ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF HUMAN-TIGER CONFLICTS IN CHITWAN NATIONAL PARK, NEPAL
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
BY
BHIM BAHADUR GURUNG
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
JAMES L. D. SMITH, ADVISER
JULY, 2008
©Bhim B. Gurung 2008
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr. Charles McDougal’s obsession with tigers and passion for their protection
over the past 48 years and our close association for nearly two decades has inspired me to
work towards tiger conservation. My interest in tigers was developed when I worked with
Dr. McDougal tracking individually identified tigers for several years. Individual
identities of tigers were established by noting differences in face and body patterns and
linking these with differences in pug marks. Using such methodology in monitoring
individual tigers to understand their behavior, movement patterns, and their relationships with other tigers, provided me knowledge to appreciate this beautiful animal and infused in me a similar passion to ensure the tiger’s long term survival.
A vision is needed for long-term tiger conservation. I greatly appreciate Dr. James
L. David Smith, my adviser, for providing that vision to conserve tiger on a landscape including forested habitat outside the protected areas. I am indebted to Dr. Smith, for admitting me into the Conservation Biology Graduate Program at the University of
Minnesota (UMN), for his guidance and friendship, which had led me into the amazing world of potential tiger habitats across the terai region of Nepal in a human-dominated landscape. I realized the importance of reducing human-tiger conflict, which became the theme of my Ph.D. research, when exploring these habitats outside the protected areas.
I would like to take an opportunity to thank all the people and institutions for their help to make this journey possible for me. I am sincerely grateful to Dr. Kristen C.
Nelson, my committee member, who helped me in many ways to understand the human aspect of conservation. I greatly appreciate Dr. Nelson for assisting me from developing a
i survey questionnaire and analyzing social issues that are the focus of my last two chapters. I feel privileged to have her in my graduate committee. I also thank my graduate committee members, Dr. Stephan Polasky and Dr. David L. Garshelis. I am also thankful to Dr. Francesca J. Cuthbert, Department Head, for her constructive suggestions, helpful advice and editing one of my chapter.
I would like to convey my sincere gratitude to the organizations and individuals that provided financial support; without their assistance my work would not have been completed. I would like to acknowledge the following institutions: University of
Minnesota’s Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology; Conservation
Biology Graduate Program; US National Fish and Wildlife Service; National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation, Save the Tiger Fund; WWF-Nepal Program; International Trust for
Nature Conservation; The Fund for The Tiger; Dayton-Wilkie Natural History Funds;
University of Minnesota Foundation and Steve / Mary Swig. Particularly I would like to acknowledge the late Mr. Mingma Norbu Sherpa, Managing Director of the Eastern
Himalayas Ecoregion Complex at WWF-US, and the late Dr. Chandra Prasad Gurung,
Country Representative, WWF-Nepal for initially approving the proposal for funding.
Similarly, Dr. Sarala Khaling, former Director of Research and Monitoring, WWF-Nepal and Mr. Anil Manandhar, current Country Representative, WWF-Nepal for their continual assistance throughout the project period. I would also like to thank Mr. Brian
Wierum, Chairman of The Fund for the Tiger, for his continuous tiger conservation support in Nepal. Additionally, I would like to recognize Mr. Steven Swig and Mrs. Mary
Green Swig, long time friends, for providing financial support during the later part of my study for writing, analyzing, and completing my thesis.
ii I wish to thank the late Dr. Tirtha Man Maskey and the late Mr. Narayan Poudyal,
former Director Generals, Mr. Shyam Bajimaya, Director General and his colleagues in
the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, for support, encouragement
and endorsement to conduct this work. Particularly I would like to thank Mr. Jhamak B.
Karki, Gopal Upadhaya, Surya B. Pandey, Baburam Yadav, Sher Singh Thaguna, Laxmi
Manandhar, and Puran Bhakra Shrestha for their insights in discussing the wildlife issues
in Nepal. I also acknowledge the support of Mr. Shiv Raj Bhatta, and Mr. Tikaram
Adhikari, Chief Wardens of Chitwan National Park and their administrative staffs. I
especially thank Mr. Kamal Jung Kunwar, Mr. Bishnu Thapathalia, Mr. Raju Ghimire,
Mr. Tikaram Poudyal, and Mr. Chij Kumar Shrestha, for their help and coordination
during the field work. Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge the facilitation of
Commanding Officer, Colonel Ajit Thapa, and his army officers and staff personnel for
supporting this project in Chitwan National Park.
My heartfelt gratitude goes to the entire population of Madi Valley, who accepted
me as one of their own. I felt very much at home living with the family of Mr. Bhawani
Poudyal for 8 months during my field work. I am also grateful to the chairman of the buffer zone user committees in Madi Valley; Mr. Mathura B. Bhandari (Ayodhyapuri),
Mr. Shyam B. Bista (Kalyanpur), Mr. Madhav Chapagai (Baghauda) and Mr. Narayan
Datta Sapkota (Gardi) for sharing information on the management of buffer zone community forests and also providing their staff, community forestry guards, to work with me for data collection. I would also like to extend my appreciation to household survey assistants; Mrs. Krishna Maya Baral, Mr. Ghan Shyam Poudyal, Mr. Surya
Khanal, Mr. Surya Bhattarai, Mr. Baliram Choudhary, Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, Mr.
iii Krishna Prasad Choudhary, and Mr. Chudamani Poudyal. Likewise, I am grateful to buffer zone community forest guards, the late Karna Upretti, Dal Bahadur Khatri, and
Durga P. Sapkota for their help in collecting data and willingness to share their concern about the community forests and wildlife. I hope the fascinating way of Madi life will not only survive, but will also flourish in the future, under the Valley’s 4 strong Buffer Zone
Community Forestry User Committees.
My friends and colleagues at the Tiger Tops Jungle Lodge and International Trust for Nature Conservation created a comfortable research environment by welcoming me to their facility and providing field assistance. In particular, I would like to thank Mr.
Santosh Lama, Mr. Ram Singh Gurung and Mr. Krishna B. Basnet for providing necessary help for the field work. I am thankful to wildlife technicians Hari Prasad
Choudhary, Indra Bahadur Kumal, Baburam Mahato and Raju Kumal for their dedicated assistance in collecting data. Likewise, I am grateful to Dhan Bahadur Tamang and
Sukram Kumal for sharing their more then 30 years of experiences dealing with man- eating tigers, and also taking me to most of the sites where the man-eating tigers were removed.
I appreciate the help of Mr. Lal Kaji Gurung, Project Director of the Nepal Trust for Nature Conservation’s Biodiversity Conservation Center at Sauraha for providing
Senior Wildlife Technicians, Bishnu Lama and Harka Man Lama. I am thankful to
Bishnu and Harka for sharing their more than 3 decades of handling and darting man- eating tigers in and around Chitwan Park. I also acknowledge the help of Mrs. Sarita
Gnawali, curator of Kathmandu Zoo, for providing data on captured man-eating tigers.
iv My fellow students and colleagues many of whom have shared my interest, love
for nature and wildlife, and without this journey I would not have chance to meet many
of them. In particular, Dr. Terilyn D. Allendorf, Dr. Mahendra K. Shrestha, Dr. Anup R.
Joshi, Dr. Narayan Kaji Shrestha, Adam Barlow, Jesse Kroese for their helpful edits and
comments on the manuscripts, and Narayan Dhakal, Pete Cutter, Paul Kapfer, Passanan
(Namfon) Cutter, Sun Hean, Lynne Baker, Perry Nacionales, Michael Rentz, Barbara
Martinez, Purevjav Lkhagvajav for sharing a common interests in conservation biology.
I would like to thank my friends and well wishers supporting my tiger conservation works, particularly, Patricia O’Neill and John Moore, Dieter and Liz
Gutmann, Michael Griffin and Martha Nicoloff, Mike and Sylvia Lovett. With my heart I appreciate Sylvia’s help in editing the first draft of all the thesis chapters.
This research would not have been complete without the support of my family.
My parent’s love, encouragement and good wishes always kept me focused into my study. My wife, Sandhya’s continual support, motivation, suggestions, and love always directed me towards completing my research. Without her sustainable company I would not have completed my degree. Finally, I would like to dedicate my thesis to my son,
Suluv, whose unconditional love and care for animals at this early age made me think that there is hope for biodiversity conservation.
v ABSTRACT
The human-tiger conflict has become a major threat to long-term tiger survival and well being of local people living around tiger reserves. Mitigation of this conflict is considered most critical in multiple use forested areas where tiger ecological needs and human livelihood needs overlap. My thesis seeks to gain a better understanding of this conflict. I investigated ecological and sociological aspects of man-eating cases in and around Chitwan National Park Nepal, with an ultimate aim of guiding mitigation policies and management. Additionally, I investigated the impact of grazing restrictions on livestock husbandry practices, and also evaluated the people’s perceptions and tolerance towards tigers in Madi Valley, within the Chitwan National Park. I obtained three decades of man-eating cases (1979-2006), each case was re-examined by visiting victim’s families, or person present at the time of the incidents. Likewise, tiger’s responsible for killing these people were also re-investigated by visiting Park veterinarian and zoo records. The site of each human kill and tiger removal was visited to measure habitat conditions when kills were made and where man-eating tigers occurred. A total of 36 tigers killed 88 people from 1979-2006. The trend of human loss increased from an average of 1.21 persons per year prior to 1997 to 7.22 per year since 1998. The rising trend is due to primarily increasing number of people killed in the buffer zones surrounding the Park. I classified the sex, age classes, condition of man-eating tigers, and also evaluated prey base at kill sites, and aggressiveness of tigers when people came to remove victims for cremation. Nearly half of the people killed were grass / fodder cutters.
vi In chapter 3 the impact of grazing restriction on livestock husbandry practices is examined. Household survey data and secondary information measured the impact of changing access policies. Households needed to reduce their holdings of unproductive livestock and to switch to stall feeding. Higher stall feeding required local people to gather more fodder and increased human activities in the recovering forest may contribute to increase man-eating.
In chapter 4 local people’s beliefs about the importance of tiger and their tolerance levels is assessed from head of the household surveys. The value and tolerance levels are analyzed based on household demographics, resource use, and interaction with tigers. Local people highly value but only have moderate tolerance for tigers. Higher valuing and tolerance for tiger were significantly influenced by household’s wealth.
Furthermore, poor people were found to live closer to forest, use more forest resources, have high livestock depredation resulting in lower valuing and tolerance levels for tigers.
To mitigate the conflict I recommend radio-collaring problem tigers (particularly in the buffer zone) to collect tigers behavioral and movement patterns to create ‘no go’ zone, continue long term tiger monitoring program by extending the cooperation of the local communities, implement a tiger conservation awareness to educate local people on tiger biology, and improve compensation program to increase local tolerance towards tiger.
vii TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………………………………………….. i
ABSTRACT ………………………………………………………………………… vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………………... viii
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………….. x
LIST OF FIGURES ………………………………………………………………… xiii
CHAPTER 1. Introduction to Dissertation ………………………………..…… 1
References …………………………………………………… 7
CHAPTER 2. Factors Associated with Man-eating Tigers in Chitwan National
Park, Nepal ……………………………………………………….. 9
Abstract ……………………………………………………... 10
Introduction …………………………………………………. 11
Methods ……………...……………………………………… 14
Results ………………………………………………….…… 17
Discussion …………………………………………………… 20
References …………………………………………………… 29
Tables …………………………………………………..…… 37
Figures ………………………………………………….…… 41
CHAPTER 3. Impact of Grazing Restrictions on Livestock Husbandry Practices
in Madi Valley, Nepal …………………………………………… 46
Abstract ……………………………………………………… 47
Introduction …………………………………………………. 48
viii Methods ……………………………………………………… 54
Results ……………………………………………………….. 58
Discussion …………………………………………………… 62
References …………………………………………………… 68
Tables ………………………………………………………... 75
Figures ……………………………………………………….. 79
CHAPTER 4. Values for and Tolerance Towards Tigers in Madi Valley, Chitwan
National Park, Nepal ……………………………………………. 84
Abstract …………………………………………………….. 85
Introduction ………………………………………………… 86
Methods …………………………………………………….. 90
Results ……………………………………………………… 95
Discussion ………………………………………………….. 100
References ………………………………………………….. 106
Tables ………………………………………………………. 114
BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………..…………... 126
ix LIST OF TABLES
2-1. Number of people killed by tigers in and adjacent to Chitwan National Park,
Nepal 1979-2006 ….……………………………………………………..… 37
2-2. The total number and rate/year of killing inside and outside Chitwan National
Park from 1979-1997 (19 years) and from 1998-2006 (9 years) ……..…… 38
2-3. Sex, age class, number of victims, disposition, physical condition, habitat
occupied, response to humans investigating kill, and reproductive status of
man-eating tigers in Chitwan National Park during the period 1979-2006 (P.S.
M=male, F=female, UK=unknown) ………………………………………. 39
2-4. Summary of man-eating events: tiger sex and condition, habitat quality
and the management action …….…………………………………………. 40
3-1. Total and sample population of 4 Village Development Committee of
Madi Valley, Chitwan, 2006 (n=400) …………………………….……… 75
3-2. Difference in livestock ownership per unit Households in Madi Valley between
1997 and 2006 ……………………………………….………….………. 76
3-3. Amount of total digestive nutrients (TDN) requirement for livestock in
Madi Valley, 2006………………………………………………..……… 77
3-4. Amount of total digestive nutrients (TDN) available and livestock carrying
capacity of various land use types in Madi Valley, 2006………………… 78
4-1. Respondent demographic characteristics for employment, landholding,
residency, occupation and ethnicity in Madi Valley, Chitwan National
Park, 2006 ………………………………………………………….……. 114 x 4-2. Respondents wealth scores and livestock units in Madi Valley, Chitwan
National Park, 2006 (Wealth score allocated to each item were: tractor (3),
bus or truck (4 each), jeep or oxcart (2 each), motorcycle (3) and (1) for
each of the items: cycle, solar panel, biogas, hand pump, water-well, toilet,
television, pressure cooker, rice cooker, cassette player and video cassette
player. Livestock Standard Unit (LSU) conversion factor: 1 buffalo = 1 LSU,
1 cow = 0.69 LSU, and 1 goat = 0.22 LSU) …………………………...… 115
4-3. Principal Component Analysis used to measure values (10 statements)
of tiger in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, 2006………………..… 116
4-4. Principal Component Analysis used to measure tolerance level
(four statements) for tiger in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, 2006 .. 117
4-5. Respondents percentage responses to value statements measured using
5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree =1 to strongly agree = 5), in Madi
Valley, Chitwan National Park, in 2006…………………………………. 118
4-6. Respondents percentage responses to tolerance statements measured
using 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree =1 to strongly agree = 5),
in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, in 2006………………………… 119
4-7. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on tiger value scores (range: 1 – 5; high
score high value) by respondents demographic groups, in Madi Valley,
Chitwan National Park, in 2006…………………………………………. 120
4-8. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on tiger value scores (range: 1 – 5: high score
high value) by respondents resource use groups, in Madi Valley, Chitwan
National Park, in 2006 …………..………………………………………… 121
xi 4-9. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on tiger value scores (range: 1 – 5; high score
high value) by respondents distance from forest, in Madi Valley, Chitwan
National Park, in 2006…………………………………………………… 122
4-10. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on tiger tolerance score (range: 1-5; high score
high tolerance) by respondents demographic groups, in Madi Valley, Chitwan
National Park, 2006………………………………………………………. 123
4-11. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on tiger tolerance score (range: 1-5; high score
high tolerance) by respondents resource use groups, in Madi Valley, Chitwan
National Park, 2006……………………………………………………..... 124
4-12. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on tiger tolerance score (range: 1-5; high score
high tolerance) by respondents distance from forest, in Madi Valley, Chitwan
National Park, 2006…………………………………….………………… 125
xii LIST OF FIGURES
2-1. A map of Nepal showing the location of Chitwan National Park, the Buffer
Zone and its four management units……………………………………… 41
2-2. Locations of humans killed in and adjacent to Chitwan National Park from
1979 - 1997 and from 1998 - 2006 ……..………………………….…….. 42
2-3. Average number of humans killed per year by tigers in and adjacent to
Chitwan National Park, 1979-2006…………….………………………… 43
2-4. Percentage of humans killed in relation to forest edge in and adjacent to
Chitwan National Park, 1979-2006 ……………..…………………….…. 44
2-5. Comparison of male and female human activities when killed by tigers
in and adjacent to Chitwan National Park, 1979-2006 …………………. 45
3-1. Map of Madi Valley and its surrounding landscape, Nepal, 2006……… 79
3-2. Cattle, buffalo, and goat seasonal grazing practiced by Households (HHS)
owning such stocks in Madi Valley, 2006………………………………. 80
3-3. Percentage of Households (HHs) that collect fodder on a weekly basis
from Park, community forest and agricultural lands during three seasons,
in Madi Valley, 2006……………………………………………………. 82
xiii CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION TO DISSERTATION
In the past 50 years in the lowlands of Nepal, forest cover has declined,
fragmented and degraded as human numbers increased. As a consequence tiger ( Panthera
tigris ) numbers declined. Habitat loss, prey deficiency, and poaching were the major causes of the tiger’s decline in Nepal and still are across much of the tigers range
(Ramakrishnan et al. 1999; Linkie at al. 2003). In 1969, conservationists recognized that
the tiger was endangered and listed it as an Appendix I species under the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES 2005). In response ‘Project Tiger’
was launched in 1972 and throughout the tiger’s range reserves were created and legal
protection afforded to save them from extinction. Despite 36 years of conservation efforts since the inception of ‘Project Tiger’ tiger populations continue to decline (Sanderson et. al. 2006).
However, in Nepal tigers have responded favorably to legal protection and habitat recovery (Dinerstein et al. 2007). Beginning in the 1970s protected areas were established to provide habitat for tigers and other large mammals such as rhinoceros, elephants, gaur and several species of deer. As tigers recovered in the newly established lowland reserves, a low level of human-tiger conflict occurred. The first incident of man- eating after creation of the protected areas occurred in 1979 (Smith 1984). During this period tigers occasionally dispersed from the protected area into surrounding forests where they killed livestock and in return were sometimes poisoned (Tamang 1982).
Tigers also regularly killed livestock that grazed illegally in the parks (Sunquist 1979).
1 From 1979 to the mid 1990s tigers occasionally killed humans, mostly near the
periphery of Chitwan National Park, but beginning in 1996, a major change in land-use
spread through the Nepalese lowlands that increased human-tiger conflict. Community
forestry, which had been established since 1984 in the mid-hill of Nepal, began to be
implemented in the lowlands. Within 12 years the number of community forestry user groups (CFUGs) jumped from 2 to approximately 15000 official and unofficial groups in
2007. This was a positive development for biodiversity and human well being. Local communities, supported by government legislation, began to manage portions of the national forests for a more sustained supply of forest products and to increase ecological services that these forests provided. The CFUG movement spread rapidly across Nepal because people realized that with CFUGs they were able to break out of the tragedy of commons through local management of a common resource. People were also well aware of the direct economic benefit as well as the indirect ecological healthy forests. They were quite sophisticated in articulating the benefits to biodiversity from the establishment of CFUG management.
In the early stages of the spread of community forestry in the terai there was little
awareness at the village level of the response of tigers to the recovering forests. As forest
biomass increased so did large ungulate populations; the result was widespread tiger
habitat recovery in those parts of national forests under community managements. The
goals of Nepal’s Tiger Action Plan to increase the land base for tigers and habitat
connectivity (DNPWC 1999) were being met in a surprising way. It was not just from
management activities of the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation
2 and international NGO efforts (Wikramanayake et al. 2004), but also from a grass roots effort of Nepalese to manage their own forests for human benefits.
With more tigers has come increased human-tiger conflict, which is now posing a great challenge to wildlife managers and conservationists alike. Understanding the ecological and sociological aspect of this conflict is critical for long-term survival of the tiger and the well being of local people living near protected areas and restored national forests (Nyhus & Tilson 2004). Tigers are re-colonizing the multiple use forests across the Nepalese lowlands and conflict is increasing because tigers readily kill livestock, and under some conditions kill humans (McDougal 1987). In response, humans kill tigers that are responsible for livestock killing or directly threatening human lives (Martin 1992).
Wildlife managers can not afford to ignore this situation; they need to work with local communities to develop effective strategies.
Human-tiger conflict has been documented across much of the tiger’s distributional range but the conflict is more severe in the Indian sub-continent (McDougal
1987) where tigers and humans densities are relatively high compared to other tiger range countries. Mitigating conflicts requires understanding the behavior of both tigers and people where they overlap in resource use. My research examines the ecological and sociological aspects of human-tiger conflict in and around Chitwan National Park, Nepal, where number of humans killed by tigers has dramatically increased in recent years
(McDougal et al. 2005). In Chapter 2 I investigated the characteristics of man-eating tigers and the geographic pattern of human killing. Chapter 3 examines the impact of grazing restrictions implemented by CFUGs on livestock composition, structure, and husbandry in Madi Valley. In Chapter 4 I explored local people’s attitudes and tolerance
3 of tiger in Madi Valley, adjacent to Chitwan National Park. The results of this research
are critically important in Nepal if forests across the terai continue to recover and tiger
distribution expands.
This thesis contains three chapters in the form of manuscripts prepared for
specific scientific journals. Below, I indicate authors and likely co-authors for
manuscript, provide a brief overview of each chapter. Chapter 2 was submitted to the
journal of Biological Conservation and is under review. It has several co-authors, therefore, I use the plural “we” instead of “I” throughout the chapter. Chapters 3 and 4 will be submitted to the peer-reviewed journals Environmental Conservation and Human
Dimensions of Wildlife for publications respectively. I indicate likely co-authors for these manuscripts but have not used plural ‘we’ in these two chapters.
Chapter 2: GURUNG, B., SMITH, J. L. D., McDOUGAL, C., KARKI, J. B., &
BARLOW, A. Factors associated with man-eating tigers in Chitwan National Park,
Nepal.
Man-eating is the ultimate expression of human-tiger conflict. In this chapter, I investigated the ecological factors and sociological aspects of man-eating tigers in and around Chitwan National Park. My specific objectives of this study were to: 1) map the geographic distribution of man-eating incidents to examine relationships with habitat condition and forest edge; 2) characterize man-eating tigers to determine possible physiological factors associated with killing; and 3) finally, characterize victims to determine what factors contributed to their being attacked or killed. I obtained 28 years of data on man-eating incidents from 1979-2006 from the Long Term Tiger Monitoring
4 Project and Park headquarter. I then verified each site where the kill took place by
visiting each victim’s family members, close relatives, or other individuals present at the
time of attack. They accompanied me to the kill sites, where GPS locations recorded for
mapping. Likewise, I visited each location where man-eating tigers were captured with
technicians who had originally removed problem tigers. I determined habitat conditions
around the kill sites with reference to prey abundance using estimates of prey density
conducted at four time periods between 1978 and 2006. Furthermore, I characterized
man-eating tigers based on the physiological and psychological conditions of captured
tigers. Finally, I characterized human factors based on victim’s activities at the time of
kill, age, gender, date, time of the day and season.
CHAPTER 3: GURUNG, B., NELSON, K., & SMITH, J. L. D. Impact of grazing
restrictions on livestock composition and husbandry practices in Madi Valley, Nepal.
Livestock grazing restrictions in protected areas have been common conservation practices (Lewis 2003). In this chapter I investigated the impact of grazing restriction on overall livestock husbandry practices in Madi Valley, within the buffer zone of Chitwan
National Park. Specifically I wanted to analyze if changes in livestock husbandry practices could influence tiger habitats and interactions with people. My specific questions were: 1) what is the community and household livestock composition? 2) how has livestock numbers and composition changed between 1997 and 2006? 3) in 2006, what are the relationship of livestock numbers and the carrying capacity of grazing and foraging lands? 4) what are the seasonal livestock husbandry practices, and how often
5 and from where do people collect fodder? 5) what are the people’s opinions about the livestock grazing restriction policy?
CHAPTER 4: GURUNG, B., NELSON, K., ALLENDORF, T. & SMITH, J. L. D.
Values for and tolerance towards tigers in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, Nepal.
Support of local people is critical in tiger conservation especially in high human- tiger conflict areas. Therefore, understanding local people belief’s about the importance of the tiger and their tolerance level towards tiger is important to develop effective mitigation strategies. In this chapter I examined local people’s perception of tiger and tolerance level towards tiger. I then related these variables with household’s economic and social conditions, proximity to the forest edge, resource use, and experiences with tiger.
6 REFERENCES
CITES (2005). CITES Handbook Manual Guide. Cites Secretariat, International
Environment House, Geneva, Switzerland.
Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C., Wikramanayake, E., Ginsberg, J., Sanderson, E., Seidensticker, J., Forrest, J., Bryya, G., Heydlauff, A., Klenzendorf, S., Leimgruber, P., Mills, J., O’Brien, T. G., Shrestha, M., Simons, R., & Songer, M. (2007). The fate of wild tigers. BioScience , 57, 508-514. DNPWC (1999). Tiger conservation action plan for the Kingdom of Nepal. WWF Nepal Program, Kathmandu. Lewis, M. (2003). Cattle and conservation at Bharatpur: A case study in science and advocacy. Conservation and Society , 1, 1-21. Linkie, M., Martyr, D. J., Holden, J., Yanuar, A., Hartana, A. T., Sugardjito, J. & Leader-
Williams, N. (2003). Habitat destruction and poaching threaten the Sumatran tiger
in Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra. Oryx , 37, 41-48.
Martin, E. B. (1992). The poisoning of rhinos and tigers in Nepal. Oryx , 26, 82-86. McDougal, C. (1987). The Man-eating tiger in geographical and historical perspective. In R. L. Tilson & U. S. Seal (Eds.), Tigers of the World: The Biology, Biopolitics, Management and Conservation of an Endangered Species (pp. 435-488). Park Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Publications. McDougal, C., Barlow, A., Thapa, D., Kumal, S., & Tamang, D. B. (2005). Tiger and human conflict increase in Chitwan Reserve Buffer Zone, Nepal. Cat News , 40, 3- 4. Nyhus, P. J., & Tilson, R. (2004). Characterizing human-tiger conflicts in Sumatra, Indonesia: implications for conservation. Oryx , 38, 68-74. Ramakrishnan, U., Coss, R. G., & Pelkey, N.W. (1999). Tiger decline caused by the reduction of large ungulate prey: evidence from a study of leopard diets in southern India. Biological Conservation , 89, 113- 120.
7 Sanderson, E., Forrest, J., Loucks, C., Ginsberg, J., Dinerstein, E., Seidensticker, J., Leimgruber, P., Songer, M., Heydlauff, A., O’Brien, T., Bryja, G., Klenzendorf, S., & Wikramanayake, E. (2006). Setting priorities for the conservation and recovery of wild tigers: 2005-2015. The technical assessment, Wildlife Conservation Society, World Wildlife Fund, Smithsonian, and Save the Tiger Fund, Washington, D.C. Smith, J. L. D. (1984). Dispersal communication and conservation strategies for the tiger (Panthera tigris ) in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Ph.D. thesis. University of Minnesota, USA. Sunquist, M.E. (1979). The movements and activities of tigers ( Panthera tigris tigris ) in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Ph.D. thesis. University of Minnesota, USA. Tamang, K. M. 1982. The status of the tiger ( Panthera tigris ) and its impact on principal prey populations in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Ph.D. thesis. East Lansing, Michigan State University, USA. Wikramanayake, E., McKnight, M., Dinerstein, E., Joshi, A.R., Gurung, B., & Smith, D. (2004). Designing a conservation landscape for tigers in human-dominated environments. Conservation Biology , 18, 839-844.
8
CHAPTER 2
FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH MAN-EATING TIGERS IN CHITWAN
NATIONAL PARK, NEPAL
9 ABSTRACT
Man-eating is the ultimate expression of human-tiger conflict. It is a complex issue that needs to be addressed to maintain support for tiger conservation in areas where man-eating is prevalent. This research was undertaken to investigate the ecological and sociological aspects of man-eating in the central lowlands of Nepal. We used 28 years of data from man-eating events in Chitwan National Park and the surrounding area to: 1) document the geographic distribution of man-eating incidents, 2) examine ecological variables associated with sites where humans were killed, 3) characterize man-eating tigers, and 4) identify human activities that make people vulnerable to attack. Finally, we use this information to recommend strategies to reduce human-tiger conflicts. Data on man-eating incidents and removal of man-eating tigers were from veterinarian and
Kathmandu Zoo records and by visiting the location of each kill with a victim’s family member or friend. Man-eating tigers were classified by: 1) age and condition, 2) quality of their habitat, 3) aggressiveness towards humans, and 4) number of kills made by each tiger. Thirty-six tigers killed 88 people from 1979 to 2006. The trend of human loss increased significantly from an average of 1.2 (±1.2) persons per year prior to 1998 to 7.2
(± 6.9) per year from 1998-2006. This difference is due primarily to a ten fold increase in killing in the buffer zone since 1998 because of forest restoration. Nearly half the people killed were grass/fodder collectors. Local participation in tiger management and conservation is essential to mitigate human-tiger conflicts. We recommend that villagers be recruited to help radio collar and monitor potentially dangerous tigers, participate in long term tiger monitoring, and attend a tiger conservation awareness program focused on tiger behavior and avoidance of conflict.
10 INTRODUCTION
Tigers ( Panthera tigris ), and other large carnivores, often present unique dilemmas to wildlife managers because they kill livestock and humans (Treves et al.,
2002; Patterson et al., 2004; Packer et al., 2005; Woodroffe et al., 2005; Kolowski and
Holekamp, 2006; Holmern et al., 2007). In contrast, these mammals are increasingly appreciated for their intrinsic value and roles in natural ecosystems (Linkie and Christie,
2007). Man-eating has been documented throughout the tiger’s range, including the far east of Russia, Southeast Asia, Sunda Islands and South Asia (McDougal, 1987; Miquelle et al., 2005). South Asia, which has the highest densities of tigers (McDougal, 1977;
Smith et al., 1987; Karanth et al., 2004), also has the largest number of man-eating cases
(McDougal, 1987; Khan, 1987; Singh, 1993; Corbett, 2005). Tigers have two ecological requirements that place them in direct conflict with humans. First, they need large areas of forest habitat (Sunquist, 1981; Smith et al., 1987, 1998), and second, they require abundant large prey (Smith et al., 1987, 1998). Human conversion of wild lands to agriculture has cleared and fragmented tiger habitat. As a consequence, the global land base for tigers has been reduced to <7 % of its historical distribution (Dinerstein et al.,
2006); three sub-species of tigers have gone extinct (Seidensticker, 1987). Furthermore, habitat fragmentation has distributed tigers into small, isolated populations (Smith et al.,
1998) and long term survival of these small populations is uncertain. Abundance of large ungulates, the major prey of tigers, determines tiger density (Karanth and Sunquist, 1995,
2000; Karanth and Nichols, 1998; Karanth et al., 2004). For > 40,000 years, humans have hunted ungulate species (i.e. mainly deer and pig) that constitute tiger prey (Corlett,
2007). However, only during the past 100 years have humans competed with tigers for
11 their primary prey to the extent of causing prey depletion (Karanth and Stith, 1999).
Declines in natural prey encourage tigers to feed on livestock and sometimes humans. In
response to tiger attacks on livestock or humans, local people are often motivated to
persecute, hunt or poison them. Therefore, human-tiger conflict is a major threat to the
continued survival of tigers; it reduces their numbers and erodes support for conservation.
The goal of this research is to enhance understanding and ultimately recommend
strategies to reduce human-tiger conflicts.
Throughout the current range of tigers, reserves have been created and legal
protection established to preserve viable populations and prevent extinction. Other large
carnivores such as wolves (Mech, 1995) and Florida panthers (Maehr and Lacy, 2002;
Kautz et al., 2006) have responded favorably to legal protection. The recent increase in tigers outside protected areas in Nepal (Gurung et al., 2006) indicates that tigers are also recovering in some parts of their range in response to recent conservation interventions.
These recovering populations are re-colonizing a rapidly expanding base of community managed forests. However, a result of higher tiger numbers is an increase in confrontations with humans. If tigers are to survive in the wild, managers must develop effective strategies to reduce tiger conflicts with local people.
Until the mid-twentieth century, tigers were distributed continuously across lowland Nepal (Smythies, 1942). Much of this tiger habitat, however, had become converted to agricultural land or fragmented by the late 1960s due to the government settlement program (Gurung, 1983). Over the past 35 years, the government has actively protected tigers to prevent further decline. For example, a lowland park system was created and further expanded. Additionally, in recent years, community forestry has
12 extended conservation beyond park boundaries into buffer zones (defined as a 5 km buffer from the protected areas) surrounding the protected areas (Budhathoki, 2003) and to more distant lowland forests that potentially function as dispersal corridors or even breeding habitat for tigers (WWF, 2002). The Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) project in
Nepal was implemented as a landscape scale initiative by the Nepalese government to increase the land base for tigers (Smith et al., 1999; Wikramanayake et al., 2004). The goal is to increase tiger habitat and also benefit local people by restoring the ecological services and economic benefits that these forests provide. As forests in buffer zones and across TAL are restored, tiger numbers outside parks have increased (Gurung et al.,
2006). Given the small size of tiger populations within the protected areas, the increase in tigers living and breeding outside protected areas is a step toward long term viability of
Nepal’s tiger populations. However, as tigers increase, so do human-tiger conflicts. The number of humans killed by tigers has dramatically increased in recent years (McDougal et al., 2005). To date, most information on man-eating in Nepal is based on anecdotal observation (McDougal, 1987). Recognizing the severity of the problem, the TAL-Nepal strategy plan 2004-2014 (HMGN/MFSC, 2004) and the 2 nd Nepal Tiger Conservation
Action Plan (DNPWC/MFSC/GoN, 2007) identified human-tiger conflict as a major threat to tiger conservation. The success of TAL’s goal, to increase tiger habitat and re- establish connectivity among protected areas, will depend to a large extent on mitigating human-tiger conflict. Our study used 28 years of data from man-eating events in Chitwan
National Park and the surrounding area to: 1) document the geographic distribution of man-eating incidents, 2) examine ecological variables associated with sites where humans were killed, 3) characterize man-eating tigers, and 4) identify human activities
13 that make people vulnerable to attack. Finally, we use this information to recommend strategies to reduce human-tiger conflicts.
METHODS
Study area
Chitwan National Park (CNP), situated in south central Nepal (Fig. 1), was established in 1973 as Nepal’s first national park. In 1984, it was designated a UNESCO world heritage site (Majupuria and Majupuria, 1998). Initially the Park area was 544 km² but it was extended to its present size of 932 km² in 1977. The managers created the adjacent Parsa Wildlife Reserve to the east of CNP to make this isolated population as large as possible (Smith, 1984). The Valmiki Tiger Reserve to the south (in India), is adjacent to CNP and these 3 reserves support one of the largest tiger populations in South
Asia (Wikramanayake et al., 1998; Dinerstein et al., 2006; Ranganathan et al., 2008). In
1996, a 750 km² buffer zone was created; 55% was agricultural land and 45% community forests (DNPWC and PPP, 2000).
In 1971, when CNP was preparing for official declaration, Chitwan’s human population was 183 644. By 2001, the Chitwan District population had increased to 468
699 (DDC Chitwan, 2002) due to high immigration and birth rates. In 1973, when the
Park was established, approximately 4 000 people were re-located leaving no more settlements inside the Park. However, in 1999, approximately 223 260 people lived within the buffer zone of the Park. Most of these people depend on agriculture and their livestock contribute to crop production in important ways. For example, farmers depend on livestock manure for fertilizer, draught power for tilling, and as important sources of
14 food and protein. Therefore, access to the forest for grazing, lopping of tree branches for fodder, collection of fuel-wood and non-timber forest products are important components of daily life in this region (Shivakoti et al., 1999).
Mapping the geographic distribution of kills in relation to ecological variables and temporal periods
To determine the geographic distribution of tiger kills, we examined records from the Long Term Tiger Monitoring (LTTM) project (Tiger Tops, Nepal), the National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC), and data collected by park staff over 35 years. We verified where kills occurred by visiting each victim’s family members, close relatives or other individuals present at the time of the attack. These corroborators accompanied us to the attack sites where we recorded GPS locations and forest conditions.
We also used these data to obtain information on the location of tigers that were captured.
We verified locations by revisiting these places with technicians from LTTM and NTNC who originally removed the problem animals.
We estimated habitat conditions at kill and capture sites based on the relative abundance of prey. Surveys of prey abundance were obtained at 4 time periods: 1978-79,
1997, 2001-02, 2005-06 (Smith, 1984; Joshi, unpublished data; Shrestha, 2004; Gurung, unpublished data). Habitat quality in a given year was calculated by interpolation of prey abundance data from surveys conducted before and after the kill date. Interpolation was a reasonable approach because abundances were stable from 1978 to 1996 (no interpolation needed) or increased monotonically outside the Park after 1996; in this case, interpolation was a reasonable approach. Prey abundance was estimated by converting all prey into
15 sambar units (SU) (Shrestha, 2004); degraded habitat had < 3.0 SU and intact had > 3.1
SU (Shrestha, 2004). Distance from forest edge and Park boundary to kill sites was measured using Arc View 3.3 and v.3.8b extension (Jenness, 2007) to determine the zone where kills were most likely to occur.
After examining the kill data, we divided the data into 2 time periods. From 1979 through 1997 was the period prior to intensive community forestry activity. From 1998 until 2006 forest restoration was widespread in the buffer forests around Chitwan
National Park. During this latter period, livestock grazing in buffer zone forests was stopped and forest biomass and prey abundance began to increase in the buffer zone forests.
Characteristics of man-eating tigers
Characteristics of man-eating tigers that we recorded included sex, age, physical condition, number of human victims, and tiger behavior towards humans who retrieved the bodies of victims. Sex and age were determined from track measurements
(McDougal, 1999) or examination of dead or captive animals. Female reproductive status was based on the co-occurrence of cub tracks with an adult female or from direct observations of the cubs. For management purposes, the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) classified man-eaters in two categories: one time killers or serial killers. We also used the DNPWC classification of tigers as aggressive to describe animals that failed to leave a victim when humans attempted to retrieve the body.
16 Human activities
Information about the attacks included victim’s name, gender, age and activity at the time of attack as well as date and time of day. This information was obtained during interviews with the victim’s families and friends. Kill time was categorized into five periods: morning (0600 – 0900), forenoon (0900 – 1200), afternoon (1200 1500), evening
(1500-1800) and night (1800-0600). Seasons were divided into summer (15 February-15
June), monsoon (15 June – 15 October) and winter (15 October – 15 February). Victim activity between gender, season and kill time was compared among groups using Χ² tests.
RESULTS
Geographic distribution of humans killed in relation to habitat and forest edge
During 1979–2006, 88 humans were killed by tigers within and around CNP
(Table 1; Fig. 2). Nearly an equal proportion of people were killed inside (49%) and outside (51%) the Park. However, there was a shift in rate of killing from inside the park to outside of the park over time. From 1979 to 1997, tigers killed humans at an average of
1.2 persons/year (sd = 1.2, median = 1) and kills increased significantly to < 7.2 kills/year
(sd = 6.9, median = 6) for the period 1998–2006 (F = 13.57, df = 26, p < 0.001; Table 2;
Fig. 3). The rate of killing per year increased 289% inside the Park; outside the Park it increased 925% (Table 2).
Approximately 66% of all kills were made within 1 km of a forest edge (Fig. 4).
Kills were made almost equally in degraded (55%) and intact habitats (45%), but a
17 majority of kill sites (85%) classified as intact habitat was in the Park. In contrast, 81% of kill sites classified as degraded habitat occurred in the buffer zone forests.
Distribution and characteristics of man-eating tigers
Twenty-five tigers (17 man-eaters and 8 that threatened people) were removed within and around CNP from 1979-2006. Removals of problem tigers increased from 0.4 tigers/year in the 19 year period from 1979 to 1997 to 1.9 tigers/year from 1998 to 2006.
Overall, 17 tigers (68%) were removed from the buffer zone and 8 (32%) from the Park.
Among the tigers removed, 60% (n = 15) were killed, 24% (n = 6) were captured and put into captivity, and 16% (n = 4) were captured and released at different locations inside the Park. The decision on tiger deposition was arbitrary, often depending on whether there was room for an additional tiger at the Kathmandu Zoo. One of the released tigers continued to kill humans in a new area and was subsequently killed. The other three translocated individuals disappeared.
Thirty-six tigers killed a total of 88 people (Table 3). Table 4 summarizes the sex ratio, physiological condition, and habitat characteristics and deposition of these man- eating tigers. A nearly equal proportion of males and females were man-eaters. Five of 16 females had cubs when they killed humans. Ten of 18 tigers that were examined had physical impairments including age related factors (e.g. damaged and missing teeth); injuries caused by fights with other tigers, and gunshot wounds. Nearly two thirds (61%) of man-eating tigers, including 9 of the 10 impaired individuals, were located in degraded habitats. Park managers killed, captured and relocated, or captured and placed in the
Kathmandu Zoo, 17 of the 36 man-eating tigers (Table 4).
18 From a management perspective, the DNPWC classified tigers into one time and serial killers. Seventeen tigers (47%) killed only one person; no action was taken on 11 of these tigers and there were no subsequent kills. The other 6 tigers were killed because the
DNPWC deemed them to be a problem (e.g.: 2 killed people in their house; 1 killed a person near a large town; 1 was badly injured; 1 was associated with a habitual man- eater, and 1 was aggressive when authorities tried to retrieve the victims’ body.
Nineteen tigers that killed 2 or more persons were classified by DNPWC as serial man-eaters (Table 3). They killed a mean of 3.7 people (range 2-7). Eleven serial man- eaters were removed; 10 were captured by Park staff and one was poisoned by local villagers. Park staff and wildlife technicians were unsuccessful in removing one of the serial killers that killed 5 people. Five of the other 7 serial killers only killed inside the
Park and no action was taken. A sixth tiger killed 2 people on a single occasion in the buffer zone at the edge of the Park and again, no action was taken because its territory was inside the Park. The seventh serial killer was likely poisoned by local people; the body was never recovered and the tiger did not kill any more people.
Tigers usually leave a human kill when people come to claim the body, but 2 animals refused to relinquish their victim even when domestic elephants and their handlers attempted to drive the tiger away. A third tiger killed 5 people within a few minutes and then sat for several hours under a tree into which the sixth person climbed.
All three of these animals were classified as aggressive tigers and were captured. These individuals were sub-adults with no disabilities and they were living in intact habitats
(Table 3).
19 Characteristics of humans and their activity when killed
The average age of humans killed was 36 years (N=74); the youngest victim was a 4 year old girl killed at her home. The oldest was a 70 year old man who was killed collecting fodder in the buffer zone forest. More males (60%) than females were killed.
The activity of men and women differed significantly at the time of attack (df = 7, p <
0.007) (Fig. 5). Nearly half the kills occurred when people were collecting grass or fodder for their livestock. This is primarily a woman’s task and women were killed more often while collecting fodder ( Χ² = 10.67, df = 1, p < 0.001); only men were killed while herding livestock, walking in the forest or disturbing tigers at their kills. Tigers killed three people sleeping at their house and two were killed using the toilet outside. There was no seasonal pattern to kills ( Χ² = 2.10, df = 2, p = 0.349), nor was there a significant time of day when people were killed ( Χ² = 4.36, df = 3, p = 0.225).
DISCUSSION
Temporal and geographic distribution of humans killed by tigers
Between early (1979-1997) and recent (1998-2006) periods, there has been a significant increase in human deaths by tigers in the buffer zone of CNP. We suggest an explanation for the increase. The distribution map of human deaths indicates tigers are using buffer zone habitats more frequently in recent years as compared to about 20-30 years ago. In the early period, forests adjoining the Park were degraded and tigers did not use them often (C. McDougal and J. L. D. Smith pers. comm.). During these years, livestock occasionally supplemented wild prey when tigers explored the degraded forests 20 outside the Park where livestock grazed freely (Sunquist, 1981); however, the situation
changed in 1996 when buffer zone community forests surrounding the Park were
established (Heinen and Mehta, 2000). By 1998 these forests began to regenerate in
response to strict protection by community user groups. Due to these efforts, degraded
forests in the buffer zone outside the Park have recovered (Straede et al., 2002), restoring
habitat for tigers and other wildlife. Because livestock grazing is no longer permitted in
these forests, both forest and wild prey biomass have increased and these forests have
become more attractive to tigers dispersing from Chitwan National Park. Gurung et al.
(2006, unpublished data) documented tigers breeding outside protected areas for the first
time since the 1950s. At the same time, human activity in community forests is still
relatively high as people now come to the restored forests to cut fodder for stall feeding
livestock that formerly grazed in these forests.
Currently, tigers use the buffer zone forests more frequently than 2-3 decades ago.
However, despite the increasing land base for tigers created by community forestry, there
is slim potential for dispersal to Bardia, the nearest tiger population 250 km west of
Chitwan, because prey abundance is low. Gurung et al. (2006) identified a strong barrier to tiger dispersal between these reserves; therefore, reduction of conflict in the buffer zone through dispersal of tigers to western Nepal is unlikely. As a result, it is essential that managers address the issue of man-eating tigers within the context of the Park and buffer zone. Increasing habitat outside the Park is one objective of the TAL-Nepal strategy plan 2004-2014 (HMGN/MFSC 2004), but rising numbers of humans killed by tigers is an unforeseen consequence of the rapid regeneration of forests to community forest management. Without programs to address the increase in human-tiger conflicts,
21 the negative impacts of man-eaters on local well being may well decrease local support
for tiger conservation.
During 2001 and 2004, more people were killed by serial man-eaters than in other
years. In 2001, 5 tigers killed 18 people; 3 were serial killers that each killed 4-7 people
(16 total). Similarly, in 2004, 5 of the 7 tigers that killed 19 people were serial killers.
However, there is still a clear trend in increasing number of kills after community
forestry was implemented. The median number of humans killed per year during the first period was 1 compared to a median of 6 in the second period.
This study found most human deaths occurred within 1 km of the forest edge.
Tigers killed more humans within this 1 km zone because human use of the forest within this zone is higher than in the forest interior. Similarly, all tigers that came into villages were impaired and killed people that they encountered near the forest edge. Woodroffe
and Ginsberg (1998) also reported conflict with humans on reserve borders. They
suggest it is a major cause of carnivore mortality worldwide and defined border areas as
population sinks. Nyhus and Tilson (2004), likewise, found increased tiger attacks in sub-
optimal habitats near forest edges in Sumatra.
Characteristics of man-eating tigers
In Chitwan we identified occupation of degraded habitat, physical impairment,
and aggressiveness towards humans as factors that may have predisposed tigers to kill
people. Occupation of degraded habitat and inability to hunt and kill natural prey were
the most frequent factors associated with man-eating tigers. Sixty one percent of all man-
eaters occupied degraded habitats where natural prey was in low abundance. Hunger may
22 have driven those tigers to kill humans. Two females with large cubs that lived in
degraded habitats were serial killers. Reduced availability of natural prey combined with
the increased food demands of a female raising large cubs may have been a factor in
these cases. Large cubs require almost an equal amount of food as adults (Ackerman et
al. 1986) and thus these females were feeding the equivalent of 3-5 adult animals. Tigers
impaired due to old age and injury may have difficulty defending their territories in intact
habitat and are forced into degraded and marginalized areas by tigers in good health
(Sunquist, 1981). Impaired tigers forced into degraded habitat may attack humans as an
alternative to natural prey (Corbett, 2005). In the famous case of the “man-eaters of
Tsavo”, two lions killed 135 people during a nine month period, the animals were found
to have dental impairments that reduced their ability to kill wild prey so they shifted to
humans (Neiburger and Patterson, 2000; Petterhans and Gnorke, 2001).
The final factor related to man-eating was unusual aggressive behavior. Three tigers were judged as aggressive because they would not leave human kills when people came on elephants to retrieve the victims. When captured, these tigers did not have any physical impairment and they lived in areas with a high prey base. These tigers were independent, dispersing sub-adults trying to establish their own territories (McDougal,
1977; Smith, 1993). Such animals move through occupied territories where they are vulnerable to aggression from resident adults (Smith, 1993). Furthermore, when these animals disperse into degraded habitat and prey on domestic livestock, they are also harassed by villagers who drive them from domestic livestock kills before they have finished feeding. Due to aggressive encounters with tigers and human harassment, we
23 hypothesize these tigers may become aggressive towards humans and ultimately killed
people in response to disturbance rather than hunger.
Human characteristics and activities
There were gender differences in the activities people were engaged in when
killed. For example, more females than males were killed while collecting fodder because
women are the primary gender that rears livestock, including gathering of fodder. In
contrast, only males were killed herding livestock, walking in the forest or disturbing
tiger kills. Data from Chitwan and a similar data set on man-eating lions in Uganda and
Tanzania provide interesting comparisons (Treves and Naughton-Treves, 1999; Packer et al., 2007). In all three situations, male humans were killed more often than females. This male bias reflects the fact that males spend more time in the forest hunting in Uganda and
Tanzania or herding in Nepal. In Nepal, men were also killed further into the Park interior than women. In five cases, men were killed because tigers were disturbed at their kills. In three of these cases, men were killed when pirating tiger kills for meat; in the 2 other cases men went to check on their livestock. One of these men was killed in tall
grass where he discovered a tiger feeding on his ox; the other was killed when he went to
his cattle shed to investigate an unusual sound. The tiger had entered the shed and was
feeding on a buffalo.
More than half the people killed by tigers in and adjacent to CNP were grass or
fodder collectors. Collecting fodder for livestock is one of the important forest activities
for farmers in Chitwan (Shivakoti et al., 1999). Fodder collection may have been more
intensive in recent years due to grazing restrictions in the buffer zone community forests. 24 Furthermore, grass cutting requires people to sit or bend down. A person in such a
posture in dense vegetation may resemble natural prey (Seidensticker and McDougal,
1993). Additionally, fodder collection requires people to enter dense vegetation where
succulent foods preferred by livestock are located. Entering such areas holds a higher risk
of encountering tigers that are resting during the day.
Recommendations
The current policy of DNPWC is more restrictive than the recommendations of
Karanth and colleagues (Karanth and Madhusudan, 2002; Treves and Karanth, 2003)
who suggest that the only effective option for managing a man-eater is to eliminate the
problem animal by killing or permanently removing it to a captivity. DNPWC only
removes tigers that kill people in human settlements or animals that kill more than one person. They also remove tigers that are aggressive towards people that come to retrieve a victim. From 1979 to 1999, 5 man-eating tigers were captured and placed in the
Kathmandu Zoo. Since 1999, however, there has been no room for tigers in captivity so tigers deemed dangerous have been killed. To supplement this policy, we make the following recommendations which we believe have broad application to other man-eating
situations involving tigers or lions.
1. Local participation in radio collaring potentially dangerous tigers
Wildlife officials in Nepal have proposed radio collaring tigers that are not
impaired in order to separate people and man-eaters. The concept is to engage local
people to participate in tracking problem animals and, on a daily basis, create a “no-go”
25 zone around the tiger. This policy was attempted for a female with 3 cubs that killed 5
people in a buffer zone forest adjacent to the Park. DNPWC staff suspected the female
was healthy and decided to dart her. If she was not impaired, the plan was to radio collar
her and, to create a team of village wildlife technicians to radio monitor the tigress under
supervision of a Park ranger. This team would then inform people where the tigress was
located and which area to avoid. The idea was not implemented because the female died
during capture. We recommend that the DNPWC continue to implement this policy both
to immediately reduce threats to humans and also to learn more about the behavior of man-eaters to help develop a comprehensive set of responses to man-eaters.
In Kenya, a very successful local participatory management approach was implemented based on the Nepal policy (Hazzah, 2006; Frank, 2007). Masai Moran
(warriors) monitored potential problem lions ( Panthera leo ) to learn about their
movements and behavior to avoid conflict between lions and humans. Continuing to
develop this approach of dealing with man-eaters in Nepal will build on Nepal’s theme of
participatory management that has resulted in the establishment of more than 14,000
Community forestry user groups. It will also build the framework of “Citizen Rangers” or
Bagh Heralu (tiger watchers) that Gurung developed to monitor livestock depredation
across the Nepalese Terai (Gurung et al., 2006). Strong involvement of local people who
work as partners with wildlife staff to address the issue of man-eaters is based on the
belief that villagers have local knowledge that can contribute to reducing human-tiger
conflicts.
2. Continue the Long Term Tiger Monitoring Program
26 In recent years, more rigorous verification and documentation of kill sites is
required for the victim’s family to receive compensation from the Park. The Long Term
Tiger Monitoring (LTTM) Program, in close association with Park management and local
people, could serve this purpose. The buffer zone management Act authorized CNP to
utilize 30-50% of Park revenue toward local community development and conservation
programs (Heinen and Mehta, 2000; Budhathoki, 2004). Some of these funds are used to
provide compensation payments to the victim’s family, if the person is killed in the buffer zone. However, compensation is not provided if the kill occurs inside the Park (because the victim would have been trespassing at the time of the kill) or beyond the buffer zone boundary. Every incident of man-eating or injury requires investigation; if the person died, a payment of Nepalese Rupees 25 000 (approximately US $385) is provided to the victim’s family. If the victim recovers, he/she receives a payment of up to Nepalese
Rupees 10 000 (approximately US $153) for medical expenses. The LTTM Program will continue to produce highly skilled people to identify true man-eaters. In the 1980s and
1990s, when most of the people were killed inside the Park, field biologists and technicians from the Tiger Ecology Project (now NTNC) and the LTTM project assisted
Park authorities in identification and removal of man-eating tigers. Park management currently needs such assistance from the projects and local people to monitor tigers and mitigate the conflict.
3. Implement Tiger Conservation Awareness Program
The majority of people killed by tigers were fodder collectors. However, in a few cases, the victims were attempting to steal kills from a tiger to obtain the meat. A tiger
27 conservation education program should be implemented to inform the local people about tiger behavior. Particular attention should be given to teaching villagers about the risk of harvesting forest resources and strategies for minimizing this danger. It is also important to include information on the basic biology of tigers and other large mammals to emphasize the role of intact healthy forest in supporting both tigers and other wildlife present in the region. Recommending an education program is motivated by the assumption that local people who understand their own resource needs as well as those of the tiger will be able to apply local knowledge to efforts to reduce human-tiger conflicts.
28 REFERENCES
Ackerman, B. B., Lindzey, F. G., Hemker, T. P., 1986. Predictive energetics model for
cougars. In Miller, S. D., Everett, D. D. (Eds.), Cats of the World: Biology,
Conservation, and Management. National Wildlife Federation, Washington D. C.,
pp. 333-352.
Budhathoki, P., 2003. A category V protected landscape approach to buffer zone
management in Nepal. Parks 13, 22-30.
Budhathoki, P., 2004. Linking communities with conservation in developing countries:
buffer zone management initiatives in Nepal. Oryx 38, 334-341.
Corbett, J., 2005. The Jim Corbett Omnibus. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Corlett, R. T., 2007. The impact of Hunting on the Mammalian Fauna of Tropical Asian
Forests. Biotropica 39, 292-303.
DDC Chitwan, 2002. District Profile of Chitwan. District Development Committee,
Chitwan. Information and Resource Archive Center, Chitwan, Nepal.
Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C., Heydlauff, A., Wikramanayake, E., Bryja, G., Forrest, J.,
Ginsberg, J., Klenzendort, S., Leimgrubber, P., O’Brien, T., Sanderson, E.,
Seidensticker, J., Songer, M., 2006. Setting Priorities for the Conservation and
Recovery of Wild Tigers: 2005-2015. A User’s Guide. WWF, WCS, Smithsonian,
and NFWF-STF, Washington, D.C.-New York.
DNPWC, PPP, 2000. Royal Chitwan National Park and Buffer Zone, Resource Profile.
Babar Mahal. Kathamandu. Nepal.
29 DNPWC / MFSC / GoN, 2007. Tiger Conservation Action Plan for Nepal. Government
of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of National
Parks and Wildlife Conservation. Kathmandu.
Frank, L., Cotterill, A., Dolrenty, S., Ekwanga, S., Hazzah, L., Howard, A., Maclennan,
S., 2007. Living with lions. Annual Report, 15 October 2007, Lakipia predator
project, Kilimanjaro lion conservation project.
Gurung, B., Smith, J.L.D., Shrestha, M., 2006. Using “Bagh Heralu” network to map the
metapopulation structure of tigers in Nepal. In McNeely, J., McCarthy, T., Smith,
A., Whittaker, L., Wikramanayake, E. (Eds.), Conservation Biology in Asia.
Resource Himalaya, pp. 214-232.
Gurung, K.K., 1983. Heart of the Jungle. Andre Deutsch, London.
Hazzah, L., 2006. Living Among Lions ( Panthera leo ): Coexistence or Killing?
Community attitudes towards conservation initiatives and the motivations behind
lion killing in Kenyan Masailand. M.S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, pp. 140.
Heinen, J. T., Mehta, J. N., 2000. Emerging Issues in Legal and Procedural Aspects of
Buffer Zone Management with case studies from Nepal. Journal of Environmental
and Developmental 9, 45-67.
HMGN / MFSC, 2004. Terai Arc Landscape-Nepal Strategic Plan (2004-2014), Broad
Strategy Document. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Planning and
Human Resource Development Division, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Holmern, T., Nyahongo, J., Roskaft, E., 2007. Livestock loss caused by predators outside
the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Biological Conservation 135, 518-526.
30 Jenness, J., 2007. Nearest feature (nearfeat.avx) extension for Arc View 3.x, 3.8b.
Jenness Enterprises.
Karanth, K. U., Sunquist, M. E., 1995. Prey selection by tiger, leopard and dhole in
tropical forests. Journal of Animal Ecology 64, 439-450.
Karanth, K. U., Nichols, J. D., 1998. Estimating tiger densities in India from camera trap
data using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology 79, 2852-2862.
Karanth, K. U., Stith, B. M., 1999. Prey depletion as a critical determinant of tiger
population viability. In Seidensticker, J., Christie, S., Jackson, P. (Eds.), Riding
the tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-dominated Landscapes. Cambridge
University Press, pp. 316-332.
Karanth, K. U., Sunquist, M. E., 2000. Behavioral correlates of predation by tiger,
leopard and dhole in Nagarhole, India. Journal of Zoology 250, 255-265.
Karanth, K. U., Madhusudan, M. D., 2002. Mitigating human-wildlife conflicts in
southern Asia. In Terborgh, J., Van Schaik, C. P., Devenport, L., Rao, M. (Eds.),
Making Parks Work: Identifying key factors to implementing parks in the tropics.
Island Press, pp. 250-264.
Karanth, K. U., Nichols, J. D., Kumar, N. S., Link, W. A., Hines, J. E., 2004. Tigers and
their prey: Predicting carnivore densities from prey abundance. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the USA 101, 4854-4858.
Kautz, R., Kawula, R., Hoctor, T., Comiskey, J., Jansen, D., Jennings, D., Kasbohm, J.,
Mazzotti, F., McBride, R., Richardson, L., Root, K., 2006. How much is enough?
Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation
130, 118-133.
31 Khan, M. A. R., 1987. The Problem Tiger of Bangladesh. In Tilson, R. L., Seal, U. S.
(Eds.), Tigers of the World: The Biology, Biopolitics, Management and
Conservation of an Endangered Species. Park Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes
Publications, pp. 92-96.
Kolowski, J. M., Holekamp, K. E., 2006. Spatial, temporal, and physical characteristics
of livestock depredation by large carnivores along a Kenyan reserve border.
Biological Conservation 128, 529-541.
Linkie, M., Christie, S., 2007. The value of wild tiger conservation. Oryx 41, 415-416.
Maehr, D. S., Lacy, R. C., 2002. Avoiding the lurking pitfalls in Florida panther
recovery. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30, 971-978.
Majupuria, T. C., Majupuria, R. K., 1998. Wildlife, National Parks and Reserves of
Nepal: Resources and Management. Tec press Books, Bangkok.
McDougal, C., 1977. The Face of the Tiger. Rivington Books / Andre’ Deutsch, London
W. C. 1.
McDougal, C., 1987. The Man-eating tiger in geographical and historical perspective. In
Tilson, R. L., Seal, U. S. (Eds.), Tigers of the World: The Biology, Biopolitics,
Management and Conservation of an Endangered Species. Park Ridge, New
Jersey, Noyes Publications, pp. 435-488.
McDougal, C., 1999. You can tell some tigers by their tracks with confidence. In
Seidensticker, J., Christie, S., Jackson, P. (Eds.), Riding the tiger: Tiger
Conservation in Human-dominated Landscapes. Cambridge University Press, pp.
190-191.
32 McDougal, C., Barlow, A., Thapa, D., Kumal, S., Tamang, D. B., 2005. Tiger and
Human Conflict Increase in Chitwan Reserve Buffer Zone, Nepal. Cat News 40,
3-4.
Mech, L. D., 1995. The Challenge and Opportunity of Recovering Wolf Populations.
Conservation Biology 9, 270-278.
Miquelle, D., Nikolaev, I., Goodrich, J., Litvinov, B., Smirnov, E., Suvorov, E., 2005.
Searching for the Coexistence Recipe: a Case Study of Conflicts Between People
and Tigers in the Russian Far East. In Woodroffe, R., Thirgood, S., Rabinowitz,
A. (Eds.), People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? Cambridge University
Press, pp. 305-322.
Neiburger, E. J., Patterson, B. D., 2000. The man-eaters with bad teeth. New York State
Dental Journal 66, 26-29.
Nyhus, P.J., Tilson, R., 2004. Characterizing human-tiger conflict in Sumatra, Indonesia:
implications for conservation. Oryx 38, 68-74.
Packer, C., Ikanda, D., Kissui, B., Hadas, K., 2005. Lion Attacks on Humans in Tanzania.
Nature 436, 927-928.
Packer, C., Ikanda, D., Kissui, B., Hadas, K., 2007. The ecology of man-eating lions in
Tanzania. Nature and Faune 21, 10-15.
Patterson, B. D., Kasiki, S. M., Selempo, E., Kays, R. W., 2004. Livestock predation by
lions ( Panthera leo ) and other carnivores on ranches neighboring Tsavo National
Parks, Kenya. Biological Conservation 119, 507-516.
33 Peterhans, J. C. K., Gnoske, T. P., 2001. The science of ‘man-eating’ among lions
Panthera leo with a reconstruction of the natural history of the ‘man-eaters of
Tsavo’. Journal of East African Natural History 90, 1 - 40.
Ranganathan, J., Chan, K. M. A., Karanth, K. U., Smith, J. L. D., 2008. Where can tigers
persist in the future? A landscape-scale, density-based population model for the
Indian subcontinent. Biological Conservation 141, 67-77.
Seidensticker, J., 1987. Bearing Witness: Observations on the Extinction of Panthera
tigris balica and Panthera tigris sondaica . In Tilson, R. L., Seal, U. S. (Eds.),
Tigers of the World: The Biology, Biopolitics, Management and Conservation of
an Endangered Species. Park Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Publications, pp. 1-8.
Seidensticker, J., McDougal, C., 1993. Tiger predatory behavior, ecology and
conservation. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 65, 105-125.
Shivakoti, G. P., Axinn, W. G., Bhandari, P., Chhetri, N., 1999. The impact of
community context on land use in an agricultural society. Population and
Environment, 20, 191-213.
Shrestha, M. K., 2004. Relative ungulate abundance in fragmented landscape:
Implications for tiger conservation. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minnesota.
Singh, A., 1993. The Legend of the Man-eater. Ravi Dayal Publisher, pp. 169.
Smith, J. L. D., 1984. Dispersal, communication, and conservation strategies for the tiger
(Panthera tigris ) in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Minnesota.
Smith, J.L.D., McDougal, C., Sunquist, M.E., 1987. Female land tenure systems in tigers.
In Tilson, R. L., Seal, U. S. (Eds.), Tigers of the World: The Biology, Biopolitics,
34 Management and Conservation of an Endangered Species. Park Ridge, New
Jersey, Noyes Publications, pp. 97-109.
Smith, J.L.D., 1993. The role of dispersal in structuring the Chitwan tiger population.
Behavior 124, 165-95.
Smith, J.L.D., Ahearn, S.C., McDougal, C., 1998. Landscape analysis of tiger distribution
and habitat quality in Nepal. Conservation Biology 12, 1338-1346.
Smith, J.L.D., McDougal, C., Ahearn, S.C., Joshi, A., Conforti, K., 1999. Metapopulation
structure of tigers in Nepal. In Seidensticker, J., Christie, S., Jackson, P. (Eds.),
Riding the tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-dominated Landscapes.
Cambridge University Press, pp.176-189
Smythies, E. A., 1942. Big Game Shooting in Nepal. Thacker, Spink and Co. Ltd.
Straede, S. Nebel, G., Rijal, A., 2002. Structure and floristic composition of community
forests and their compatibility with villager’s traditional needs for forest products.
Biodiversity and Conservation 11, 487-508.
Sunquist, M.E., 1981. The social organization of tigers ( Panthera tigris ) in Royal
Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 336, 1-98.
Treves, A., Naughton-Treves, L., 1999. Risk and opportunity for humans coexisting with
large carnivores. Journal of Human Evolution 36, 275-282.
Treves, A., Jurewicz, R. R., Naughton-Treves, L., Rose, R. A., Willging, R. C.,
Wydeven, A. P., 2002. Wolf depredation on domestic animals in Wisconsin,
1976-2000. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30, 231-241.
Treves, A., Karanth, K. U., 2003. Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on
carnivore management worldwide. Conservation Biology 17, 1491-1499.
35 Wikramanayake, E. D., Dinerstein, E., Robinoson, G., Karanth, K. U., Rabinowitz, A. R.,
Olson, D., Matthew, T., Hedao, P., Connor, M., Hemley, G., Bolze, D., 1998. An
ecology-based method of defining priorities for large mammal conservation: the
tiger as case study. Conservation Biology 12, 865-878.
Wikramanayake, E., McKnight, M., Dinerstein, E., Joshi, A.R., Gurung, B., Smith, D.,
2004. Designing a conservation landscape for tigers in human-dominated
environments. Conservation Biology 18, 839-844.
Woodroffe, R., Ginsberg, J. R., 1998. Edge effects and the extinction of populations
inside protected areas. Science 280, 2126-2129.
Woodroffe, R., Lindsey, P., Romanach, S., Stein, A., ole Ranah, S. M. K., 2005.
Livestock predation by endangered African wild dogs ( Lycaon pictus ) in northern
Kenya. Biological Conservation 124, 225-234.
WWF, 2002. Terai Arc Landscape-Nepal: Annual Technical Progress Report, WWF
Nepal Program, Kathmandu.
36 Table 2-1. Number of people killed by tigers in and adjacent to Chitwan National Park,
Nepal, 1979-2006.
Year Park Buffer Zone Total 1979 0 1 1 1980 3 0 3 1981 2 0 2 1982 0 0 0 1983 0 1 1 1984 1 2 3 1985 1 0 1 1986 3 0 3 1987 1 0 1 1988 2 0 2 1989 0 0 0 1990 0 0 0 1991 0 0 0 1992 0 3 3 1993 1 0 1 1994 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 1996 1 1 2 1997 0 0 0 1998 5 1 6 1999 1 4 5 2000 0 0 0 2001 8 10 18 2002 1 1 2 2003 3 3 6 2004 5 14 19 2005 4 4 8 2006 1 0 1 Total 43 45 88
37 Table 2-2. The total number and rate/year of killing inside and outside Chitwan National Park from 1979-1997 (19 years) and from 1998-2006 (9 years).
1979 -1997 1998 -2006 Percent increase Outside of Park 8 (0.4/yr) 37 (4.1/yr) 925 Inside the Park 15 (0.8/yr) 28 (3.1/yr) 289 Total 23 (1.2/yr) 65 (7.2/yr) 500
38 Table 2-3. Sex, age class, number of victims, disposition, physical condition, habitat occupied, response to humans investigating kill, and reproductive status of man- eating tigers in Chitwan National Park during the period 1979-2006. (P.S: M= male, F=female, UK=unknown).
Tiger ID Kills Sex Age Disposition Impaired Habitat Remarks Parasi 1 F Adult No Action UK Degraded Ujeli 1 F Adult No Action UK Degraded With cubs Bhimle 1 F Adult No Action UK Intact Kumrose P 1 F Adult No Action UK Degraded Baghmara 1 F Old Zoo Yes Degraded F118 1 F Sub-adult Killed No Intact Aggressive Syaulibas 1 F Sub-adult Zoo Yes Degraded Kujauli 1 M Adult No Action UK Intact UK B 1 M Adult No Action UK Degraded M119 1 M Sub-adult Zoo Yes Degraded Bachcha 1 M Sub-adult Zoo No Intact Aggressive Nagarban 1 M Sub-adult Relocated No Degraded UK1 1 UK UK No Action UK Intact UK2 1 UK UK No Action UK Degraded UK3 1 UK UK No Action UK Intact UK4 1 UK UK No Action UK Degraded UK5 1 UK UK No Action UK Degraded Kantipur 2 F Adult Poisoned Yes Degraded Majurtika 2 F Adult No Action UK Degraded UK P 2 F Adult No Action UK Intact Tamor 2 F Adult Relocated/killed Yes Degraded With cubs Bankatta 3 F Adult No Action UK Intact Chepte 3 F Adult Killed No Degraded With cubs Amp 4 F Adult No Action UK Intact Bhagedi 5 F Adult Killed No Intact With cubs Ayodhyapuri P 5 F Adult No Action UK Degraded With cubs Kasara 2 M Old Killed Yes Degraded Madi 2 M Adult No Action UK Intact Bange 3 M Adult Zoo Yes Degraded Kanchha 3 M Old Killed Yes Degraded M127 4 M Adult No Action No Intact Sitalpur 5 M Sub-adult Killed No Degraded Kumrose B 5 M Sub-adult Avoided capture UK Degraded Nuna 6 M Old Killed Yes Intact Ayodhyapuri B 6 M Sub-adult Killed No Intact Aggressive Daunne 7 M Adult Killed Yes Degraded
39 Table 2-4. Summary of man-eating events: tiger sex and condition, habitat quality, and the management action.
Category Sex 15 males 16 females Condition 10 impaired 8 not impaired Habitat quality 22 degraded 14 intact 1 relocated Management action 10 no action 16 capture* 1 relocated 1 avoided capture
* 11 killed, 5 placed in Zoo
40
N EP AL
N
East / Sauraha West / Amaltari Central / Kasara
South / Madi
Buffer Zone 10 0 10 Kilometers Chitwan National Park
Figure 2-1. A map of Nepal showing the location of Chitwan National Park, the Buffer Zone and its four management units.
41
Figure 2-2. Locations of humans killed in and adjacent to Chitwan National Park from 1979-1997 and from 1998-2006.
42
9 8.5 8 7 6.2 6 5
year 4 3 1.8 2 1.5 1.0 1 0.6
Average number of human killed per 0 1979-82 1983-87 1988-92 1993-97 1998-02 2003-06 Year
Figure 2-3. Average number of humans killed per year by tigers in and adjacent to Chitwan National Park, 1979-2006.
43
70
60
50
40
30
% Human killed 20
10
0 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 Distance from the forest edge (km)
Figure 2-4. Percentage of humans killed in relation to forest edge in and adjacent to Chitwan National Park, 1979-2006.
44
30
25
20 Male Female 15
10
5
Number of humans killed of humans Number 0
r g g r ill g e in in e k n d h r ki mb e ouse l Toilet od i ig h a /F Fis Herd /T n W s d g t o in g i o in lw rb p Gras e u r forest products u st lee F Di S
Non-timbe Victim activities
Figure 2-5. Comparison of male and female human activities when killed by tigers in and adjacent to Chitwan National Park, 1979-2006.
45
CHAPTER 3
IMPACT OF GRAZING RESTRICTIONS ON LIVESTOCK COMPOSITION
AND HUSBANDRY PRACTICES IN MADI VALLEY, NEPAL
46 ABSTRACT
Integration of conservation and development plans is critical and has been successfully implemented in parks and reserves in developing countries to meeting the resource needs of local people. However, livestock grazing restrictions in these areas have been common conservation practice. Understanding the influence of grazing restriction policies on livestock husbandry practices is critical, not only for the local people’s livelihoods, but also for biodiversity conservation. In 2006, I collected household survey data and also used secondary information to examine the impact of policy changes on livestock compositions and pressure on available resources in Madi
Valley, within the buffer zone of Chitwan National Park, Nepal. I found households reduced less productive cattle and high maintenance buffalo to offset forage demand, but increased goat numbers to supplement income, because goats required less forage. The available resources from agricultural land were not adequate for the demand from livestock populations, requiring households to depend on communal lands, community forests and parklands for livestock rearing. The majority of households stall feed livestock to adjust to the policy limiting grazing areas. Higher stall feeding reduces grazing pressure but demands more fodder cutting which may have increased human interactions particularly with tigers in the buffer zone community forests. I suggest further research to test the hypothesis that grazing restriction has contributed to an increase in man-eating cases.
47 INTRODUCTION
Livestock grazing restrictions in national parks, wildlife reserves, and
conservation areas have been common conservation practices throughout the world
(Lewis 2003). In developing countries, grazing restriction policy impacts people’s
livelihood by limiting available resource use. A household’s livelihood mainly depends
on agriculture, and livestock constitute important resources for rural agricultural systems.
Therefore, it is critical to understanding resource availability and people’s livestock
husbandry practices in response to grazing restriction. The national park and protected
areas concept developed in western countries stressed biodiversity conservation and
preservation. Following this idea numerous protected areas have been established in
developing countries. However, in the mid-1970s local people’s livelihoods and resource needs were realized and incorporated into conservation policies for the success of protected areas (World Conservation Union 1980; McNeely 1988; Kremen et al. 1994).
As rural people’s livelihoods depend primarily on locally available resources, establishing protected areas removed some traditional usufruct rights (Heinen & Mehta
2000). Moreover, human casualties, livestock depredations, and crop raids by wild animals further impacted the livelihoods of households living in and around these areas
(Oli et al. 1994; Mishra 1997; Patterson et al. 2004; Woodroffe et al. 2005; Wang &
Macdonald 2006). As such, integrated conservation policies, with a development plan addressing local people’s resource needs and conflicts, have been implemented in parks and protected areas throughout developing countries (Mishra 1982; Western 1982:
Brandon & Wells 1992). Integrated conservation policies with a development plan has
48 been successful in creating conservation areas but less successful in improving the
socioeconomic conditions of most local people (Bookbinder et al. 1998; Marcus 2001).
Nepal has been a leader in achieving biodiversity conservation goals along with
local development. In the mountain region, parks, reserves, and conservation areas
include villages, where management plans allow resource use (Gurung 1995). However, in the lowland ( Terai ) parks and reserves, villages are excluded from protected areas, and local people’s resource needs and use have been progressively integrated into conservation policies. Initially, strict command and control rules were implemented where parks prohibited traditional basic resources uses such as harvesting grasses and livestock grazing. Nevertheless, since 1976, recognizing local people’s basic needs, park officials allow removal of important thatch grasses from the parklands, for two weeks per year, by local people (Mishra 1984; Lehmkuhl et al. 1988). In 1993, the fourth amendment to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act allowed additional major changes to integrate development plans with conservation policies. The act provided the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC) with the power to establish buffer zones (BZ) surrounding the parks and reserves (HMG,
1996). The BZ involves local people in policy making, planning, and managing resources
(Hackel 1998). The BZ declaration allows local people to manage the buffer zone community forests (BZCFs), and share park revenues for local development. BZCFs provide livestock fodder, fuel-wood, and other non-timber forests products on a regular and beneficial basis (Budhathoki 2003). However, livestock grazing is restricted in the
BZCFs.
49 In Nepal, livestock have important roles in farming systems, and are closely interrelated to agricultural lands and forests. Livestock depends on feed from agricultural lands and forests. Therefore, livestock husbandry practices, including grazing, constitutes an important component of these people’s livelihood (Bjonness 1980; Brower 1990;
Andom & Omer 2003; Mishra et al. 2003). Similarly, farmers depend on livestock for manure as fertilizers and draught powers for tilling. Additionally, livestock provides an important food and protein sources to people (Duncan et al. 2006). Generally, in high altitudinal or semi-arid regions a ‘transhumance grazing system’ is practiced by agro- pastoralist societies where families and livestock herds are seasonally moved to pasture areas (Bjonness 1980; Brower 1990). At particular times of the year seasonal movement for forage complements the ‘sedentary grazing system’. In the rural agricultural societies, mainly in the middle hills and Terai , ‘sedentary grazing system’ is practiced where livestock are permanent residents in defined areas around the villages (Tulachan 2001).
Usually livestock are kept at villages and grazed in surrounding communal pasturelands or open rangelands. In peri-urban or intensive cultivated areas a ‘stall feeding system’ is practiced, in which livestock are kept in a shed and fed crop by-products or commercial feeds. These different husbandry practices have been observed: changing from transhumance to sedentary to stall-fed system, due to limited access to pasturelands
(Saberwal 1996; Nautiyal et al. 2003) or to the development of urban areas from rural landscapes.
In addition to grazing restrictions in Terai parks and reserves, people rearing livestock near protected areas often have conflicts with wildlife (Sharma 1990; Heinen
1993; Nepal & Weber 1995; Studsrod & Wegge 1995). The conflicts occur when there
50 are livestock losses to predators and also human casualties or injuries while using forest resources such as herding livestock or cutting fodder. Limited information is available on how people change their livestock rearing behavior in response to grazing restrictions and livestock losses. I was interested in understanding livestock pressure on available resources, local people’s resource use practices and opinions about limited grazing policies that deny traditional livestock grazing rights in the Madi Valley, within the BZ of
Chitwan National Park (CNP), Nepal. Specifically I wanted to analyze if changes in livestock husbandry practices could influence tiger habitat and interactions between tigers and people. My questions included: What is the composition of family livestock holding?
What are the changes in livestock holding and ownership structure between 1997 and
2006? In 2006, what were the available forage resources and what is the livestock pressure on them? How does livestock husbandry and fodder cutting changes seasonally?
What are the people’s opinions about the livestock grazing restriction policy? How do livestock husbandry practices influence on tiger human interactions?
Background
Madi Valley, which is approximately 150 meters above sea level, is nestled on the southern border of CNP, in a “dun” valley formed by the bifurcation of the Siwalik Hills, into the Churia and Someshwor hills. The southern Someshwor Ridge forms the BZCF boundary, and also is the international boundary with India (Figure 3-1). The Someshwor
Range is a complex of deep ravines and steep slopes, with its highest peak reaching an altitude of 870 meters. The northern Churia Range lies inside the park and extends westward and gradually loses height from 750 meter on the eastern boundary to its
51 western extremity near Bankatta Post where it subsides into the valley floor. The BZCFs
in Madi Valley watershed encompass 45% of the entire BZCFs surrounding CNP
(DNPWC & PPP 2000). These BZCFs, lie south of cultivation lands, and are comprised
of 114 km² of forest dissected by deeply eroded streams. The Reu River and its tributaries
originate in the Someshwor and Churia Ranges, providing critical water sources for
ungulates as well as human populations in Madi Valley.
Population growth
The Madi Valley, within Chitwan District, has been home to Tharu people for
hundreds of years. In 1941, ethnic group of Tharu people were the only inhabitants in
Chitwan District and the estimated population was approximately 26,239. However, the situation changed drastically, when the Nepalese government opened the Terai region, under the special settlement policy of 1957 (Gurung 1983). Under this policy poor hill immigrants were encouraged to settle in the Terai . Over the next 60 years the Chitwan population grew at a rate of 4.92% per year to 468,699 an 18-fold increase. Before the hill people immigrations, Tharu sparsely inhabited the middle of the Madi Valley. Since
then thousands of hill immigrants have settled everywhere in the Madi Valley. In 1981,
Madi Valley had 29,058 residents, and by 2001 (most recent census data available) that
number had increased to 41,344 (DDC Chitwan 2002); constituting a 30% increase.
Madi Valley is divided into four Village Development Committees (VDC); which
are the smallest government units in Nepal (Figure 3-1). There is a clear separation of
Tharu and hill immigrant’s settlements in the Madi Valley. Tharu settlements are in the
middle of the valley mainly in Gardi and Baghauda VDCs; whereas, hill immigrants
52 settled everywhere up to the base of the hills. The hill immigrant’s villages are situated on the higher elevated slopes extending up to the foothills. Kalyanpur is mostly inhabited by hill immigrants and Ayodhyapuri is completely occupied by hill immigrants.
Conservation policies and land use change
The settlement program across the Terai region, particularly in Chitwan District, led to forested habitat loss which resulted in declining wildlife populations including tigers and rhinos. Two wildlife species, swamp deer and water buffalo, went locally extrapolated from Chitwan District (Gurung 1983). In response to the precipitous decline in wildlife, in 1973, National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act was enacted and
Chitwan National Park (CNP) was created as Nepal’s first national park (Heinen &
Shrestha 2006). Initially the park area was 544 km² and later expanded to current size of
932 km². In 1996, a 750 km² area surrounding CNP was declared as buffer zone (BZ) including the entire Madi Valley and its watershed (Heinen & Mehta 2000). The BZ was created to increase the land base for wildlife and also to reduce human dependency on the
Park and its resources (Budhathoki 2004). Livestock grazing restriction has been one of the conservation policies implemented in the CNP and also in BZCFs. Resources use by local people inside the park is prohibited, except park allows thatching grasses harvest for two weeks in a year. However, BZCFs provide livestock fodder, fuel-wood, and non- timber forest products to local people on a regular basis. Furthermore, the BZ act provides 30 -50% of CNP income to be distributed to local communities for development programs and BZCFs management (Heinen & Mehta 2000; Budhathoki 2003).
53 Compensating households for livestock loss to wildlife depredation in the BZ is one ways the fund is utilized.
METHODS
Study site
The Madi Valley provides an ideal setting for investigating the influence of grazing restriction on livestock composition and husbandry practices for four reasons.
First, Madi Valley is an interesting area because it is completely surrounded by park in the north-east and BZCF to the south-west, which created an isolated island of human settlement. Second, in recent years there have been an increased number of people killed by tigers in and around Chitwan National Park (CNP), and mostly in Madi Valley
(Chapter 2). Third, livestock husbandry practices are an integral part of daily lives for the
Madi Valley population. Finally, grazing restrictions have been implemented in the CNP and also in the BZCF, creating an interesting situation where livestock once freely grazed in both these forested areas are now restricted.
To understand the impact of grazing restrictions on livestock holdings, livestock pressure on available fodder resources, and people perceptions on grazing policies, I used a quantitative household survey and secondary data sources. A questionnaire survey was conducted to obtain livestock holdings, seasonal husbandry practices, fodder cuttings, and perceptions on policies. Likewise, grazing pressure on available fodder resources was estimated using published secondary data.
Household survey
54 A total of 7719 households are listed in the four Village Development
Committees (VDCs) in Madi Valley (DDC Chitwan 2002). This excludes 389 households that live outside the valley but are listed in Ayodhyapuri VDC (one of the 4 VDCs in
Madi Valley). A stratified random sample was drawn from the 4 VDCs, proportionate to the population for a total of 400 households (Table 3-1). I interviewed the households head listed in the record along with household members who were present.
The questionnaire was developed based on the research themes, and field tested in
November 2005. The survey questionnaires were designed to assess livestock holdings, seasonal grazing practices, weekly fodder cutting, opinions on current grazing restriction policies, and suggestions to solve livestock grazing problems. The grazing seasons were divided into winter (October- January), summer (February- May) and Monsoon (June-
September).
After spending more than six months conducting biological research and becoming familiar with the residents, personal household interviews were conducted between April - June, 2006. I hired and trained eight local survey assistants with undergraduate degrees to conduct the interviews. All had previous survey experience and were actively involved in community service. I accompanied each survey assistant during their initial interviews conducted in the Nepali language. Thereafter, I accompanied each assistant on a rotating basis. Global Positioning System location of each household was recorded for mapping using Arc View 3.3 program (ESRI Inc. Redlands California)
(Figure 3-1).
After the interview, responses were coded and entered into an Excel data base, checked for entry errors, and analyzed for descriptive statistics. To compare the livestock
55 numbers and ownership structure in Madi Valley, I obtained the households and livestock data surveyed in 1997 from Joshi (Joshi 1999). Livestock holdings included cattle, buffalo, and goat are presented as unit per households and compared between 1997 and
2006. Livestock grazing and fodder cutting practices, and opinions of grazing restrictions are presented as percentage.
Calculation of grazing pressure
To understand the carrying capacity or sustainability of livestock grazing on available resources, I calculated the ratio of fodder/forage demand and supply for the entire livestock population in Madi Valley. Carrying capacity is the number of livestock that can be sustained over time per unit land area. It was estimated using total fodder supply divided by fodder required by one Livestock Standard Unit per annum. First, total livestock types were estimated, using average animals per sampled household multiplied by total number of households. Total livestock types thus estimated was converted into
Livestock Standard Unit (LSU), by widely used Nepal conversion factors: adult buffalo =
1 LSU, cattle = 0.69 LSU, and goat = 0.22 LSU (Thapa and Poudyal 2000; Agrawal and
Gupta 2005).
The fodder supply and demand are calculated in terms of fodder biomass in dry weight (Silori and Mishra 2001) or total digestive nutrients (TDN) contents in forage for livestock consumption (Thapa and Poudyal 2000). I used TDN calculations to estimate carrying capacity rather than fodder dry matter because TDN contents vary with fodder types and crop residue. Furthermore, to my knowledge, dry matter estimation of crop residue is not available.
56 A Livestock Standard Unit (LSU) requires 1083 kg (1.083 ton) of TDN per annum to maintain body weight and performance (Thapa & Paudel 2000). This rate is assumed to be applicable to Madi Valley livestock because livestock types such as cattle, buffalo and goats- the main grazing animals- are similar and require equal amounts of fodder. The total TDN demand was estimated by multiplying total LSU by the LSU TDN requirement.
The TDN amount available was estimated for agricultural land, Buffer Zone communal lands and Buffer Zone Community Forest (BZCF). The Buffer Zone communal land is an area such as shrub land, open meadows, floodplains and land along the streams that are available for livestock grazing and foraging. I estimated total agricultural land in hectares (ha) using average land holding per household multiplied by the total households. The total communal land and BZCF was obtained from Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, and Park and People Project (DNPWC &
PPP 2000). Likewise, the TDN yield per ha of agricultural land, communal land, and community forest was obtained from Thapa & Poudyal (2000). These rates were derived from the middle hills, with narrow river valley, subtropical climate, and sub-tropical dense forest, similar to Madi Valley which is also an inner valley in the Siwalik Hills.
The rate obtained is assumed to be applicable to this study as there is a similarity in forest types, farm types, and crops grown. The major crops include rice, wheat, and maize in both areas. The TDN yield from agricultural land is estimated at 3.153 ton/ha. Similarly,
TDN yields from communal land and BZCF are estimated at the rate of 0.97 ton/ha and
1.44 ton/ha respectively (His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, 1988 cited in Thapa &
Poudyal 2000). The TDN supply estimated for BZCF assumed fodder was collected from
57 the entire area. Finally, the total TDN supply was estimated using these rates multiplied
by total land areas.
RESULTS
Livestock and ownership structure
There has been a change in livestock ownership structure from 1997 to 2006 in
Madi Valley. The number of goats per household remained the same, but the buffalo and cattle stock has decreased. Additionally, there has been a shift in livestock population structure to goats from cattle and buffalo. Furthermore, the number of owners for all livestock categories has declined.
Livestock rearing is a major economic activity for Madi Valley population, where
91% of the households sampled in 2006 owned livestock. When compared, the average livestock holdings has now decreased from 7.1 animals per household in 1997 to 5.6 animals in 2006 (Table 3-2). The average number of goats per household remained the same. However, for buffalo and cattle the average number per household has decreased
(Table 3-2). Nevertheless, total livestock in the Madi Valley increased slightly from 1997 to 2006. This increase is mainly due to the increased goat population from 16,181 to
21,613. Cattle and buffalo populations have declined in number from 9,869 and 14,575 to
9,263 and 12,350 respectively.
Similar change has been observed in household units owning livestock in the
Madi Valley. Percentage of households owning all three types of livestock decreased from 1997 to 2006 (Table 3-2). The buffalo, cattle and goat ownership declined by
14.1%, 10%, and 3% respectively. In 2006, the most common animals were goats owned 58 by 71% of the households. The least common livestock was pig owned by less then 2% of the households sampled, and therefore not included in the livestock holdings.
Livestock grazing pressure on available fodder resources
For 2006, I attempted to estimate the forage/feed requirement for the entire livestock population in Madi Valley. Only a rough estimate could be made based on the feed requirements of livestock converted into Livestock Standard Unit (LSU) and estimated forage/feed yield from agricultural lands, Buffer Zone communal lands, and
Buffer Zone Community Forests (BZCF). Furthermore, on a household level, I estimated the forage/feed requirement for LSU and yield from agricultural lands.
In 2006, there were estimated 23,496 LSUs in Madi Valley (Table 3-3).
Assuming an annual average total digestive nutrients (TDN) consumption rate of 1.083 ton per LSU, the total forage demand for these livestock was calculated at 25,447 tons/year. The total TDN available from all sources was estimated at 37,603 ton/year
(Table 3-4). Thus resource availability is adequate to support the livestock population in the Madi Valley. However, TDN available from agricultural lands was adequate to sustain 2/3rds the Madi Valley livestock population (Table 3-3 & 3-4).
On a household level, the average household owns 3.05 LSU that require a TDN of 3.3 tons/year; but the TDN available to household from the average land holding of
0.74 is 2.3 ton/year. Thus, at a household level agricultural land is not adequate to support the livestock they own. Therefore, they must depend on Buffer Zone communal land and BZCF to meet their livestock needs.
59 Grazing Patterns and Fodder Collection
Prior to the establishment of the Chitwan National Park (CNP) and Buffer Zone
(BZ), the majority of the Madi Valley households practiced ‘sedentary grazing systems’.
Livestock were kept in the villages at night and during the day a substantial number
grazed freely in the surrounding forests. In addition to the ‘sedentary grazing system’,
1/4 th of the sampled households practiced ‘transhumance grazing system’. Livestock was seasonally moved deep inside the forests, where temporary cattle camps were established primarily during the winter months. The temporary cattle camps were approximately 5-8 km away from the villages, near the base of the hills where water and forage was abundant. Cattle camps were discontinued between the mid-1980 and 1990s, when the
CNP and BZ were established. Livestock grazing restrictions was the most common reason given by more than half the households that had used cattle camps but stopped such activities. Other reasons for discontinuing their use included declining stock size, lack of labor, depredation threats, and occupational changes.
At present, livestock are either stall fed or grazed in the community forests, agricultural lands, or the Park (Figure 3-2). Stall feeding is the dominant option during monsoon and winter seasons for all livestock, and goats in summer. As summer season has the lowest percentage of stall feeding, grazing intensity is relatively higher compared to winter and monsoon for all three types of livestock.
The grazing restrictions in the Park and community forests mean increased stall feeding or increased grazing on agricultural land. Increased stall feeding requires increased fodder cutting or an adequate supply of crop by-product. The vast majority of households with livestock depend on agricultural land for fodder, during all seasons as 60 compared to community forests and the Park (Figure 3-3). More than 75% of households
sampled indicated that they collect fodder from agricultural lands during the summer and
monsoon seasons. Furthermore, they cut fodder on a daily basis, in summer (63%),
monsoon (61%), and to a lesser extent winter season (38%). In addition to agricultural
lands, approximately 1/3 rd of households collect fodder from the community forests, with a slightly higher percentage collecting during winter as compared to summer or monsoon seasons. Less than 10% household collect fodder from the Park.
High fodder cutting during summer and monsoon seasons from agricultural lands are reported compared to winter. In summer, despite high grazing, high fodder cutting from agricultural lands are mainly for goats which are mostly stall fed. Similarly, in winter high fodder collection is because grasses and fodder plants yields are greater from agricultural lands compared to other seasons. Fodder from agricultural lands during monsoon can be harvested every few weeks from weeding and grasses from bunds and canal banks. Finally, in winter fodder cutting is lowest from agricultural lands compared to other seasons because livestock are mostly fed with crop by products that are harvested in early winter.
Household perception of grazing policies
The household members were asked open-ended questions about their opinion of
Buffer Zone Community Forest (BZCF) restrictions on livestock grazing. A strong majority (83%) responded that it was okay to restrict grazing, but 12% was not satisfied with the policy. Despite the grazing restrictions, the majority (61%) preferred grazing to stall feeding. To reduce grazing problems household members suggested that they could
61 keeping fewer livestock (50%), stall feeding (38%), add some BZ areas for grazing
(38%), plant more fodder foliage in the communal lands (13%), and change occupations
(7%).
Additionally, household members were asked whether they wanted to increase or decrease livestock holdings. A vast majority did not want to increase their cow (94%) and buffalo (77%) numbers, mostly due to inadequate grazing lands. In contrast, a relatively higher percentage wanted to increase their goat numbers (41%), mainly due to easy upkeep and potential for economic gains.
DISCUSSION
Grazing restrictions influence on livestock and ownership structure
There has been a shift in the livestock structure in Madi Valley from 1997-2006, primarily due to changes in conservation policies that restrict grazing in the buffer zone.
By decreasing large ruminants, local residents were able to adjust forage needs and decrease demand on grazing lands. However, they increased goats that required less feed and forage. My findings reflect a pattern that has occurred across Nepal. Restricted grazing has shifted the rural livestock composition since the establishment of the parks in the early 70’s. In 1976, Seidensticker (1976) observed this trend the livestock composition in the northern part of Chitwan National Park (CNP) where cattle outnumbered buffalo (3xs) and goats (5xs). However, by 2000, the composition had changed, with goats outnumbering buffalo and cattle in the buffer zone of the CNP
(MoFSC/DNPWC 2000).
62 In general, the cattle population in Nepal has been stable or declining since 1996
(FAO 2005). Cows are mainly kept for milk production and manure, but not for meat
production. They require more energy input than the output gained (Nautiyal et al. 2003).
Due to this low productivity and inadequate grazing lands, nearly all the households
sampled in Madi Valley did not want to increase their cattle. Similar findings were
reported by Sharma et al., where cattle numbers were growing at a slower rate near the
CNP as compared to regional growth rate (1993). Similarly, in the middle hills of Nepal,
cattle per household was reported to be declining, when compared with before and after
the establishment of community forests (Adhikari et al. 2007).
In Asia, there has been a mixed trend in the buffalo populations; with a declining
population in South-East Asia. In contrast, the buffalo populations have been increasing in Nepal (FAO 2005) and elsewhere in Asia (Nanda & Nakao 2003). The increase in the buffalo population is due to the increasing demand for milk and meat. Farmers prefer to keep buffalo over cows because the per capita milk production greater (Sebatian et al.
1970; Mandal et al. 2003). However, in Madi Valley, buffalo populations, average number per household is declining. A similar finding was reported in villages around the community forests in the Middle Hills of Nepal (Adhikari et al. 2007). Although buffalo have higher productivity than cattle, grazing restrictions and high maintenance costs caused households to limit buffalo. Buffalo milk and meat production is profitable; but it requires rigorous daily maintenance. Feed and fodder intake increases during milk production (Thomas-Slayter & Bhatt 1994). Supplementary feed requires fuel-wood for cooking buffalo feed which requires more labor to collect fuel-wood along with fodder.
As such, restricted grazing imposes more limitations than cattle rearing. In Madi Valley,
63 the higher decline in buffalo numbers as compared to cattle is because buffalo meat can
be eaten whereas cattle are considered sacred by Hindus, thus cattle are not sold for meat
consumption. The increasing demand for meat has created a market for buffalo.
The increasing trend in the goat population in Madi Valley implies that grazing
restrictions have had little influence on goat rearing. The respondents identified that goats
were easy to keep and primarily stall fed because goats require less feed and forage.
Moreover, a goat’s economic output is more than nine times the input (Nautiyal et al.
2003). Although goat meat is expensive as compared to buffalo, its popularity throughout the country results in higher demand and quick economic gain. Like buffalo populations, goat populations are increasing in Nepal (FAO 2005).
Fodder availability, use, and practices
The changes in livestock number, composition, and husbandry practices represent a response to a changing environment. Until two decades ago, village livestock was freely grazed in Madi Valley forests. Additionally, some families practiced
‘transhumance grazing’. However, in response to conservation policy, specifically grazing restrictions, this system of temporary cattle camps has been completely discontinued. A similar change, from ‘transhumance grazing’ to ‘sedentary grazing’ has been reported in India where grazing restrictions have been implemented (Saberwal,
1996).
In 2006, Madi residents were depending more on their agricultural lands for livestock rearing, than on buffer zone community forests (BZCF) and to a small extent on park resources. But the forage supply from the agricultural lands, are inadequate for the
64 livestock demands as such supplemental cutting are met by the BZCF and parklands resources. In my study few households reported grazing their cattle, buffalo and goats in the Park and BZCF. These practices may be underreported due to the social stigma of doing something illegal.
Illegal grazing practices have been reported in previous studies in the Chitwan
National Park (Sharma et al. 1993). One of the reasons for such illegal grazing is because poorer households with insufficient agricultural lands are pushed to meet resource needs.
Additionally, proximity influence ability to use forests. An alternative solution to reduce potential illegal grazing is to minimize livestock numbers and stall feed, which Madi
Valley residents are currently practicing. Stall feeding works well for households living along the BZCF boarder because fodder cutting is allowed in the BZCF. However, for people who live along the Park border fodder cutting is not permitted, reducing the viability of stall feeding as an option. These households may need to reduce their livestock to sustainable level based on their agricultural land fodder availability particularly cattle and buffalo. However, reducing cattle is a big challenge as there is no demand for them, due to lower productivity and religious taboos on meat consumption.
The cattle numbers will have to decline at a slower rate, continuing as a source of illegal grazing. Further research is needed regarding options for reducing the cattle herds.
Consequences of grazing restrictions on tiger-human interactions
In Madi Valley, grazing restrictions have led to reduced livestock numbers, and increased fodder cutting for stall feeding. I hypothesized these two conditions may have contributed to an increase in man-eating cases in the buffer zone community forests
65 (BZCF). Prior to 1997, there were no cases of humans killed by tigers in the BZCF of
Madi Valley. However, since than, 19 people have been killed by tigers (Chapter 2).
Tigers in Chitwan are known to kill livestock to supplement wild prey (Sunquist 1981).
Grazing restrictions limited this option on food source. In additions, livestock grazing restrictions increased stall feeding that in turn increased people moving into the forests for fodder cutting. More than one in three households owning livestock collects fodder from the BZCF and one in ten households collect fodder on a daily basis. This could result in a potential for increased encounters between fodder cutters and tigers. Half the people killed by tigers were cutting fodder when killed (Chapter 2). Fodder cutting requires entering the dense vegetations where tigers may have been resting during the day. Entering such areas increases the probability of interactions with tigers.
Furthermore, harvesting grasses requires bending or sitting down. Such positions may resemble wild prey to tiger (Seidensticker & McDougal 1993), and as such, encourage tiger attacks. I suggest further research to test the hypothesis that grazing restriction has contributed to an increase in man-eating cases. If so then alternatives need to be considered to reduce the human-tiger conflicts.
CONCLUSIONS
In Madi Valley, livestock rearing practices and numbers are changing from
‘transhumance grazing’ to stall feeding. If the current trend in livestock reduction continues, livestock on a household level could be sustained by the agricultural and communal lands. Families are currently practicing stall feeding and grazing on agricultural and communal lands in response to grazing restrictions in the parklands and
66 buffer zone community forests. It is desirable to minimize household dependency on Park and buffer zone community forests resources for livestock rearing, and thus reduce wildlife conflict with people. Production linkages between forests and livestock raising is weakening and the interconnection of livestock with agricultural lands is strengthening resulting in a potentially sustainable livelihood. Stall feeding can be sustained with higher quality feed, produced from crops and their byproducts (Pingali 1997) and supplementary feed can be obtained from households that do not own livestock. Madi Valley residents are adjusting to the grazing restriction policy by reducing livestock, changing livestock composition, and increasing stall feeding. However, the consequences of livestock grazing restrictions in the buffer zone community forests need further investigation to understand the human-wildlife conflict when poorer households must use fodder cutting to supplement their agricultural biomass inputs.
67 REFERENCES
Adhikari, B., Williams, F. & Lovett, J. C. (2007) Local benefits from community forests
in the middle hills of Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 464-478.
Agrawal, A. & Gupta. K. (2005) Decentralization and Participation: The Governance of
Common Pool Resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Development 33 (7): 1101-
1114.
Andom, G. & Omer. M. K. (2003) Traditional cattle-husbandry systems in Eritrea: cattle-
human relationships. Journal of Arid Environments 53 : 5450556.
Bjonness, I. M. (1980) Animal husbandry and grazing, a conservation and management
problem in Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Nepal. Norsk geogr. Tidsskr.
34 : 59-76.
Bookbinder, M. P., Dinerstein, E., Rijal, A., Cauley, H. & Rajouria, A. (1998)
Ecotourism’s support of biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology 12 (6):
1399-1404.
Brandon, K. E., & Wells. M. (1992) Planning for People and Parks: Design dilemmas.
World Development 20 (4): 557-570.
Brower, B. (1990) Range conservation and Sherpa livestock management in Khumbhu,
Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 10 (1): 34-42.
Budhathoki, P. (2003) A Category V Protected Landscape approach to buffer zone
management in Nepal. Parks 13 (2): 22-30.
Budhathoki, P. (2004) Linking communities with conservation in developing countries:
buffer zone management initiatives in Nepal. Oryx 38 (3): 334-341.
68 DDC Chitwan. (2002) District Profile of Chitwan. District Development Committee,
Chitwan. Information and Resource Archive Center, Chitwan, Nepal.
DNPWC and PPP (Department of National Park and Wildlife Conservation and Park
People Project). (2000) Royal Chitwan National Park and Buffer Zone, Resource
Profile. Babar Mahal. Kathmandu. Nepal.
Duncan, A. J., Rahman, A., Miller, D. W., Frutos, P., Gordon, I. J., Rehman, A., Baig, A.,
Ali, F. & Wright, I. A. (2006) Transhumance livestock production in the Northern
Areas of Pakistan: Nutritional inputs and productive outputs. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 117 : 195-204.
FAO. (2005) FAOSTAT data. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
Gurung, C. P. (1995) People and their participation: New approaches to resolving
conflicts and promoting cooperation. In: Partnership for Conservation: An
Introduction, ed. J. A. McNeely, pp 223-233. Island Press, Washington DC.
Gurung, K. K. (1983) Heart of the Jungle: the wildlife of Chitwan, Nepal . Andre Deutsch
Limited in association with Tiger Tops, London, UK.
Hackel, J. D. (1998) Community conservation and the future of Africa’s wildlife.
Conservation Biology 13 (4): 726-734.
Heinen, J. T. (1993) Park- People relation in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal.
Environmental Conservation 20 (1): 25-34.
Heinen, J. T. & Shrestha, S. K. (2006) Evolving Policies for Conservation: An Historical
Profile of the Protected Area System of Nepal. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management 49 (1): 41-58.
69 Heinen, J. T. & Mehta, J. N. (2000) Emerging Issues in Legal and Procedural Aspects of
Buffer Zone Management With Case Studies From Nepal. Journal of
Environment and Development 9 (1): 45-67.
HMG/Nepal. (1988) Master plan for forestry sector Nepal: Main report. Master Plan for
Forestry Sector Project of His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, Asian
Development Bank, FINNIDA, Kathmandu, Nepal.
HMG/Nepal. (1996) Buffer Zone Management Regulation. His Majesty’s Government of
Nepal, Ministry of Forestry, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Joshi, S. (1999) A socio-economic analysis of residents in the buffer zone of Royal
Chitwan National Park, Nepal. MS thesis submitted to University of Minnesota,
USA.
Kremen, C., Merenhender, A. M. & Murphy, D.D. (1994) Ecological Monitoring: A vital
need for Integrated Conservation and Development Programs in the Tropics.
Conservation Biology 8 (2): 388-397.
Lehmkuhl, J. F., Upretti, R. K. & Sharma, U. R. (1988) National Parks and local
development: Grass and people in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal.
Environmental Conservation 15 : 143-148.
Lewis, M. (2003) Cattle and Conservation at Bharatpur: A Case Study in Science and
Advocacy. Conservation and Society 1(1): 1-21.
Mandal, A. B., Paul, S. S. & Pathak, N. N. (2003). Nutrient requirements and feeding of
buffaloes and cattle . International Book Distributing Co. Lucknow, India.
70 Marcus, R. R. (2001) Seeing the forest for the trees: Integrated conservation and
development projects and local perception of conservation in Madagascar. Human
Ecology 29 (4): 381-397.
McNeely, J. A. (1988) Economics and biological diversity: Developing and using
economics incentives to conserve biological resources. International Union for
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland.
Mishra, C. (1997) Livestock depredation by large carnivores in the Indian Trans-
Himalayan: conflict perceptions and conservation prospects. Environmental
Conservation 24 : 338-343.
Mishra, C., Prins, H. T. & Van Wieren, S. E. (2003) Diversity, Risk Mediation, and
Change in a Trans-Himalayan Agro pastoral System. Human Ecology 31 (4): 595-
609.
Mishra, H. R. (1982) Balancing human needs and conservation in Nepal’s Royal Chitwan
National Park. Ambio 11 : 246-51.
Mishra, H. R. (1984) A delicate balance: Tigers, rhinoceros, tourists and park
management vs. the needs of local people in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal.
In: National Parks, conservation & development: The role of protected areas in
sustaining society, ed. J. A. McNeely and K. R. Miller, pp. 197-205. Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington DC.
MoFSC/DNPWC. (2000) Royal Chitwan National Park and Buffer Zone: Management
Plan (2001-2005). Department of National Parks and Conservation, Park and
People Project, UNDP, Kathmandu, Nepal.
71 Nanda, A. S., & Nakao, T. (2003). Role of buffalo in the socioeconomic development of
rural Asia: Current status and future prospectus. Animal Science Journal 74: 443-
455.
Nautiyal, S., Rao, K. S., Maikhuri, R. K. & Saxena, K. P. (2003) Transhumant
pastoralism in the Nanda Devi biosphere reserve, India: A case study in the buffer
zone. Mountain Research and Development 23 (3): 255-262.
Nepal, S. K. & Weber, K. E. (1995) The quandary of local people-park relations in
Nepal’s Royal Chitwan National Park. Environmental Management 19 (6): 853-
866.
Oli, M. K., Taylor, I. R. & Rogers, M. E. (1994) Snow Leopard Panthera uncia predation
of livestock: an assessment of local perceptions in the Annapurna Conservation
Area, Nepal. Biological Conservation 68 : 63-68.
Patterson, B. D., Kasiki, S. M. Selempo, E. & Kays, R. W. (2004) Livestock predation by
lions (Panthera leo) and other carnivores on ranches neighboring Tsavo National
Park, Kenya. Biological Conservation 119 : 507-516.
Pingali, P. L. (1997) From subsistence to Commercial Production Systems: The
Transformation of Asian Agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 79 (2): 628-634.
Saberwal, V. K. (1996) Pastoral Politics: Gaddi Grazing, degradation, and Biodiversity
Conservation in Himachal Pradesh, India. Conservation Biology 10 (3): 741-749.
Sebastian, L., Mudgal, V. D. & Nair, P. G. (1970) Comparative efficiency of milk
production by Sahiwal cattle and Murrah buffalo. Journal of Animal Science 30 :
253-256.
72 Seidensticker, J. (1976) Ungulate population in Chitwan Valley, Nepal. Biological
Conservation 10 : 183-210.
Seidensticker, J. & McDougal, C. (1993). Tiger predatory behavior, ecology and
conservation. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 65 : 105-125.
Sharma, U. R. (1990) An overview of park people interactions in Royal Chitwan National
Park, Nepal. Landscape and Urban Planning 19 : 133-144.
Sharma, U. R. & Shaw, W. W. (1993). Role of Nepal’s Royal Chitwan National Park in
Meeting the Grazing and Fodder Needs of Local People. Environmental
Conservation 20 : 139-142.
Silori, C. S. & Mishra, B. K. (2001) Assessment of livestock grazing pressure in and
around the elephant corridors in Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, south India.
Biodiversity and Conservation 10 : 2181-2195.
Studsrod, J. E. & Wegge, P. (1995) Park-People Relationship: The case of damage
caused by park animals around the Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal.
Environment Conservation 22 (2): 133-142.
Sunquist, M. E. (1981) The social organization of tigers ( Panthera tigris ) in Royal
Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 336 : 1-98.
Thapa, G. B. & Paudel, G. S. (2000) Evaluation of the livestock carrying capacity of land
resources in the Hills of Nepal based on total digestive nutrient analysis.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 78 : 223-235.
Tulachan, P. M. (2001) Mountain Agriculture in the Hindu Kush-Himalaya: A Regional
Comparative Analysis. Mountain Research and Development 21 (3): 260-267.
73 Thomas-Slayter, B. & Bhatt, N. (1994) Land, Livestock, and Livelihoods: Changing
Dynamics of Gender, Caste, and Ethnicity in Nepalese Village. Human Ecology
22 (4): 467-494.
Wang, S. W. & Macdonald, D. W. (2006) Livestock predation by carnivores in Jigme
Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Biological Conservation 129 : 558-
565.
Western, D. (1982) Amboseli National Park: enlisting landowners to conserve migratory
wildlife. Ambio 11 : 302-8.
World Conservation Union. (1980) World conservation strategy: living resource
conservation for sustainable development. Gland, Switzerland.
Woodroffe, R., Lindsey, P. Romanach, S. Stein, A. & ole Ranah, S. M. K. (2005)
Livestock predation by endangered African wild dogs ( Lycaon pictus ) in northern
Kenya. Biological Conservation 124 : 225- 234.
74 Table 3-1. Total and sample population of 4 Village Development Committee of Madi
Valley, Chitwan, 2006. (n=400)
Total Population Sample Population
Total Total Total Total
VDC Households Population % Households Population %
Ayodhyapuri 1,921 9,774 0.25 100 509 0.25
Kalyanpur 1,573 7,543 0.20 80 384 0.19
Baghauda 2,208 11,544 0.29 116 606 0.29
Gardi 2,017 10,453 0.26 104 539 0.27
Total 7,719 39,314 100 400 2,038 100
75 Table 3-2. Difference in livestock ownership per unit Households in Madi Valley between 1997 and 2006.
1997* (n=354) 2006 (n=400)
% Household Average per % Household Average per
Livestock w/livestock Household w/livestock Household
Cattle 56.8 1.8 46.8 1.2
Buffalo 81.4 2.5 67.3 1.6
Goat 74.3 2.8 71.3 2.8
Total 94.4 7.1 91.3 5.6
*Source: Joshi, 1999
76 Table 3-3. Amount of total digestive nutrients (TDN) requirement for livestock in Madi
Valley, 2006.
Livestock Total Total
Type Livestock Livestock Standard Unit TDN Demand (Mg)
Buffalo 12,350 12,350 13,375
Cattle 9,263 6,391 6,922
Goat 21,613 4,755 5,150
Total 43,226 23,496 25,447
77 Table 3-4. Amount of total digestive nutrients (TDN) available and livestock carrying capacity of various land use types in Madi Valley, 2006.
Livestock
Land type Total area TDN yield TDN available Standard Unit
(ha) in Mg/ha (Mg) carrying capacity
Agricultural 5,712 3.153 a,b 18,010 16,630
Buffer zone communal 3,173 0.970 b 3,078 2,842
Buffer zone community forest 11,469 1.440 b 16,515 15,250
Total 20,354 37,603 34,721
aSource: Thapa and Paudel, 2000 bSource: His Mejesty’s Government of Nepal, 1988.
78
Figure 3-1. Map of Madi Valley and its surrounding landscape, Nepal, 2006.
79
Figure 3-2. Cattle, buffalo, and goat seasonal grazing practiced by Households (HHS) owning such stocks in Madi Valley, 2006.
80 100
90 79 80
70
60 53 50
40 34 30 25 26 19 20
Percent HHs Cattle Grazing Cattle HHs Percent 20 15 11 8 10 5 5
0 Monsoon Winter Summer
Park Community Forest Own Land Stall Feed
100
90 81 80
70
60 57
50
40 34 35 30 24 18 20
Percent HHs Buffalo Grazing Buffalo HHs Percent 13 13 9 10 4 6 6 0 Monsoon Winter Summer
Park Community Forest Own Land Stall Feed
100 95
90 83 80 68 70 60 50 40
30 23 20 Percent HHs Goat Grazing Goat HHs Percent 9 10 7 7 13 1 1 2 0 Monsoon Winter Summer
Park Community Forest Own Land Stall Feed
81
Figure 3-3. Percentage of Households (HHs) that collect fodder on a weekly basis from Park, community forest and agricultural lands during three seasons, in Madi Valley, 2006.
82 100 93 90 80 68 70 63 60 50 40 30 22 20 15 10 9 5 8 10 3 1 3 0
Percent HHs Fodder-cutting (summer) Fodder-cutting HHs Percent Agricultural Land Community Forest Park
0 days/week 1-3 days/week 4- 6 days/week 7 days/week
100 95 90 80 71 70 61 60 50 40 30 24 20 11 13 8 7 5 10 2 1 2 0
Percent HHs Fodder-cutting (Monsoon) Fodder-cutting HHs Percent Agricultural Land Community Forest Park
0 days/week 1-3 days/week 4-6 days/week 7 days/week
100 91 90 80 70 63 60 50 42 38 40 30 19 20 15 8 10 10 5 5 2 2 0
Percent HHs Fodder-cutting (winter) Fodder-cutting HHs Percent Agricultural Land Community Forest Park
0 days/week 1-3 days/week 4-6 days/week 7 days/week
83
CHAPTER 4
VALUES FOR AND TOLERANCE TOWARDS TIGERS IN MADI VALLEY,
CHITWAN NATIONAL PARK, NEPAL
84 ABSTRACT
Human-tiger conflict poses a great challenge to wildlife managers, conservationists and local people alike. This conflict occurs where tigers and humans utilize the same habitat. To address this conflict it is critical to understand local people’s value and tolerance level for tigers. In this paper I present local people’s beliefs about the importance of tiger. The analysis is based on household surveys assessing human perceptions of tiger conservation issues in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, Nepal.
Local people highly value but only have moderate tolerance for tigers. Higher values and tolerance for the tiger were significantly influenced by household wealth and length of residency. Furthermore, high resource use and living close to the forest resulted in lower values and tolerance levels for tigers. Conservation education, improving compensation programs and local participatory approaches are suggested as technique that could increase tolerance levels for tigers.
85 INTRODUCTION
The social aspect of tiger conservation is critical in mitigating human-tiger
conflicts because conflicts are common where tigers and people overlap in resource use.
Understanding the value that local residents hold toward tigers and their level of
tolerance for tigers is crucial for the long-term survival of tigers and for improving local
people’s livelihoods near protected areas. The tiger ( Panthera tigris ) is categorized as an endangered species, listed on the Conventions on International Trade in Endangered
Species (CITES) Appendix I, which restricts trade (CITES, 2005). Despite legal protection and conservation efforts for nearly 40 years, its population continues to decline in many parts of its range (Seidensticker et al., 1999; Tilson et al., 2004; Sanderson et al.,
2006; Dinerstein et al., 2007). Habitat loss and fragmentation, prey deficiency, poaching and conflict with humans remain the major causes of its decline (Kenny et al., 1995;
Smith et al., 1998; Ramakrishnan et al., 1999; Linkie at al., 2003).
Human-tiger conflict has been documented across much of the tiger’s range including Bangladesh (Hendrich, 1975; Halder, 2005), Bhutan (Wang & MacDonald,
2006), Nepal (McDougal 1987), India (Karanth & Madhusudan, 2002; Madhusudan,
2003), Sumatra (Nyhus & Tilson, 2004), and Russia (Miquelle et al., 2005). This conflict has become an increasingly important issue for wildlife managers and conservationists.
Human-tiger conflict arises wherever the tiger’s ecological needs and human livelihood needs overlap. Tigers kill domestic livestock which affects the livelihood of local people
(Udaya Shekhar, 1998; Madhusudan, 2003; Wang & MacDonald, 2006). Furthermore, under some conditions, individual tigers attack humans, leading to injury or death
(Hendrich, 1975; McDougal, 1987); while humans kill tigers intentionally for illegal
86 trade in body parts or in response to livestock depredation or for threatening human lives
(Martin, 1992). Such human-tiger conflict threatens the long-term survival of tigers and impacts local people’s livelihoods.
Mitigating conflicts requires understanding the behavior of both tigers and people where they overlap in resource use. Ecological and behavioral studies of tigers have been conducted in Nepal (Sunquist, 1981; Smith et al., 1987; Smith et al., 1989; Smith &
McDougal, 1991; Smith, 1993; Seidensticker & McDougal, 1993), India (Chundawat et al., 1999; Karanth & Sunquist, 2000) and Russia (Miquelle at al., 1996; Smirnov &
Miquelle, 1999). However, most of these studies were carried out in core tiger habitats, where human use of resources was low or prohibited. Furthermore, these studies focused on ecological needs of tigers and interactions with the natural environments, but did not examine tiger and human interactions in much detail. However, in recent years, many researchers have recognized the importance of the social aspect of reducing human-tiger conflicts (Tilson & Nyhus, 1998; Treves & Karanth, 2003; Miquelle et al. 2005; Gurung et al., 2006).
In this paper, I explore social aspects of tiger conservation in the Madi Valley of
Chitwan National Park, Nepal, where man-eating cases have been high compared to early years and human-tiger conflict is common. I investigate the value that local residents hold toward tigers and their level of tolerance for tigers. I then discuss the values and tolerance towards tigers in relation to household’s economic and social conditions, proximity to the forest edge, resource use, and conflict experiences with tigers. This information is critically important in Nepal where the Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) project is expanding tiger conservation efforts in a human-dominated landscape.
87 The TAL is an attempt to increase the land base for tigers in Nepal and India
(Joshi et al., 2003; Johnsingh et al., 2003; Wikramanayake et al., 2004). In Nepal, it spans the entire lowland tiger habitat, approximately 546 km (Gurung et al., 2006). The goal of
TAL is to manage the tiger on a landscape scale in order to maintain genetic, demographic, and ecological integrity for population viability and at the same time restore the economic and ecological benefits which the forest provides to the people.
However, tiger numbers in Nepal began increasing prior to TAL because of laws facilitating community forestry and local interest in restoring ecological services.
Although protected areas provide the main base of tiger habitat, it is in the buffer zones, community forests and national forests outside the parks and reserves where tigers and people using the same habitat overlap. In Sumatra, these multiple use habitats are where high human-tiger conflicts are documented (Nyhus & Tilson, 2004). Tigers are more vulnerable in multiple-use forests where protection and monitoring efforts are minimal. When they prey upon domestic livestock they can be easily poisoned by residents (Martin, 1992). To minimize such human behavior, local support is crucial to tiger conservation efforts. As Miquelle, et al (2005) states, “Survival of tigers will depend largely on whether local people tolerate their presence. Mitigating conflicts, reducing risk to both tigers and people and increasing tolerance of people living with tigers will be fundamental to a successful conservation effort”. Faced with these issues, assessments of the social aspects of the human-tiger relationship can provide managers with information to help in minimizing conflicts with tigers.
Conceptual framework
88 Examining the social aspect of tiger conservation requires investigating the values
and behavioral intentions held by people whose interests may conflict with tiger
presence. Social theory suggests that “attitude [as] a function of individuals’ beliefs and
is expected to be related to his intensions” (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). This theory details that individual views of an object such as tigers, are arranged in a hierarchy of cognitions.
Ashraft (1994) defines cognition as “collection of mental processes and activities used in perceiving, remembering, thinking, and understanding as well as the act of using these processes”. The cognitive hierarchy structure is like an inverted pyramid. At the foundation of this cognition hierarchy are fundamental values. These values are very few in number and difficult to change. Built on this value are patterns of basic beliefs or value orientation, attitudes, norms, behavioral intensions, and behaviors (Rokeach, 1973;
Homer & Kahle, 1988; Fulton et al., 1996). Higher order cognitions such as behavior are many and are changing constantly. In this cognitive hierarchy lower order constructs are the best predictor of next higher order constructs (Fishbein & Middlestadt, 1995; Schultz
& Zelezny, 1999; Betsch et al., 2001). For example, measure of tiger’s values people hold will be the best predictor for attitudes towards tigers. Additionally, in this hierarchical cognition attitudes mediate the influence of value orientations on behavioral intentions (Vaske & Donnelly, 1998; Manfredo et al., 1999). For example, conservation value of tiger’s predicts people’s attitude towards tiger conservation, and the conservation attitude towards tigers fully mediates the relationship between conservation value of tiger and behavioral intention towards tiger conservation. Therefore, it is critical to understand wildlife value orientation that forms the basic foundation explaining the human behavior related to wildlife.
89 In this paper, I measure value and tolerance towards tigers. It was important to
understand how local people value the tiger and what level of tolerance they have. I used
level of tolerance as measures of behavioral intentions and evaluated this and values as
mediated by demographic, resource use and interactions with tiger.
METHODS
Study area
Madi Valley, situated to the south of Chitwan National Park, falls within the
buffer zone of the park and is home to 39,719 people living in 7,719 households (Chapter
3). The area is divided into four Village Development Committees (VDCs), which are the
smallest political and administrative units in Nepal. The population is composed of a
number of ethnic groups; the majority is Brahmin (29%) and Tharu (23%) (DDC
Chitwan, 2002). Tharu are an indigenous group of the Terai who have lived for more than one hundred years in the Madi Valley. Brahmin and other ethnic group’s immigrants that began arriving in the 1950s from the hills of Nepal.
Most residents in the Madi Valley are subsistence agriculturalists; farming and livestock rearing are the main occupations. People depend on the surrounding buffer zone’s community forests for fuel-wood, fodder, timber, grazing and other non-timber forest products. Compared to other areas of the park, Madi Valley receives very few tourists.
Data collection and sources
90 I conducted personal interviews with head of the household between the months of April - June 2006, with a sample of 400 randomly selected households. The sampling frame was a current voter list of four VDCs. I employed stratified sampling to ensure a representative proportion of the Madi Valley population, where I surveyed following proportions of households from four VDCs: Ayodhyapuri (100 households, 25%),
Kalyanpur (80 households, 19%), Baghauda (116 households, 29%) and Gardi (104 households, 27%). Responses to the questionnaire represented the respondent value and tolerance for tigers. In many cases only one member of the household was present and so was a respondent. But in other cases several household members were present while interviewing, in such cases, the head of the household was the respondent to the questionnaire. Eight field assistants were trained to conduct the survey. A pilot study with five villagers was conducted in November 2005 to test the clarity and completeness of the questions.
Measurements of value and tolerance of tiger
The survey goal was to understand the importance of tigers measured as value and people’s tolerance level to human-tiger conflict situation. I developed a list of 19 basic statements related to tiger value orientation using typology of valuing endangered species
(Kellert, 1985), and to measure tolerance, I developed six statements reflecting the level of tolerance towards tigers in conflicting situations. Respondents indicated agreement and disagreement with each of the 25 statements using a 5-point Likert scale. The larger values reflected greater positive attitudes and support for tiger conservation. Data were summarized by calculating the mean of value and tolerance statements.
91
Demographic and other variables
I classified demographic variables into four categories based on respondent’s
household economic condition, social status, resource use practices, and experiences with tigers.
Economic condition: I used four different variables to measure the economic conditions of the respondent households: landholding, livestock, income, and wealth.
First, landholding in hectares was categorized into seven ordinal groups. Second, domestic animals included cattle, buffalo and goats, were converted into Livestock
Standard Units (LSU) and calculated using the following conversion factors: 1 cow =
0.69 LSU, 1 buffalo = 1 LSU and 1 goat = 0.22 LSU. The LSU was later coded from 0-6 as an ordered variable. The third variable used was an estimation of household’s supplemental income. Because exact income was difficult to obtain, I measured income based on household adult employment. Households with no adult employment were coded (0) and households with at least one adult employed were coded (1). Finally, household wealth was measured based on a household owning business transportation, personal transportation, energy, hygiene, and household goods. The scores allocated to each item were: tractor (3), bus or truck (4), jeep or oxcart (2), motorcycle (3) and (1) for each of the following items: cycle, solar panel, biogas, hand pump, water-well, toilet, television, pressure cooker, rice cooker, cassette player and video cassette player. These weightings were based on the pride that people have for owning each items. For example, there was less pride in owning cycle than a jeep which had a high economic value, but owning a motorcycle had an even higher pride value although it had a lower economic
92 value than jeep. These scores were totaled to get the individual respondent’s household
wealth score. The summed score were categorized into five groups: 0, 1-2, 3-4, 5-6, and
≥7.
Social Status: I used three variables: length of residency, occupation, and
ethnicity to describe the social condition of the respondent. Length of residency was
coded as < 20 years, (2) 21-40 years, (3) 41- 60 years, and (4) if > 61 years. Occupation
was classified into four categories based on the farming system: livestock farmer, mixed
farmer, agricultural farmer and non-farmer. Ethnicity was whether respondent was Tharu
or immigrants from the hills.
Resource use: I examined three variables pertaining to resource use: livestock grazing, fodder cutting, and firewood collecting. These resource uses are the most essential activities in which the Madi Valley population could come in contact with tiger in their habitat. Livestock grazing was coded (1) if the respondent does not graze livestock or grazes only in the agricultural land, (2) if the respondent grazes livestock either in the Park or in the buffer zone’s community forests, (3) if the respondent grazes livestock in the Park and buffer zone’s community forests and also agricultural land.
Fodder cutting was coded (1) if respondent cuts fodder only in agricultural land, (2) if the respondent collects fodder from either the Park or buffer zone’s community forests, and
(3) if the respondent collects fodder from the Park and also buffer zone’s community forests and agricultural land. Firewood collection was coded as a dummy variable identifying whether the respondent collect fuel-wood or not from the forests.
Experience with tigers: I used two variables: livestock depredation and human loss/injury, indicating respondent experiences with tigers. Respondent with livestock
93 depredation within the last five years was coded (1) and Respondent with no such losses was coded (0). I chose five years because people can remember the livestock depredation event within that time period with reasonable certainty. Likewise, respondent with a family member, relative, or neighbor loss/injury to tiger within the last fifteen years was coded (1) and coded (0) if respondent experienced no such occurrences. I chose fifteen years for experiencing human loss because these events are rarer than livestock losses, and people can remember human loss for longer time period than livestock losses.
Finally, I measured the respondent house distance from the forest edge using Global
Positioning System. The median distance for sampled household was 909 m; I used this value to differentiate households close to and far from the forest.
Hypotheses: I hypothesized that respondent: 1) with higher income, 2) longer length of residency, 3) less forest resource use, 4) greater distance from the forest edge and 5) fewer experiences with tigers would have a higher value and tolerance level for tigers.
Data analysis
I used exploratory SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Science) version 10.0,
Principal Component Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation separately with 19 value and six tolerance statements. The first component or the factor that accounts for the largest amount of variance was used to measure value and tolerance respectively. Additionally, internal consistency and reliability of the retained value and tolerance component items was assessed using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. A larger alpha value represented greater reliability.
94 One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare mean value and
tolerance differences across independent variables. If there were more than three groups,
a (Benferroni) post hoc test was used to identify significant differences between
individual groups. Furthermore, eta is reported as the measure of effect size or strength of
relationship between groups.
RESULTS
Respondents households characteristics
The average household size was 5.96 (range: 1-17, SD: 2.57). The majority of respondents’ occupation (84.8%) was mixed-farmer where agriculture and livestock rearing were the main activities (Table 4-1). Most respondent families came to the Madi
Valley within the last half century. All the households with > 60 years residency were
Tharu .
Most of the Madi Valley residents are subsistence agriculturalists; 97.5% households own an average of 0.74 hectares (ha) of land (Table 4-1). The majority of respondents are small landholders, but despite small landholdings, 31.3% of households sell surplus agricultural produce. On average household own 5.6 animals or 3.04 LSU, with 91% of households owning same livestock (Table 4-2). Nearly half (45%) of the sampled households have a family member working outside the local community (Table
4-1).
95 Comparison of respondent household’s wealth scores, resource use, and experiences
with tigers in relation to distance from forest
The Madi Valley residents are surrounded by forests. The average distance from
respondent households to the forest was 1080 meter (m) (range: 5-3084 m, SD: 814). The
median distance of 909 m was used to differentiate between respondent households closer to and farther from forest. Respondents wealth score, resource use types, livestock depredation and experiences with tigers were compared between close and farther from the forest.
The majority of respondent households were poor with 52.3% with a zero or ≤ 2
wealth score (Table 4-2). The majority respondents with a lower wealth score ( ≤ 2) live
close to the forest edge, compared with ≥ 3 wealth scored who live farther from the forest
(Χ² = 58.98, df = 4, p < 0.000).
Nearly 85% of respondent households had agricultural land and livestock.
Although livestock and agriculture are closely linked, agricultural land alone is not
adequate to support livestock. Therefore, respondent households with livestock were
dependent on forest resources for access to grazing and fodder cutting. Most households
also depended on the forest for fuel-wood collection. The majorities of respondents
(66.5%) graze livestock in the agricultural land or stall feed, as compared to 30.8% who
either graze in the park or community forest. Only, 2.8% of the respondents graze in both
the park and community forest. The respondents living closer to the forest edge grazed
significantly more in the community forest and park, than those living farther away from
the forest ( Χ² = 18.43, df = 2, p < 0.000). Respondents who live closer to the forest
96 border collect more fodder from the forests, as compared with those living farther ( Χ² =
44.91, df = 2, p < 0.000). Over 75% of respondent households depend on the forests for fuel-wood collection. Respondent’s households living closer to the forests (58%) collect fuel-wood significantly more than those that live farther away (42%) ( Χ² = 29.65, DF =
1, p < 0.000).
Approximately 20% of respondents reported losing livestock to tigers and other predators during the last five years. There was a significant difference in livestock depredation between respondents living close to (31%) and far away from the forest (1%)
(Χ² = 28.62, DF = 1, p < 0.000). Likewise, 3.3% of respondents had a member in the household, a neighbor, or relative killed /or injured during the past 15 years. I found no significant differences between respondents living close to forest versus those living farther away.
Value and tolerance towards tigers
Ten out of 19 value statements were grouped together in one component, and had a 3.87 eigenvalue that explained 20% of the variance based on Principal Component
Analysis (PCA) (Table 4-3). This variable with ten statements had a cronbach alpha value of 0.76 and factor loading score for each statement (Table 4-3). These statements included ecological, economic, aesthetic, existence, recreational, conservation, and scientific values of tigers.
I analyzed six statements measuring the level of tolerance towards tigers. PCA grouped these six statements into two components. The first component included four
97 statements explained 50% of the overall variances and had a cronbach alpha value of
0.87. Factor loading for each of the four statements was over 0.8 (Table 4-4).
A majority of respondents (range 50-85%) strongly agreed with most tiger related positive value statements (Table 4-5). However, there was more variation in responses to tolerance statements (Table 4-6). The mean scores for all value statements were greater than 4.00. In contrast, the mean score for all tolerance statements was less than 4.00.
The ten value statements were grouped together by PCA were combined into a single mean score that represented the respondent value for tiger. Similarly, a mean score for tolerance was calculated from the four tolerance statements. The overall mean value for tiger was 4.5 (range: 2.20-5.00, SD: 0.54). Likewise, mean tolerance level was 3.81
(range: 1.00- 5.00, SD: 1.24). Pair-wise comparison showed significant differences between the value and tolerance scores (t=10.912, df=396, p = 0.000). These two mean scores calculated for value and tolerance of tigers were used in further analysis.
Value of tiger
In general respondents have positive scores for values towards tiger, but there was a significant difference between groups. The respondents with lower wealth scores, more resource use, hill immigrants and less distance from the forest border had significantly lower value scores when compared to other groups (Table 4-7; 4-8; 4-9). The respondents that grazed livestock in the Park and buffer zone community forests had less positive score than respondents that grazed their livestock only in the agriculture land or stall fed
(Table 4-8). Likewise, fodder cutting followed similar trends; i.e. increased use of fodder cutting was correlated with less positive value scores towards tigers. Additionally, 98 respondents that collected fuel-wood showed significantly less positive value scores compared to respondents that did not collect firewood from the forests. Finally, distance from the forest affected value scores, with respondents that lived farther from the forest having more positive value score, as compared to respondent that live closer to forest
(Table 4-9).
I found no significant differences in value measures between respondents when analyzed by different size of landholding, livestock ownership, jobs, occupation, livestock depredation, or losing family members or relatives to tiger.
Tolerance for tiger
Wealth score, residency, resource use, and distance were correlated with people’s tolerance for tigers (Table 4-10; 4-11; 4-12). In addition, there were significant differences in tolerance level among different occupational groups (Table 4-10). Higher wealth scores were associated with higher tolerance levels. However, the only significant difference was observed between the > 6 wealth score and zeros wealth score groups.
Likewise, the tolerance level was significantly different between respondents’ families who had lived > 60 years in the Madi Valley had higher tolerance level than respondents who had lived < 20 years (Table 4-10). Non-farmers were significantly more tolerance towards tiger than mixed farmers (Table 4-10).
Tolerance of tigers decreases with increased use of forest resources. The respondents that grazed their livestock in the Park or buffer zone community forests were significantly less tolerant than the respondents that only grazed in the agricultural land or stall fed their livestock (Table 4-11). Also, respondents that collected fodder from the
99 Park and buffer zone community forests were less tolerant than respondents that collected
fodder only from agricultural land. Respondents that collected fuel-wood showed
significantly less tolerance for tigers as compared to respondents that do not collect
firewood from the forest. Distance from the forest is also related to the tolerance level for
tigers. The respondents farther from the forests were more tolerant than respondents
living closer to the forest (Table 4-12).
I found no significant differences in tolerance measures between respondents in terms of landholding size, livestock holding, job, ethnicity, livestock depredation and bad experiences with family members or relatives with tigers.
DISCUSSION
Madi Valley respondents value tigers but are only moderately tolerant of human tiger interaction. The respondents’ value and tolerance measures for tigers were both influenced by their wealth, resource use, distance from the forest edge, and risk of losing livestock. Wealth had a significant affect on people’s valuing and tolerating tigers.
Increase in wealth correlated with increase in value and tolerance levels towards tigers in part because wealthier respondents depend less on forest resources for livelihood and live farther from the forest edges. Residents in the center of the Madi Valley (farther from forests) also have fewer experiences with tiger depredation of livestock. In contrast, poorer respondents who live closer to the forest and use more forest resources valued tigers less and had less tolerance for tigers. The respondents living closer to the forest certainly had more livestock losses to tigers. This closeness to the forest edges increased
100 the probability of periodic contact with tigers and higher livestock loss than respondents
living farther away.
Of the four economic variables the wealth score was the only variable that
significantly influenced the respondent’s valuing and tolerance of tigers. The other
economic variables (land hold size, number of livestock and employment status) did not
significantly influence respondent’s value and tolerance. Similar to my results, in India,
Arjunan et al., (2006) reported no significant differences when combinations of livestock numbers, income and land size were used to evaluate tiger conservation opinions. In
Brazil, ranch size and number of cattle had no significant relationship with people’s perception towards jaguars (Zimmermann et al., 2005), however, a weakly significant negative relationship was observed with cattle density. I found that an increase in wealth scores correlated with an increase in value and tolerance level towards tigers, thus wealthier respondents were more positive towards tiger conservation.
My hypothesis that respondents using more public land resources would have lower values and tolerance for tiger was supported. This can be explained by the fact that resource extraction requires people to enter the forests, increasing a greater risk of encountering tigers or other dangerous animals that may harm them while grazing livestock and collecting fodder or fuel-wood. Contrary to my findings, research undertaken by Sah & Heinen (2001) and Shrestha & Alavalapati (2006) in Nepal, hypothesized that the benefits from the forests would cause people to have positive conservation attitudes. However, both studies found that this was not true. The benefits were not sufficient to overcome the perception of associated with risks and experience of loss.
101 Respondents living closer to the forest lost more livestock to tigers, but despite
the differences in livestock loss between residents who lived closer and farther away
from the forests, this did not influence people’s valuing and tolerating tigers, probably
because losses were very low in general. Tiger predation alone was not enough to
influence people’s value and tolerance for tigers. In another studies of carnivores there
have been similar results. In Brazil cattle predation history by jaguars did not negatively
affect people’s perceptions of jaguars (Conforti & Avevedo, 2003; Zimmermann et al.,
2005). However, in Norway, Vitterso et al. (1999) found that farmers from the region
with the highest rate of sheep depredation by large carnivores had stronger negative value attribute scores than sheep farmers from the region with low depredation rate. In my study, livestock depredation rates and human loss or injury to tigers were very low, as
compared to respondents with no such losses.
Finally, the Tharu ethnic group showed higher value for tigers than the immigrant
group. However, there was no significant difference between their tolerance levels. The
Tharu respondents had lived in the area much longer and they are believed in living in
close harmony with nature and they consider that tigers were a part of the natural
environment.
Management implications
This study was a first attempt to quantitatively assess local people’s value for and
tolerance of tigers. Such information is critical for designing programs to influence local
people support to improve tiger habitat quality in a human-dominated landscape that
includes from protected areas, buffer zones and corridors habitats. In this study,
102 respondent’s positive valuing of tigers was significantly higher than their tolerance levels.
Therefore, management practices should focus on increasing people’s tolerance for tiger.
To increase tolerance levels for tigers, an integrated program combining conservation education, compensation for livestock or human losses, and local people’s participation in resource management is recommended. A conservation education program would be that create increased tolerance for the tigers. Focuses on tiger biology, behavior and the basic needs of tigers might reduce fear. One component of a tiger education program would be to increase knowledge of a tiger’s food and security to help minimize tiger’s encounters and attacks. Others have found that more knowledge about the animal is related to having less fear and being more tolerant (Kellert & Berry, 1987).
Conservation education focused on nature also promotes an understanding of conservation issues, and has been shown to change people’s attitudes towards nature
(Jacobson, 1990; Caro et al., 1994). In Namibia, Marker et al.’s (2003) used educational materials to increase knowledge about cheetahs among the farmer communities that had cheetah livestock depredation problems. The authors found such educational materials increased farmer’s tolerance levels indicated by a reduced number of retaliation killing of cheetah. Therefore, in Nepal providing information and improving awareness about tigers among residents living close to the forests could help lessen their fear, reduce costly contact, and may increase their tolerance towards tiger presence.
Another way to improve local tolerance of tigers may be to provide effective monetary compensation for households that lose livestock to tigers. Compensation is critical as it can have a profound economic impact on households that depend on a milking cow, buffalo, or oxen for their livelihood. Households living closer to forest edge
103 have lost significantly more livestock to predators than households living in the center of the Madi Valley. Furthermore, households living close to the forest are poorer, so the impact of loosing a single animal is greater. The goal of many compensation schemes is to minimize human-wildlife conflict (Mishra, 1997) and also to increase tolerance of wildlife (Nyhus et al., 2005). However, compensation program procedures are challenging. In India, villagers were dissatisfied with the government compensation system due to low compensation rate (6-20% of market value), extra travel time and cost, mandatory reporting period (within 24 hours after incidents), and subjective assessments by officials and difficulties receiving settlement payments (Saberwal et al., 1994; Mishra,
1997).
Compensation schemes have existed in Madi Valley since the establishment of the buffer zone in 1996. Twenty-five percent of the livestock cost is remunerated to the families. The compensation rate is higher than the Indian case and the system works better. The buffer zone staff in each Village Development Committee investigates and prepares the livestock depredation case. The owner and other villagers visit the livestock kill site. After the visit, the case is prepared regarding the type of livestock, predator, location of the kill, market value of the livestock (determined by consultation with community members) and photographs of the carcass (if possible). The completed case is signed by witnesses and a park staff and then submitted with a recommendation to the
Park headquarter for final approval by the Buffer Zone Management Committee (BZMC) which meets once a month. The compensation program could be improved by making payments on time and regularly evaluating the timeframe of the payments. Timely
104 payments help families to get over their anger, possibly increasing their tolerance level towards tigers and other carnivores.
Effective local participation in management activities are also critical to increasing the tolerance level of tigers. Poor people living close to the forests should have more involvement in resource management activities such as tiger monitoring and habitat protection may help these people feel a sense of pride and ownership of the tigers. A vital step is to involve local people in tiger management. Gurung et al (2006) explained this approach by training a group of villagers as ‘village rangers’ distributed across the Terai to monitor tiger’s activities on a daily basis. When project resided hundred’s of villagers were enlisted to report tiger’s activities in the area increasing tiger conservation effort and local people feel a sense of ownership. Integrated monitoring and conservation programs providing such a feeling and legitimacy may enhance their support and increase their tolerance for tigers. In Zambia, local participation in law enforcement and wildlife monitoring was successful in areas, resulting in poachers arrests due to information provided by local villagers (Lewis et al., 1994). Such local participation in law enforcement not only changed people’s attitudes towards wildlife but also increased their support for conservation. In Madi Valley and elsewhere in Nepal, poor people’s tolerance levels towards tigers may be increased through a combination of tiger conservation awareness programs, effective compensation schemes and increased local participation in tiger management activities.
105 REFERENCES
Arjunan, M., Holmes, C., Puyravaud, J., & Davidar, P. (2006). Do developmental
initiatives influence local attitudes toward conservation? A case study from the
Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental
Management , 79, 188-197.
Ashcraft, M. H. (1994). Human memory and cognition. Second edition, Harper Collins,
New York, New York.
Betsch, T., Plessner, H., Schwieren, C., & Gutig, R. (2001). Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin , 27, 242-253.
Boomgaard, P. (2001). Frontiers of fear: Tigers and people in the Malay World, 1600-
1950. Yale University Press, New Haven & London.
Budhathoki, P. (2004). Linking communities with conservation in developing countries:
buffer zone management initiatives in Nepal. Oryx , 38, 334-341.
Caro, T. M., Pelkey, N., & Grigione, M. (1994). Effects of conservation biology
education on attitudes towards nature. Conservation Biology , 8, 846-852.
CITES, (2005). CITES Handbook Manual Guide. Cites Secretariat, International
Environment House, Geneva, Switzerland.
Chundawat, R. S., Gogate, N., & Johnsingh, A. T. (1999). Tigers in Panna: preliminary
results from an Indian tropical dry forest. In J. Seidensticker, S. Christie & P.
Jackson (Eds.), Riding the Tiger: Tiger conservation in human-dominated
landscapes (pp. 123-129). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
106 Conforti, V. A., & Azevedo, F. C. C. (2003). Local perceptions of jaguars ( Panthera
onca ) and pumas ( Puma concolor ) in Iguacu National Park area, south Brazil.
Biological Conservation , 111, 215-221.
DDC Chitwan. (2002). District profile of Chitwan. District Development Committee,
Chitwan. Information and Resource Archive Center, Chitwan, Nepal.
Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C., Wikramanayake, E., Ginsberg, J., Sanderson, E.,
Seidensticker, J., Forrest, J., Bryya, G., Heydlauff, A., Klenzendorf, S.,
Leimgruber, P., Mills, J., O’Brien, T. G., Shrestha, M., Simons, R., & Songer, M.
(2007). The fate of wild tigers. BioScience , 57, 508-514.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intension and behavior: an introduction
to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
Fishbein, M. & Middlestadt, S. (1995). Noncognitive effects on attitude formation and
change: Fact or Artifact? Journal of Consumer Psychology , 4, 181-202.
Fulton, D. C., Manfredo, M. J., & Lipscomb, J. (1996). Wildlife value orientations: A
conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife , 1, 24-47.
Gurung, B., Smith, J.D., & Shrestha, M. (2006). Using “Bagh Heralu” network to map
the metapopulation structure of tigers in Nepal. In McNeely, J., T. McCarthy, A.
Smith, L. Whittaker, & E. Wikramanayake (Eds.), Conservation Biology in Asia
(pp. 214-232. Resource Himalaya.
Halder, N. K. (2005). A study on tiger-human conflicts in the Sunderban Reserve Forest
(Bangladesh). Tiger Paper , 32, 8-13.
107 Heinen, J. T., & Mehta, J. N. (2000). Emerging Issues in Legal and procedural aspects of
buffer zone management with case studies from Nepal. Journal of Environmental
& Development , 9, 45-67.
Hendrichs, H. (1975). The status of the tiger Panthera tigris (Linne, 1758) in the
Sundarbans Mangrove Forest (Bay of Bengal). Saugetierkundliche Mitteilungen ,
23, 161-199.
Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-
behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 54, 638-646.
Jacobson, S. K. (1990). Graduate education in Conservation Biology. Conservation
Biology , 4, 431-440.
Johnsingh, A. J., & Negi, A. S. (2003). Status of tiger and leopard in Rajaji-Corbett
Conservation Unit, northern India. Biological Conservation , 111, 385-393.
Joshi, A., Dinerstein, E., & Smith, J. L. D. (2002). The Terai Arc: Managing tigers and
other wildlife as metapopulations. In E. Wikramanayake, E. Dinerstein, C. J.
Loucks, D. M. Olson, J. Morrison, J. Lamoreux, M. McKnight, & P. Hedao,
(Eds.), Terrestrial Ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific: A conservation assessment (pp.
178-181). Island Press.
Karanth, K. U., & Sunquist, M. E. (2000). Behavioral correlates of predation by tiger
(Panthera tigris), leopard ( Panthera pardus ) and dhole ( Cuon alpinus ) in
Nagarhole, India. Journal of Zoology , 250, 255-265.
Karanth, K. U., & Madhusudan, M. D. (2002). Mitigating human-wildlife conflicts in
southern Asia. In J. Terborgh, C. P. Van Schaik, L. Devenport, & M. Rao, (Eds.),
108 Making Parks Work: Identifying key factors to implementing parks in the tropic
(pp. 250-264). Island Press.
Kellert, S.R. (1985). Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote.
Biological Conservation , 31, 167-189.
Kellert, S. R., & Berry, J. K. (1987). Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife
as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin , 15, 363- 371.
Kenney, J. S., Smith, J. L. D., Starfield, A. M., & McDougal, C. (1995). The long-term
effects of tiger poaching on population viability. Conservation Biology , 9, 1127-
1133.
Lewis, D., Kaweche, G. E., & Mwenya, A. (1990). Wildlife conservation outside
protected areas – lessons from an experiment in Zambia. Conservation Biology , 4,
171-180.
Linkie, M., Martyr, D. J., Holden, J., Yanuar, A., Hartana, A. T., Sugardjito, J. & Leader-
Williams, N. (2003). Habitat destruction and poaching threaten the Sumatran tiger
in Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra. Oryx , 37, 41-48.
Madhusudan, M. D. (2003). Living amidst large wildlife: Livestock and crop depredation
by large mammals in the interior villages of Bhadra Tiger Reserve, South India.
Environmental Management , 31, 466-475.
Manfredo, M. J., Pierce, C. L., Fulton, D., Pate, J., & Gill. B. R. (1999). Public
acceptance of wildlife trapping in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin , 27, 499-
508.
109 Marker, L. L., Mills, M. G. L., & MacDonald, D. W. (2003). Factors influencing
perceptions of conflict and tolerance toward cheetahs on Namibian farmlands.
Conservation Biology , 17, 1290-1298.
Martin, E. B. (1992). The poisoning of rhinos and tigers in Nepal. Oryx , 26, 82-86.
McDougal, C. (1987). The Man-eating tiger in geographical and historical perspective. In
R. L. Tilson & U. S. Seal (Eds.), Tigers of the World: The Biology, Biopolitics,
Management and Conservation of an Endangered Species (pp. 435-488). Park
Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Publications.
Miquelle, D. G., Smirnov, E. N., Quigley, H. G., Hornocker, M. G., Niknolaev, I. G., &
Matyushkin, E. N. (1996). Food habits of Amur tigers in Sikhote-Alin
Zapovednik and the Russian Far East, and implications for conservation. Journal
of Wildlife Research , 1, 138-147.
Miquelle, D., Nikolaev, I., Goodrich, J., Litvinov, B., Smirnov, E., & Suvorov, E. (2005).
Searching for the Coexistence Recipe: a case study of conflicts between people
and tigers in the Russian Far East. In R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, & A.
Rabinowitz, (Eds.), People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? (pp. 305-322).
Cambridge University Press.
Nyhus, P. J., & Tilson, R. (2004). Characterizing human-tiger conflicts in Sumatra,
Indonesia: implications for conservation. Oryx , 38, 68-74.
Ramakrishnan, U., Coss, R. G., & Pelkey, N.W. (1999). Tiger decline caused by the
reduction of large ungulate prey: evidence from a study of leopard diets in
southern India. Biological Conservation , 89, 113- 120.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
110 Sah, J. P., & Heinen, J. T. (2001). Wetland resource use and conservation attitudes
among indigenous and migrant peoples in Ghodaghodi Lake area, Nepal.
Environmental Conservation , 28, 345-356.
Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. USA.
Sanderson, E., Forrest, J., Loucks, C., Ginsberg, J., Dinerstein, E., Seidensticker, J.,
Leimgruber, P., Songer, M., Heydlauff, A., O’Brien, T., Bryja, G., Klenzendorf,
S., & Wikramanayake, E., (2006). Setting priorities for the conservation and
recovery of wild tigers: 2005-2015. The technical assessment, Wildlife
Conservation Society, World Wildlife Fund, Smithsonian, and Save the Tiger
Fund, Washington, D.C.
Schultz, P. W. & Zelezny, L., (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes:
Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental
Psychology , 19, 255-265.
Seidensticker, J., & McDougal, C. (1993). Tiger predatory behavior, ecology and
conservation. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London , 65, 105-125.
Seidensticker, J., Christie, S., & Jackson, P. (1999). Riding the Tiger: Tiger conservation
in human-dominated landscapes (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Shrestha, R. K., & Alavalapati, J. R. R. (2006). Linking conservation and development:
an analysis of local people’s attitude towards Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve,
Nepal. Environment, Development and Sustainability , 8, 69-84.
Smirnov, E. N., & Miquelle, D. (1999). Population dynamics of the Amur tiger in
Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik, Russia. In J. Seidensticker, S. Christie & P. Jackson
111 (Eds.), Riding the Tiger: Tiger conservation in human-dominated landscapes
(pp.61-70). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Smith, J. L. D., McDougal, & C., Sunquist, M. E. (1987). Female land tenure systems in
tigers. In R. L. Tilson & U. S. Seal (Eds.), Tigers of the World: The Biology,
Biopolitics, Management and Conservation of an Endangered Species (pp. 97-
109). Park Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Publications.
Smith, J. L. D., McDougal, C., & Miquelle, D. (1989). Scent marking in free-ranging
tigers, Panthera tigris . Animal Behavior , 37, 1-10.
Smith, J. L. D., & McDougal, C. (1991). The contribution of variance in lifetime
reproduction to effective population size in tigers. Conservation Biology , 5, 484-
490.
Smith, J. L. D. (1993). The role of dispersal in structuring the Chitwan tiger population.
Behavior , 124, 165-95.
Smith, J. L. D., Ahearn, S. C., & McDougal, C. (1998). Landscape analysis of tiger
distribution and habitat quality in Nepal. Conservation Biology , 12, 1338-1346.
Sunquist, M.E. (1981). The social organization of tigers ( Panthera tigris ) in Royal
Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology , 336, 1-98.
Tilson, R., & Nyhus, P. J. (1998). Keeping problem tigers from becoming a problem
species. Conservation Biology , 12, 261-262.
Tilson, R., Defu, H., Muntifering, J., & Nyhus, P. J. (2004). Dramatic decline of wild
South China tigers Panthera tigris amoyensis : field survey of priority tiger
reserves. Oryx , 38, 40-47.
112 Treves, A., & Karanth, K. U. (2003). Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on
carnivore management worldwide. Conservation Biology , 17, 1491-1499.
Udaya Sekhar, N. (1998). Crop and livestock depredation caused by wild animals in
protected areas: the case of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India.
Environmental Conservation , 25, 160-171.
Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (1999). A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wild
land preservation voting intentions. Society & Natural Resources , 16, 523-537.
Vitterso, J., Bjerke, T., & Kaltenborn, B. P. (1999). Attitudes toward large carnivores
among sheep farmers experiencing different degrees of depredation. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife , 4, 20-35.
Wang, S. W., & MacDonald, D. W. (2006). Livestock predation by carnivores in Jigme
Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Biological Conservation , 129, 558-
565.
Wikramanayake, E., McKnight, M., Dinerstein, E., Joshi, A.R., Gurung, B., & Smith, D.,
2004. Designing a conservation landscape for tigers in human-dominated
environments. Conservation Biology , 18, 839-844.
Zimmermann, A., Walpole, M. J., & Leader-Williams, N. (2005). Cattle rancher’s
attitudes to conflicts with jaguar Panthera onca in the Pantanal of Brazil. Oryx,
39, 406- 412.
113 Table 4-1. Respondent demographic characteristics for employment, landholding,
residency, occupation and ethnicity in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, 2006.
Variables N Categories Percent Employed 400 Yes 45.3 No 54.7 Land holding (hectare) 400 0-0.25 23.5 0.26-0.50 20.3 0.51-0.75 24.0 0.76-1.00 6.5 1.01-1.25 9.3 1.26-1.50 6.3 > 1.51 10.0 Residency 400 < 20 yrs 15.3 21- 40 yrs 49.0 41-60 yrs 16.5 > 61 yrs 19.3 Occupation 400 Livestock farmer 0.8 Mixed farmer 84.8 Agriculture farmer 5.8 Non-farmer 8.8 Ethnicity 400 Tharu 21.0 Hill immigrant 79.0
114 Table 4-2. Respondents wealth scores and livestock units in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, 2006. (Wealth score allocated to each item were: tractor (3), bus or truck (4 each), jeep or oxcart (2 each), motorcycle (3) and (1) for each of the item: cycle, solar panel, biogas, hand pump, water-well, toilet, television, pressure cooker, rice cooker, cassette player and video cassette player. Livestock conversion factor: 1 buffalo = 1 LSU, 1 cow = 0.69 LSU, and 1 goat = 0.22 LSU).
Variables N Score Percent Wealth 400 No wealth 0 16.3 Poor 1-2 36.0 Low 3-4 18.5 Medium 5-6 14.0 High > 6 15.3 Livestock Standard Unit (LSU) 400 No livestock 0 8.8 Low livestock 0-1 8.8 Low medium 1-2 14.5 High medium 2-3 22.5 Medium 3-4 16.8 High Medium LSU 4-5 13.3 High LSU > 5 15.5
115 Table 4-3. Principal Component Analysis used to measure values (10 statements) of tiger in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, 2006.
Definition Factor loading Cronback’s α Value statements 0.76 Tiger is important because presence of tiger is a sign of .624 healthy forest Tiger is important because protecting tigers mean s that .604 other wildlife and habitat are also protected I would enjoy seeing tigers in the park and forests .597 I would like to learn more about tiger biology, behavior .595 and ecology I would support research on problem tiger’s behavior .535 Tiger prey such as deer should be protected from hunting .525 Tiger is important because it represents beauty and power .487 Endangered tiger have the right to exist in their natural .486 habitat Tiger attract tourists, bringing revenue to the park w hich in .480 turn provide incentives to the community There is nothing wrong when tiger kill deer in the forest .448 Eigenvalue 3.87 Percentage variances explained 20%
116 Table 4-4. Principal Component Analysis used to measure tolerance level (four statements) for tiger in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, 2006.
Definition Factor loading Cronback’s α Tolerance statements 0.87 People do not get angry at all even if many valuable .842 livestock are killed People get angry and may kill tiger if valuable livestock .839 are killed People get angry and may kill tiger if human are killed .834 People do not get angry at all even if human are killed .813 Eigenvalue 2.99 Percentage variances explained 50%
117 Table 4-5. Respondents percentage responses to value statements measured using 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree =1 to strongly agree = 5), in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, in 2006.
Value statements n Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Mean disagree agree (sd) Tiger prey such as deer should be 398 6 2 6 9 77 4.50 protected from hunting (1.09) Tiger is important because 397 5 3 6 16 70 4.44 protecting tigers other wildlife (1.07) and habitat is also protected Tiger is important because 398 2 2 12 18 66 4.43 presence of tiger is a sign of (0.94) healthy forest Tiger attract tourists bring 398 2 1 4 8 85 4.72 revenue to the park which in (0.77) turn provide incentive to the community Tiger is important because it 399 1 2 9 16 72 4.57 represent beauty and power (0.81) Endangered tiger have the right to 393 1 0 7 8 84 4.75 exist in their natural habitat (0.64) I would enjoy seeing tigers in the 393 9 4 10 18 59 4.15 park and forests (1.28) I would like to learn more about 399 9 2 12 18 59 4.15 tiger biology, behavior and (1.26) ecology I would support research on 396 2 1 7 11 79 4.66 problem tigers behavior (0.77) There is nothing wrong when tiger 399 4 3 5 9 79 4.57 kill deer in the forest (1.00)
118 Table 4-6. Respondents percentage responses to tolerance statements measured using 5- point Likert scale (strongly disagree =1 to strongly agree = 5), in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, in 2006.
Tolerance statements n Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Mean disagree agree (sd) People do not get angry at all even 398 46 18 14 6 16 2.30 if human are killed (1.49) People do not get angry at all even 398 40 22 12 8 18 2.41 if many valuable livestock are (1.50) killed People get angry and may kill 398 12 8 10 13 57 3.98 tiger if human are killed (1.45) People get angry and may kill 398 11 8 8 17 56 4.00 tiger if valuable livestock are (1.39) killed
119 Table 4-7. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on tiger value scores (range: 1 – 5; high score high value) by respondents demographic groups, in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, in 2006.
Value attitude Variables Mean score F-value P-value eta Residency 5.98 0.001 0.21 < 20 yrs 4.34 a 21-40 yrs 4.49 a 41-60 yrs 4.43 a > 61 yrs 4.70 b Occupation 0.99 0.397 0.09 Livestock farmer 4.57 Mixed farmer 4.48 Agriculture farmer 4.65 Non-farmer 4.58 Ethnicity 14.46 0.000 0.19 Hill immigrants 4.45 Tharu 4.70
Means with superscripts a are significantly different from mean with superscript b in the same variable of more than two groups at p < 0.05 (post hoc Benferroni)
120 Table 4-8. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on tiger value scores (range: 1 – 5; high score high value) by respondents resource use groups, in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, in 2006.
Value attitude Variables Mean score F-value P-value eta Grazing 12.26 0.000 0.24 Agriculture land 4.59 a Park or community forest 4.35 b Park and community forest 4.08 b Fodder cutting 10.19 0.000 0.21 Agriculture land 4.61 a Park or community forest 4.42 b Park and community forest 4.14 b Fuel-wood 22.75 0.000 0.23 Yes 4.43 No 4.72
Means with superscripts a are significantly different from mean with superscript b in the same variable of more than two groups at p < 0.05 (post hoc Benferroni)
121 Table 4-9. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on tiger value scores (range: 1 – 5; high score high value) by respondents distance from forest, in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, in 2006.
Value attitude Variables Mean score F-value P-value eta Distance 21.96 0.000 0.23 Close to forest 4.38 Far from forest 4.62
122 Table 4-10. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on tiger tolerance score (range: 1-5; high score high tolerance) by respondents demographic groups, in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, 2006.
Tolerance Variables Mean F-value P-value eta Residency 3.33 0.020 0.16 < 20 yrs 3.37 a 21-40 yrs 3.83 41-60 yrs 3.95 > 61 yrs 3.97 b Occupation 3.18 0.024 0.15 Livestock farmer 3.25 Mixed farmer 3.75 a Agriculture farmer 3.77 Non-farmer 4.41 b Ethnicity 0.79 0.374 0.05 Hill immigrants 3.78 Tharu 3.92
Means with superscripts a are significantly different from mean with superscript b in the same variable of more than two groups at p < 0.05 (post hoc Benferroni)
123 Table 4-11. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on tiger tolerance score (range: 1-5; high score high tolerance) by respondents resource use groups, in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, 2006.
Tolerance Variables Mean F-value P-value eta Grazing 11.32 0.000 0.21 Agriculture land 3.99 a Park or community forest 3.51 b Park and community forest 2.73 b Fodder cutting 7.71 0.001 0.19 Agriculture land 3.99 a Park or community forest 3.70 a Park and community forest 2.92 b Fuel-wood 26.41 0.000 0.25 Yes 3.63 No 4.35
Means with superscripts a are significantly different from mean with superscript b in the same variable of more than two groups at p < 0.05 (post hoc Benferroni)
124 Table 4-12. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on tiger tolerance score (range: 1-5; high score high value) by respondents distance from forest, in Madi Valley, Chitwan National Park, 2006.
Tolerance Variables Mean F-value P-value eta Distance 15.16 0.000 0.19 Close to forest 3.57 Far from forest 4.05
125 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackerman, B. B., Lindzey, F. G. & Hemker, T. P. (1986). Predictive energetics model for
cougars. In S. D. Miller & D. D. Everett (Eds.), Cats of the World: Biology,
Conservation, and Management (pp. 333-352). National Wildlife Federation,
Washington D. C.
Adhikari, B., Williams, F. & Lovett, J. C. (2007). Local benefits from community forests
in the middle hills of Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics, 9, 464-478.
Agrawal, A. & Gupta. K. (2005). Decentralization and Participation: The Governance of
Common Pool Resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Development, 33 (7), 1101-
1114.
Andom, G. & Omer. M. K. (2003). Traditional cattle-husbandry systems in Eritrea:
cattle-human relationships. Journal of Arid Environments, 53, 545-556.
Arjunan, M., Holmes, C., Puyravaud, J., & Davidar, P. (2006). Do developmental
initiatives influence local attitudes toward conservation? A case study from the
Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental
Management , 79, 188-197.
Ashcraft, M. H. (1994). Human memory and cognition. Second edition, Harper Collins,
New York, New York.
Betsch, T., Plessner, H., Schwieren, C., & Gutig, R. (2001). Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin , 27, 242-253.
Bjonness, I. M. (1980). Animal husbandry and grazing, a conservation and management
problem in Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Nepal. Norsk geogr. Tidsskr.,
34, 59-76.
126 Bookbinder, M. P., Dinerstein, E., Rijal, A., Cauley, H. & Rajouria, A. (1998).
Ecotourism’s support of biodiversity Conservation. Conservation Biology, 12 (6),
1399-1404.
Boomgaard, P. (2001). Frontiers of fear: Tigers and people in the Malay World, 1600-
1950. Yale University Press, New Haven & London.
Brandon, K. E., & Wells. M. (1992). Planning for People and Parks: Design dilemmas.
World Development, 20 (4), 557-570.
Brower, B. (1990). Range conservation and Sherpa livestock management in Khumbhu,
Nepal. Mountain Research and Development, 10(1), 34-42.
Budhathoki, P. (2003). A category V protected landscape approach to buffer zone
management in Nepal. Parks, 13, 22-30.
Budhathoki, P. (2004). Linking communities with conservation in developing countries:
buffer zone management initiatives in Nepal. Oryx , 38, 334-341.
Caro, T. M., Pelkey, N., & Grigione, M. (1994). Effects of conservation biology
education on attitudes towards nature. Conservation Biology , 8, 846-852.
CITES, (2005). CITES Handbook Manual Guide. Cites Secretariat, International
Environment House, Geneva, Switzerland.
Chundawat, R. S., Gogate, N., & Johnsingh, A. T. (1999). Tigers in Panna: preliminary
results from an Indian tropical dry forest. In J. Seidensticker, S. Christie & P.
Jackson (Eds.), Riding the Tiger: Tiger conservation in human-dominated
landscapes (pp. 123-129). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
127 Conforti, V. A., & Azevedo, F. C. C. (2003). Local perceptions of jaguars ( Panthera
onca ) and pumas ( Puma concolor ) in Iguacu National Park area, south Brazil.
Biological Conservation , 111, 215-221.
Corbett, J. (2005). The Jim Corbett Omnibus . Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Corlett, R. T. (2007). The impact of Hunting on the Mammalian Fauna of Tropical Asian
Forests. Biotropica, 39, 292-303.
DDC Chitwan. (2002). District profile of Chitwan. District Development Committee,
Chitwan. Information and Resource Archive Center, Chitwan, Nepal.
Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C., Heydlauff, A., Wikramanayake, E., Bryja, G., Forrest, J.,
Ginsberg, J., Klenzendort, S., Leimgrubber, P., O’Brien, T., Sanderson, E.,
Seidensticker, J. & Songer, M. (2006). Setting Priorities for the Conservation and
Recovery of Wild Tigers: 2005-2015. A User’s Guide. WWF, WCS, Smithsonian,
and NFWF-STF, Washington, D.C.-New York.
Dinerstein, E., Loucks, C., Wikramanayake, E., Ginsberg, J., Sanderson, E.,
Seidensticker, J., Forrest, J., Bryya, G., Heydlauff, A., Klenzendorf, S.,
Leimgruber, P., Mills, J., O’Brien, T. G., Shrestha, M., Simons, R., & Songer, M.
(2007). The fate of wild tigers. BioScience , 57, 508-514.
DNPWC (1999). Tiger conservation action plan for the Kingdom of Nepal. WWF Nepal
Program, Kathmandu.
DNPWC & PPP (2000). Royal Chitwan National Park and Buffer Zone, Resource
Profile. Babar Mahal. Kathamandu. Nepal.
128 DNPWC / MFSC / GoN (2007). Tiger Conservation Action Plan for Nepal. Government
of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Department of National
Parks and Wildlife Conservation. Kathmandu.
Duncan, A. J., Rahman, A., Miller, D. W., Frutos, P., Gordon, I. J., Rehman, A., Baig, A.,
Ali, F. & Wright, I. A. (2006). Transhumance livestock production in the
Northern Areas of Pakistan: Nutritional inputs and productive outputs.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 117, 195-204.
FAO. (2005). FAOSTAT data. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intension and behavior: an introduction
to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
Fishbein, M. & Middlestadt, S. (1995). Noncognitive effects on attitude formation and
change: Fact or Artifact? Journal of Consumer Psychology , 4, 181-202.
Frank, L., Cotterill, A., Dolrenty, S., Ekwanga, S., Hazzah, L., Howard, A. & Maclennan,
S. (2007). Living with lions. Annual Report, 15 October 2007, Lakipia predator
project, Kilimanjaro lion conservation project.
Fulton, D. C., Manfredo, M. J., & Lipscomb, J. (1996). Wildlife value orientations: A
conceptual and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife , 1, 24-47.
Gurung, B., Smith, J.D., & Shrestha, M. (2006). Using “Bagh Heralu” network to map
the metapopulation structure of tigers in Nepal. In McNeely, J., T. McCarthy, A.
Smith, L. Whittaker, & E. Wikramanayake (Eds.), Conservation Biology in Asia
(pp. 214-232. Resource Himalaya.
129 Gurung, C. P. (1995). People and their participation: New approaches to resolving
conflicts and promoting cooperation. In J. A. McNeely (Ed.), Partnership for
Conservation: An Introduction (pp 223-233). Island Press, Washington DC.
Gurung, K.K. (1983). Heart of the Jungle. Andre Deutsch, London.
Hackel, J. D. (1998). Community conservation and the future of Africa’s wildlife.
Conservation Biology, 13(4), 726-734.
Halder, N. K. (2005). A study on tiger-human conflicts in the Sunderban Reserve Forest
(Bangladesh). Tiger Paper , 32, 8-13.
Hazzah, L. (2006). Living Among Lions ( Panthera leo ): Coexistence or Killing?
Community attitudes towards conservation initiatives and the motivations behind
lion killing in Kenyan Masailand. M.S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, pp. 140.
Heinen, J. T. (1993). Park- People relation in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal.
Environmental Conservation, 20 (1), 25-34.
Heinen, J. T., & Mehta, J. N. (2000). Emerging Issues in Legal and procedural aspects of
buffer zone management with case studies from Nepal. Journal of Environmental
& Development , 9, 45-67.
Heinen, J. T. & Shrestha, S. K. (2006). Evolving Policies for Conservation: An Historical
Profile of the Protected Area System of Nepal. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, 49 (1), 41-58.
Hendrichs, H. (1975). The status of the tiger Panthera tigris (Linne, 1758) in the
Sundarbans Mangrove Forest (Bay of Bengal). Saugetierkundliche Mitteilungen ,
23, 161-199.
130 HMG/Nepal. (1988). Master plan for forestry sector Nepal: Main report. Master Plan for
Forestry Sector Project of His Majesty’s Government of Nepal, Asian
Development Bank, FINNIDA, Kathmandu, Nepal.
HMG/Nepal. (1996). Buffer Zone Management Regulation. His Majesty’s Government
of Nepal, Ministry of Forestry, Kathmandu, Nepal.
HMGN / MFSC (2004). Terai Arc Landscape-Nepal Strategic Plan (2004-2014), Broad
Strategy Document. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Planning and
Human Resource Development Division, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Holmern, T., Nyahongo, J. & Roskaft, E. (2007). Livestock loss caused by predators
outside the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Biological Conservation, 135, 518-
526.
Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-
behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 54, 638-646.
Jacobson, S. K. (1990). Graduate education in Conservation Biology. Conservation
Biology , 4, 431-440.
Jenness, J. (2007). Nearest feature (nearfeat.avx) extension for Arc View 3.x, 3.8b.
Jenness Enterprises.
Johnsingh, A. J., & Negi, A. S. (2003). Status of tiger and leopard in Rajaji-Corbett
Conservation Unit, northern India. Biological Conservation , 111, 385-393.
Joshi, A., Dinerstein, E., & Smith, J. L. D. (2002). The Terai Arc: Managing tigers and
other wildlife as metapopulations. In E. Wikramanayake, E. Dinerstein, C. J.
Loucks, D. M. Olson, J. Morrison, J. Lamoreux, M. McKnight, & P. Hedao,
131 (Eds.), Terrestrial Ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific: A conservation assessment (pp.
178-181). Island Press.
Joshi, S. (1999). A socio-economic analysis of residents in the buffer zone of Royal
Chitwan National Park, Nepal. MS thesis submitted to University of Minnesota,
USA.
Karanth, K. U. & Sunquist, M. E. (1995). Prey selection by tiger, leopard and dhole in
tropical forests. Journal of Animal Ecology, 64, 439-450.
Karanth, K. U. & Nichols, J. D. (1998). Estimating tiger densities in India from camera
trap data using photographic captures and recaptures. Ecology , 79, 2852-2862.
Karanth, K. U. & Stith, B. M. (1999). Prey depletion as a critical determinant of tiger
population viability. In J. Seidensticker, S. Christie & P. Jackson (Eds.), Riding
the tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-dominated Landscapes (pp. 316-332).
Cambridge University Press.
Karanth, K. U., & Sunquist, M. E. (2000). Behavioral correlates of predation by tiger
(Panthera tigris), leopard ( Panthera pardus ) and dhole ( Cuon alpinus ) in
Nagarhole, India. Journal of Zoology , 250, 255-265.
Karanth, K. U., & Madhusudan, M. D. (2002). Mitigating human-wildlife conflicts in
southern Asia. In J. Terborgh, C. P. Van Schaik, L. Devenport, & M. Rao, (Eds.),
Making Parks Work: Identifying key factors to implementing parks in the tropic
(pp. 250-264). Island Press.
Karanth, K. U., Nichols, J. D., Kumar, N. S., Link, W. A. & Hines, J. E. (2004). Tigers
and their prey: Predicting carnivore densities from prey abundance. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA , 101, 4854-4858.
132 Kautz, R., Kawula, R., Hoctor, T., Comiskey, J., Jansen, D., Jennings, D., Kasbohm, J.,
Mazzotti, F., McBride, R., Richardson, L. & Root, K. (2006). How much is
enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological
Conservation, 130, 118-133.
Kellert, S.R. (1985). Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote.
Biological Conservation , 31, 167-189.
Kellert, S. R., & Berry, J. K. (1987). Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife
as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin , 15, 363- 371.
Kenney, J. S., Smith, J. L. D., Starfield, A. M., & McDougal, C. (1995). The long-term
effects of tiger poaching on population viability. Conservation Biology , 9, 1127-
1133.
Khan, M. A. R. (1987). The Problem Tiger of Bangladesh. In R. L. Tilson & U. S. Seal
(Eds.), Tigers of the World: The Biology, Biopolitics, Management and
Conservation of an Endangered Species (pp. 92-96). Park Ridge, New Jersey,
Noyes Publications.
Kolowski, J. M., & Holekamp, K. E. (2006). Spatial, temporal, and physical
characteristics of livestock depredation by large carnivores along a Kenyan
reserve border. Biological Conservation, 128, 529-541.
Kremen, C., Merenhender, A. M. & Murphy, D.D. (1994). Ecological Monitoring: A
vital need for Integrated Conservation and Development Programs in the Tropics.
Conservation Biology, 8 (2), 388-397.
133 Lehmkuhl, J. F., Upretti, R. K. & Sharma, U. R. (1988). National Parks and local
development: Grass and people in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal.
Environmental Conservation, 15, 143-148.
Lewis, D., Kaweche, G. E., & Mwenya, A. (1990). Wildlife conservation outside
protected areas – lessons from an experiment in Zambia. Conservation Biology , 4,
171-180.
Lewis, M. (2003). Cattle and conservation at Bharatpur: A case study in science and
advocacy. Conservation and Society , 1, 1-21.
Linkie, M., Martyr, D. J., Holden, J., Yanuar, A., Hartana, A. T., Sugardjito, J. & Leader-
Williams, N. (2003). Habitat destruction and poaching threaten the Sumatran tiger
in Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra. Oryx , 37, 41-48.
Linkie, M. & Christie, S. (2007). The value of wild tiger conservation. Oryx, 41, 415-
416.
Madhusudan, M. D. (2003). Living amidst large wildlife: Livestock and crop depredation
by large mammals in the interior villages of Bhadra Tiger Reserve, South India.
Environmental Management , 31, 466-475.
Maehr, D. S. & Lacy, R. C. (2002). Avoiding the lurking pitfalls in Florida panther
recovery. Wildlife Society Bulletin , 30, 971-978.
Majupuria, T. C. & Majupuria, R. K. (1998). Wildlife, National Parks and Reserves of
Nepal: Resources and Management. Tec press Books, Bangkok.
Mandal, A. B., Paul, S. S. & Pathak, N. N. (2003). Nutrient requirements and feeding of
buffaloes and cattle. International Book Distributing Co. Lucknow, India.
134 Manfredo, M. J., Pierce, C. L., Fulton, D., Pate, J., & Gill. B. R. (1999). Public
acceptance of wildlife trapping in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin , 27, 499-
508.
Marcus, R. R. (2001). Seeing the forest for the trees: Integrated conservation and
development projects and local perception of conservation in Madagascar. Human
Ecology, 29 (4), 381-397.
Marker, L. L., Mills, M. G. L., & MacDonald, D. W. (2003). Factors influencing
perceptions of conflict and tolerance toward cheetahs on Namibian farmlands.
Conservation Biology , 17, 1290-1298.
Martin, E. B. (1992). The poisoning of rhinos and tigers in Nepal. Oryx , 26, 82-86.
McDougal, C. (1977). The Face of the Tiger. Rivington Books / Andre’ Deutsch, London
W. C. 1.
McDougal, C. (1987). The Man-eating tiger in geographical and historical perspective. In
R. L. Tilson & U. S. Seal (Eds.), Tigers of the World: The Biology, Biopolitics,
Management and Conservation of an Endangered Species (pp. 435-488). Park
Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Publications.
McDougal, C. (1999). You can tell some tigers by their tracks with confidence. In J.
Seidensticker, S. Christie & P. Jackson (Eds.), Riding the tiger: Tiger
Conservation in Human-dominated Landscapes (pp. 190-191). Cambridge
University Press.
McDougal, C., Barlow, A., Thapa, D., Kumal, S., & Tamang, D. B. (2005). Tiger and human conflict increase in Chitwan Reserve Buffer Zone, Nepal. Cat News , 40, 3- 4.
135 McNeely, J. A. (1988). Economics and biological diversity: Developing and using economics incentives to conserve biological resources. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland. Mech, L. D. (1995). The Challenge and Opportunity of Recovering Wolf Populations.
Conservation Biology, 9, 270-278.
Miquelle, D. G., Smirnov, E. N., Quigley, H. G., Hornocker, M. G., Niknolaev, I. G., &
Matyushkin, E. N. (1996). Food habits of Amur tigers in Sikhote-Alin
Zapovednik and the Russian Far East, and implications for conservation. Journal
of Wildlife Research , 1, 138-147.
Miquelle, D., Nikolaev, I., Goodrich, J., Litvinov, B., Smirnov, E., & Suvorov, E. (2005).
Searching for the Coexistence Recipe: a case study of conflicts between people
and tigers in the Russian Far East. In R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, & A.
Rabinowitz, (Eds.), People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? (pp. 305-322).
Cambridge University Press.
Mishra, C. (1997). Livestock depredation by large carnivores in the Indian Trans-
Himalayan: conflict perceptions and conservation prospects. Environmental
Conservation, 24, 338-343.
Mishra, C., Prins, H. T. & Van Wieren, S. E. (2003). Diversity, Risk Mediation, and
Change in a Trans-Himalayan Agro pastoral System. Human Ecology, 31 (4),
595-609.
Mishra, H. R. (1982). Balancing human needs and conservation in Nepal’s Royal
Chitwan National Park. Ambio, 11, 246-51.
Mishra, H. R. (1984). A delicate balance: Tigers, rhinoceros, tourists and park
management vs. the needs of local people in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. 136 In J. A. McNeely & K. R. Miller (Eds), National Parks, conservation &
development: The role of protected areas in sustaining society, (pp. 197-205).
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.
MoFSC/DNPWC. (2000). Royal Chitwan National Park and Buffer Zone: Management
Plan (2001-2005). Department of National Parks and Conservation, Park and
People Project, UNDP, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Nanda, A. S., & Nakao, T. (2003). Role of buffalo in the socioeconomic development of
rural Asia: Current status and future prospectus. Animal Science Journal, 74, 443-
455.
Nautiyal, S., Rao, K. S., Maikhuri, R. K. & Saxena, K. P. (2003). Transhumant
pastoralism in the Nanda Devi biosphere reserve, India: A case study in the buffer
zone. Mountain Research and Development, 23 (3), 255-262.
Neiburger, E. J. & Patterson, B. D. (2000). The man-eaters with bad teeth. New York
State Dental Journal, 66, 26-29.
Nepal, S. K. & Weber, K. E. (1995). The quandary of local people-park relations in
Nepal’s Royal Chitwan National Park. Environmental Management, 19 (6), 853-
866.
Nyhus, P. J., & Tilson, R. (2004). Characterizing human-tiger conflicts in Sumatra,
Indonesia: implications for conservation. Oryx , 38, 68-74.
Oli, M. K., Taylor, I. R. & Rogers, M. E. (1994). Snow Leopard Panthera uncia
predation of livestock: an assessment of local perceptions in the Annapurna
Conservation Area, Nepal. Biological Conservation, 68, 63-68.
137 Packer, C., Ikanda, D., Kissui, B. & Hadas, K. (2005). Lion Attacks on Humans in
Tanzania. Nature, 436, 927-928.
Packer, C., Ikanda, D., Kissui, B. & Hadas, K. (2007). The ecology of man-eating lions in
Tanzania. Nature and Faune , 21, 10-15.
Patterson, B. D., Kasiki, S. M., Selempo, E. & Kays, R. W. (2004). Livestock predation
by lions ( Panthera leo ) and other carnivores on ranches neighboring Tsavo
National Parks, Kenya. Biological Conservation , 119, 507-516.
Peterhans, J. C. K. & Gnoske, T. P. (2001). The science of ‘man-eating’ among lions
Panthera leo with a reconstruction of the natural history of the ‘man-eaters of
Tsavo’. Journal of East African Natural History, 90, 1 - 40.
Pingali, P. L. (1997). From subsistence to Commercial Production Systems: The
Transformation of Asian Agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 79 (2), 628-634.
Ramakrishnan, U., Coss, R. G., & Pelkey, N.W. (1999). Tiger decline caused by the
reduction of large ungulate prey: evidence from a study of leopard diets in
southern India. Biological Conservation, 89, 113- 120.
Ranganathan, J., Chan, K. M. A., Karanth, K. U. & Smith, J. L. D. (2008). Where can
tigers persist in the future? A landscape-scale, density-based population model for
the Indian subcontinent. Biological Conservation , 141, 67-77.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
Saberwal, V. K. (1996). Pastoral Politics: Gaddi Grazing, degradation, and Biodiversity
Conservation in Himachal Pradesh, India. Conservation Biology, 10(3), 741-749.
138 Sah, J. P., & Heinen, J. T. (2001). Wetland resource use and conservation attitudes
among indigenous and migrant peoples in Ghodaghodi Lake area, Nepal.
Environmental Conservation , 28, 345-356.
Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. USA.
Sanderson, E., Forrest, J., Loucks, C., Ginsberg, J., Dinerstein, E., Seidensticker, J.,
Leimgruber, P., Songer, M., Heydlauff, A., O’Brien, T., Bryja, G., Klenzendorf,
S., & Wikramanayake, E., (2006). Setting priorities for the conservation and
recovery of wild tigers: 2005-2015. The technical assessment, Wildlife
Conservation Society, World Wildlife Fund, Smithsonian, and Save the Tiger
Fund, Washington, D.C.
Schultz, P. W. & Zelezny, L., (1999). Values as predictors of environmental attitudes:
Evidence for consistency across 14 countries. Journal of Environmental
Psychology , 19, 255-265.
Sebastian, L., Mudgal, V. D. & Nair, P. G. (1970). Comparative efficiency of milk
production by Sahiwal cattle and Murrah buffalo. Journal of Animal Science, 30,
253-256.
Seidensticker, J. (1976). Ungulate population in Chitwan Valley, Nepal. Biological
Conservation, 10, 183-210.
Seidensticker, J. (1987). Bearing Witness: Observations on the Extinction of Panthera
tigris balica and Panthera tigris sondaica . In R. L. Tilson & U. S. Seal (Eds.),
Tigers of the World: The Biology, Biopolitics, Management and Conservation of
an Endangered Species (pp. 1-8). Park Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Publications.
139 Seidensticker, J., & McDougal, C. (1993). Tiger predatory behavior, ecology and
conservation. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London , 65, 105-125.
Seidensticker, J., Christie, S., & Jackson, P. (1999). Riding the Tiger: Tiger conservation
in human-dominated landscapes (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sharma, U. R. (1990). An overview of park people interactions in Royal Chitwan
National Park, Nepal. Landscape and Urban Planning, 19, 133-144.
Sharma, U. R. & Shaw, W. W. (1993). Role of Nepal’s Royal Chitwan National Park in
Meeting the Grazing and Fodder Needs of Local People. Environmental
Conservation, 20, 139-142.
Shivakoti, G. P., Axinn, W. G., Bhandari, P. & Chhetri, N. (1999). The impact of
community context on land use in an agricultural society. Population and
Environment, 20, 191-213.
Shrestha, M. K. (2004). Relative ungulate abundance in fragmented landscape:
Implications for tiger conservation. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Minnesota.
Shrestha, R. K., & Alavalapati, J. R. R. (2006). Linking conservation and development:
an analysis of local people’s attitude towards Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve,
Nepal. Environment, Development and Sustainability , 8, 69-84.
Silori, C. S. & Mishra, B. K. (2001). Assessment of livestock grazing pressure in and
around the elephant corridors in Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, south India.
Biodiversity and Conservation, 10, 2181-2195.
Singh, A. (1993). The Legend of the Man-eater. Ravi Dayal Publisher, pp. 169.
Smirnov, E. N., & Miquelle, D. (1999). Population dynamics of the Amur tiger in
Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik, Russia. In J. Seidensticker, S. Christie & P. Jackson
140 (Eds.), Riding the Tiger: Tiger conservation in human-dominated landscapes
(pp.61-70). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Smith, J. L. D. (1984). Dispersal communication and conservation strategies for the tiger
(Panthera tigris ) in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Ph.D. thesis. University
of Minnesota, USA.
Smith, J. L. D., McDougal, & C., Sunquist, M. E. (1987). Female land tenure systems in
tigers. In R. L. Tilson & U. S. Seal (Eds.), Tigers of the World: The Biology,
Biopolitics, Management and Conservation of an Endangered Species (pp. 97-
109). Park Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Publications.
Smith, J. L. D., McDougal, C., & Miquelle, D. (1989). Scent marking in free-ranging
tigers, Panthera tigris . Animal Behavior , 37, 1-10.
Smith, J. L. D., & McDougal, C. (1991). The contribution of variance in lifetime
reproduction to effective population size in tigers. Conservation Biology , 5, 484-
490.
Smith, J. L. D. (1993). The role of dispersal in structuring the Chitwan tiger population.
Behavior , 124, 165-95.
Smith, J. L. D., Ahearn, S. C., & McDougal, C. (1998). Landscape analysis of tiger
distribution and habitat quality in Nepal. Conservation Biology , 12, 1338-1346.
Smith, J. L. D., McDougal, C., Ahearn, S.C., Joshi, A. & Conforti, K. (1999).
Metapopulation structure of tigers in Nepal. In J. Seidensticker, S. Christie & P.
Jackson (Eds.), Riding the tiger: Tiger Conservation in Human-dominated
Landscapes (pp. 176-189). Cambridge University Press.
Smythies, E. A. (1942). Big Game Shooting in Nepal. Thacker, Spink and Co. Ltd.
141 Straede, S., Nebel, G. & Rijal, A. (2002). Structure and floristic composition of
community forests and their compatibility with villager’s traditional needs for
forest products. Biodiversity and Conservation, 11, 487-508.
Studsrod, J. E. & Wegge, P. (1995). Park-People Relationship: The case of damage
caused by park animals around the Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal.
Environment Conservation, 22 (2), 133-142.
Sunquist, M.E. (1979). The movements and activities of tigers ( Panthera tigris tigris ) in
Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Ph.D. thesis. University of Minnesota,
USA.
Sunquist, M.E. (1981). The social organization of tigers ( Panthera tigris ) in Royal
Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology , 336, 1-98.
Tamang, K. M. (1982). The status of the tiger ( Panthera tigris ) and its impact on
principal prey populations in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Ph.D. thesis.
East Lansing, Michigan State University, USA.
Thapa, G. B. & Paudel, G. S. (2000). Evaluation of the livestock carrying capacity of
land resources in the Hills of Nepal based on total digestive nutrient analysis.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 78, 223-235.
Thomas-Slayter, B. & Bhatt, N. (1994). Land, Livestock, and Livelihoods: Changing
Dynamics of Gender, Caste, and Ethnicity in Nepalese Village. Human Ecology,
22 (4), 467-494.
Tilson, R., & Nyhus, P. J. (1998). Keeping problem tigers from becoming a problem
species. Conservation Biology , 12, 261-262.
142 Tilson, R., Defu, H., Muntifering, J., & Nyhus, P. J. (2004). Dramatic decline of wild
South China tigers Panthera tigris amoyensis : field survey of priority tiger
reserves. Oryx , 38, 40-47.
Treves, A. & Naughton-Treves, L. (1999). Risk and opportunity for humans coexisting
with large carnivores. Journal of Human Evolution , 36, 275-282.
Treves, A., Jurewicz, R. R., Naughton-Treves, L., Rose, R. A., Willging, R. C. &
Wydeven, A. P. (2002). Wolf depredation on domestic animals in Wisconsin,
1976-2000. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 30, 231-241.
Treves, A., & Karanth, K. U. (2003). Human-carnivore conflict and perspectives on
carnivore management worldwide. Conservation Biology , 17, 1491-1499.
Tulachan, P. M. (2001). Mountain Agriculture in the Hindu Kush-Himalaya: A Regional
Comparative Analysis. Mountain Research and Development, 21 (3), 260-267.
Udaya Sekhar, N. (1998). Crop and livestock depredation caused by wild animals in
protected areas: the case of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India.
Environmental Conservation , 25, 160-171.
Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (1999). A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wild
land preservation voting intentions. Society & Natural Resources , 16, 523-537.
Vitterso, J., Bjerke, T., & Kaltenborn, B. P. (1999). Attitudes toward large carnivores
among sheep farmers experiencing different degrees of depredation. Human
Dimensions of Wildlife , 4, 20-35.
Wang, S. W., & MacDonald, D. W. (2006). Livestock predation by carnivores in Jigme
Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Biological Conservation , 129, 558-
565.
143 Western, D. (1982). Amboseli National Park: enlisting landowners to conserve migratory
wildlife. Ambio, 11, 302-8.
Wikramanayake, E. D., Dinerstein, E., Robinoson, G., Karanth, K. U., Rabinowitz, A. R.,
Olson, D., Matthew, T., Hedao, P., Connor, M., Hemley, G. & Bolze, D. (1998).
An ecology-based method of defining priorities for large mammal conservation:
the tiger as case study. Conservation Biology , 12, 865-878.
Wikramanayake, E., McKnight, M., Dinerstein, E., Joshi, A.R., Gurung, B., & Smith, D.,
2004. Designing a conservation landscape for tigers in human-dominated
environments. Conservation Biology , 18, 839-844.
World Conservation Union. (1980). World conservation strategy: living resource
conservation for sustainable development. Gland, Switzerland.
Woodroffe, R. & Ginsberg, J. R. (1998). Edge effects and the extinction of populations
inside protected areas. Science , 280, 2126-2129.
Woodroffe, R., Lindsey, P., Romanach, S., Stein, A. & ole Ranah, S. M. K. (2005).
Livestock predation by endangered African wild dogs ( Lycaon pictus ) in northern
Kenya. Biological Conservation , 124, 225-234.
WWF (2002). Terai Arc Landscape-Nepal: Annual Technical Progress Report, WWF
Nepal Program, Kathmandu.
Zimmermann, A., Walpole, M. J., & Leader-Williams, N. (2005). Cattle rancher’s
attitudes to conflicts with jaguar Panthera onca in the Pantanal of Brazil. Oryx,
39, 406- 412.
144