Spatio-temporal patterns of human-wildlife conflicts and effectiveness of mitigation in Shuklaphanta National Park, Nepal

Abstract

Human-wildlife interactions occur where human and wildlife coexist and share common resources including food or shelter. Increasing wildlife populations within protected areas also can increase interactions with humans living adjacent to these areas, resulting in conflicts including human casualty, livestock depredation, crop damage, and property loss. We analyzed six years human-wildlife conflict data from 2016-2021 in the buffer zone of Shuklaphanta National Park and conducted questionnaire survey to investigate factors influencing human-wildlife conflicts. Nineteen people were attacked by wildlife, primarily wild boar (Sus scrofa). Ninety-two livestock were killed by leopard (Panthera pardus), and among these most were sheep or goats killed near ShNP during summer. Crops were most frequently damaged by Asian elephants (Elephas maximus), followed by wild boar. Greatest economic losses were from damage to rice, followed by sugarcane and wheat. Asian elephant was the only reported species to cause structural damage to property (e.g., homes). Majority of respondents (83%) considered that the mitigation techniques that are currently in practice are effective to reduce the conflicts. However, the effectiveness of the mitigation techniques are the species specific, we recommend use of more efficacious deterrents (e.g., electric fencing) for large herbivores and mesh wire fencing with partially buried in the ground. Effective collaboration among different tiers of government, non-governmental organizations, civil societies and affected communities are important to share the best practices and continue to apply innovative methods for impactful mitigation of human-wildlife conflicts in the region.

Fig 1. Shuklaphanta National Park, Nepal, with adjacent buffer zones and locations of human-wildlife conflicts, 2016–2022.

Fig 2

Number of livestock depredation (A); and seasonal livestock depredation (B) near (<500 m) and far (>500 m) from the Shuklaphanta National Park boundary between 2016 and 2022.

Fig 3. Total amount of crop damage near and far from the park Shuklaphanta National Park between 2016 and 2022.

Fig 4. Number of respondent’s perception towards the scenario of human-wildlife conflict after applying mitigation measures near and far from the Shuklaphanta National Park between 2016 and 2022.