2002). Wildboar (Sus scrofa,
linnaeus-1758) distribution and conflict between park and people in Shivapuri National Park, Nepal. MSc Thesis, Tribhuvan
University, Nepal, 78 pp.
Karanth, K.K., A.M. Gopalaswamy,
R. DeFries & N. Ballal
(2012). Assessing
patterns of human-wildlife conflicts and compensation around a central Indian
protected area. PloS ONE 7(12): e50433.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050433
Kattel, B. (1993). A study on assessment of wildlife
diversity and crop depredation in Shivapuri Watershed
and Wildlife Reserve. Shivapuri Watershed Development Project
GCP/NEP/048/NOR, National Consultant Report.
Kunwar, R.
& N. Duwadee (2006). Ethnobotanical notes on flora of Khaptad National Park (KNP), far-western Nepal. Himalayan
Journal of Sciences 1(1): 25–30. https://doi.org/10.3126/hjs.v1i1.182
Lamichhane, B.R., G.A. Persoon,
H. Leirs, S. Poudel, N. Subedi,
C.P. Pokheral, S. Bhattarai, B.P. Thapaliya
& H.H. de Iongh (2018). Spatio-temporal patterns of attacks on
human and economic losses from wildlife in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. PloS ONE 13(4): e0195373. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195373
Linkie, M., Y. Dinata,
A. Nofrianto & N. Leader-Williams (2007). Patterns and perceptions of
wildlife crop raiding in and around Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra. Animal Conservation
10(1): 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00083.x
Madden, F.
(2004). Creating
Coexistence between Humans and Wildlife: Global Perspectives on Local Efforts
to Address Human–Wildlife Conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9(4):
247–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200490505675
Mishra, C.
(1997). Livestock
depredation by large carnivores in the Indian trans-Himalaya: Conflict
perceptions and conservation prospects. Environmental Conservation 24:
338–343. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892997000441
Mishra, N.
(2000). Status Paper
of Khaptad National Park, pp 146–147. In: Richards
C., K. Basnet, J.P. Sah & Y. Raut (eds). Grassland Ecology and Management in Protected Areas
of Nepal Volume 3: Technical and Status Paper on Grasslands of Mountain
Protected Areas. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation,
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development and WWF Nepal.
Naughton-Treves,
L., J.L. Mena, A. Treves, N. Alvarez & V.C. Radeloff
(2003). Wildlife
Survival beyond Park Boundaries: The Impact of Slash-and-Burn Agriculture and
Hunting on Mammals in Tambopata, Peru. Conservation Biology 17(4):
1106–1117. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02045.x
Pandey, P.,
P.J.L. Shaner & H.P. Sharma (2016). The wild boar as a driver of
human-wildlife conflict in the protected park lands of Nepal. European
Journal of Wildlife Research 62(1): 103–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-0978-5
Pandey, S.
& S.B. Bajracharya (2016). Crop Protection and Its
Effectiveness against Wildlife: A Case Study of Two Villages of Shivapuri National Park, Nepal. Nepal Journal of Science
and Technology 16(1): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3126/njst.v16i1.14352
Poudyal, P.R. (1995). An assessment of crop depredation
due to wildlife in Shivapuri watershed and wildlife
Reserve; a case of Sundarijal VDC. NP, MSc Thesis,
Tribhuvan University, Kritipur, Nepal, 53 pp.
R Core Team
(2016). R: A
Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
Saj, T.L., P. Sicotte
& J.D. Paterson (2001). The conflict between vervet monkeys and
farmers at the forest edge in Entebbe, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology
39(2): 195–199. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0141-6707.2000.00299.x
Saraswat, R.,
A. Sinha & S. Radhakrishna (2015). A god becomes a pest?
Human-rhesus macaque interactions in Himachal Pradesh, northern India. European
Journal of Wildlife Research 61(3): 435–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-0913-9
Sekhar, N.U.
(1998). Crop and
livestock depredation caused by wild animals in protected areas: the case of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Environmental
Conservation 25(2): 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892998000204
Shehzad, W.,
M.A. Nawaz, F. Pompanon, E. Coissac,
T. Riaz, S.A. Shah & P. Taberlet (2015). Forest without prey: livestock
sustain a leopard Panthera pardus population in Pakistan. Oryx 49(2):
248–253. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605313001026
Sherchan, R. & A. Bhandari (2017). Status and trends of
human-wildlife conflict: A case study of Lelep and Yamphudin region, Kanchenjunga Conservation Area, Taplejung, Nepal. Conservation Science 5(1): 19–25. https://doi.org/10.3126/cs.v5i1.24296
Thapa, S.
(2010). Effectiveness
of crop protection methods against wildlife damage: A case study of two
villages at Bardia National Park, Nepal. Crop
Protection 29(11): 1297–1304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2010.06.015
Ulak, N.P. (1992). Wild boar in Shivapuri Watershed and Management. Shivapuri
Integrated Watershed Management Project GCP/NEP/048/NOR, National Consultant
Report.
Wang, S.
& D. Macdonald (2006). Livestock predation by carnivores in Jigme Singye
Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Biological
Conservation 129: 558–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2005.11.024