HUMAN-WILD MAMMAL CONFLICT IN A HUMAN DOMINATED MIDHILL LANDSCAPE: A CASE STUDY FROM PANCHASE AREA IN CHITWAN ANNAPURNA LANDSCAPE, NEPAL

Abstract

Issues of human wildlife conflict (HWC) always challenges in conservation and management. Crop raiding, property damage, livestock depredation and human casualties are the most common forms of conflict. It was investigated the issues of human wild mammal conflict in and around the Panchase area in Chitwan Annapurna Landscape of Nepal from March 2017 to April 2018 using semi-structured questionnaires and focal group discussion. Wide spread human wildlife conflict was observed in Panchase area. Monkey, muntjac deer, porcupine and rabbit were the main crop raider that resulted in total economic loss of US29.56perhousehold(HH).OveralleconomiclossbylivestockdepredationwasestimatedUS 29.56 per household (HH). Overall economic loss by livestock depredation was estimated US 11254.54 (US$ 112.54/HH). Leopard contributed to the highest cases of livestock depredation. A total of five human attack cases were recorded including one fatal and four injuries. Himalayan black bear contributed to 80 % of the total attacks and 20 % by leopards. Present study focused on the issues and status of conflicts in the Panchase area, a representative of midhills and Chitwan Annapurana Landscape. This study suggests that future study related to mitigation and preventing methods should be conducted to minimize the issues of human wildlife conflicts.

Full text

Journal of Institute of Science and Technology 2018, 23:30-38
ISSN: 2469-9062 (print), 2467-9240 (e)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/jist.v23i1.22158
© IOST, Tribhuvan University
Research Article
HUMAN-WILD MAMMAL CONFLICT IN A HUMAN DOMINATED MIDHILL
LANDSCAPE: A CASE STUDY FROM PANCHASE AREA IN CHITWAN ANNAPURNA
LANDSCAPE, NEPAL
Jagan Nath Adhikari1,2, Bishnu Prasad Bhattarai1*, Tej Bahadur Thapa1
1 Central Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal
2Department of Zoology, Birendra Multiple Campus, Tribhuvan University, Chitwan
*Corresponding author: bpbhattarai@cdztu.edu.np; bhattaraibp@gmail.com
(Received: September 11, 2018; Revised: December 6, 2018; Accepted: December 8, 2018)
ABSTRACT
Issues of human wildlife conflict (HWC) always challenges in conservation and management. Crop raiding, property
damage, livestock depredation and human casualties are the most common forms of conflict. It was investigated the
issues of human wild mammal conflict in and around the Panchase area in Chitwan Annapurna Landscape of Nepal from
March 2017 to April 2018 using semi-structured questionnaires and focal group discussion. Wide spread human wildlife
conflict was observed in Panchase area. Monkey, muntjac deer, porcupine and rabbit were the main crop raider that
resulted in total economic loss of US$ 29.56 per household (HH). Overall economic loss by livestock depredation was
estimated US$ 11254.54 (US$ 112.54/HH). Leopard contributed to the highest cases of livestock depredation. A total of
five human attack cases were recorded including one fatal and four injuries. Himalayan black bear contributed to 80 % of
the total attacks and 20 % by leopards. Present study focused on the issues and status of conflicts in the Panchase area, a
representative of midhills and Chitwan Annapurana Landscape. This study suggests that future study related to mitigation
and preventing methods should be conducted to minimize the issues of human wildlife conflicts.
Keywords: Human wildlife conflict, Panchase, Livestock depredation, Household, Leopard
INTRODUCTION
The history of human wildlife conflict (HWC) is as old as
the existence of human beings on the earth. HWC is a
common phenomenon from the past and has become a
significant problem throughout the world (Redpath et al.
2015). Most common forms of conflicts with wildlife are
crop raiding, property damage, livestock depredation and
human casualties (Ogutu et al. 2014). Human casualties
and livestock depredation are the most serious nature of
conflict among all. The major governing factors of habitat
loss, degradation and fragmentation through human
activities are animal husbandry, agricultural expansion,
exploitation of natural resources and developmental
activities (Fernando et al. 2005). Most of the developed
and developing countries are facing the issues of HWC
(Ogutu et al. 2014). However, it is more in developing
countries than developed countries as the rural population
of developing countries depend upon the animal
husbandry and crop for their livelihoods (Cromsigt et al.
2013). HWC results in negative impact on human or their
resources and wildlife or their natural habitat and it carries
great threats to the survival of many wildlife species
(Madden & McQuinn 2014, Amaja et al. 2016). Crop and
property damage, livestock depredation, and human injury
and casualty are common effects of HWC resulting in
huge economic losses that make people to migrate from
wildlife-conflict areas to non-conflict areas. HWCs also
bring numerous social, economic and ecological
consequences (Messmer 2009). The number and type of
damage caused by wildlife varies according to the species,
the time of year, and the availability of natural prey and
crop raiding species (Mwamidi et al. 2018).
In Nepal, HWC is a major problem in most of the
protected areas and national forests or even in the
community forest areas (Lamsal 2012). The frequency
and intensity of HWC in Nepal mostly arise from crop
damage, livestock depredation, human injuries and
casualties caused by wildlife, illegal logging, livestock
grazing, fodder collection, medicinal plant collections,
poaching and poor relations between local people and
protection units (Lamsal 2012, Lamichhane et al. 2018).
The main wildlife species involve in the HWC in the
lowland of central Himalaya (e.g., in the buffer zones and
surrounding areas of the Chitwan National Park) are the
large mammals such as Asian elephant (Elephas
maximus Linnaeus, 1758 ), one-horned rhinoceros
(Rhinoceros unicornis Linnaeus, 1758), wild boar (Sus
scrofa Linnaeus, 1758) and Bengal tiger (Panthera
tigris Linnaeus, 1758) (Dhungana et al. 2016,
Lamichhane et al. 2018). Crop depredation by monkeys,
muntjac deer, wild boar, Himalayan black bear, livestock
depredation by common leopard and human injuries and
casualties by leopard and Himalayan black bear is
considered to be the most ubiquitous form of conflict in
mid-hills of Nepal (Dhungana et al. 2016).
Most of the study about human wildlife conflicts was
focused in and around the protected areas. The
government and even the researcher give more priorities

Jagan Nath Adhikari, Bishnu Prasad Bhattarai, Tej Bahadur Thapa
31
in protected areas than national forest and community
forest areas. People in mid-hills are also facing the
problems of HWCs. The extant of human wildlife conflict
is mainly caused by wild mammals in many parts of
Nepal including Terai, mid-hills and high mountain areas.
Hence, this study was focused on the human wild
mammal conflicts (HWMC) in the Panchase area, a
representative landscape in Chitwan Annapurna
Landscape. This paper analyzed the data on human-
wildlife conflicts collected from the field within the
duration of one year (2017April to 2018 June) via
questionnaires, focal group discussion and key informant
interview. The objectives of this study are to (1) explore
the crop raiding and damage by herbivores, (2) determine
the livestock depredation, (3) identify the human injury
and casualties, and (4) determine the human wild mammal
conflict hotspots. Such information provides the
guidelines for the conservation and management of the
forest outside the protected areas and helps to minimize
the conflicts issues in and around Panchase area.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area
Panchase protected forest area (PPF) is rich in
biodiversity and has high biodiversity value in the region
as depicted in Fig. 1. The Panchase area (27.91 km2)
covers some parts of Pokhara-Lekhnath Metropolitan city
and Annapurna rural municipality of Kaski, Kushma
municipality and Modi rural municipality of Parbat
district and Adhikhola rural municipality of Syangja
district (Bhattarai et al. 2011). The PPF has been declared
as a 'Protected Forest', under the article 23 of the Forest
Act 2002 by recognizing its rich biodiversity, forest
resources as well as cultural and spiritual values on 27
February 2011(Baral et al. 2017). The mean maximum
and minimum temperature of PPF area are 29 °C and 5.3
°C, respectively. The coldest month is January with the
minimum temperature 4 °C or below. On average,
Panchase area receives 3883 mm of rainfall every year
(Park & Alam 2015, Adhikari et al. 2018a).
Fig. 1. Map of study area showing Panchase Protected Forest (highlighted area) and adjoining areas
The terrestrial ecosystem of PPF and its slopes on all
directions consists of different land use types such as
forest grazing and agricultural land. Human settlements in
the area are located in the sloppy hills and valleys. Forest
starts from 1,450 m to 2,517 m altitude with sub-tropical
to temperate mixed evergreen forest. Rhododendron and
oak were the dominant species in the forests which is now
replaced by Rakchan (Daphniphyllum himalense), which
indicates the degraded condition of the forest (Mȧren et
al. 2014, Thapa 2014). Panchase is the home of reported
589 flowering plant species including 94 orchid species,
24 mammal species and 260 bird species (Adhikari et al.
2017, Baral et al. 2017). Major villages around Panchase
area are Sidhane, Bhanjyang, Pumdi Bhumdi, Arthar
Dada Kharka, Bhadaure Tamagi, Damdame and Virmathi.
The main income sources of the villagers are agriculture,

Human-wild mammal conflict in a human dominated midhill landscape: a case study ….
32
animal husbandry, tourism and remittance. In terms of
demographic distribution, Gurung are the most dominant
ethnic group in Kaski and Parbat districts, while the
population of Brahmin and Chhetri are more in Syangja
district.
Study design
Based on preliminary survey (March-April, 2017), major
resident areas in and around the Panchase such as Sidhane
(Kaski), Bhanjyang (Kaski), Pumdi Bhumdi (Kaski),
Bhadaure and Tamagi (Kaski), Virmathi and Daumdame
(Kaski), Arthar dada and Kaule (Parbat), Chitre (Parbat)
and Wangsing (Syangja) were purposively selected
because of the presence of serious HWMC in the areas.
The respondents in these areas were selected using
stratified random sampling regarding their age, sex, cast
occupation and education status.
Data collection
A total of 100 respondents (25 from Sidhane, 8 from
Bhanjyang, 12 from Pumdi Bhumdi, 20 from Bhadaure
and Tamagi, 6 from Virmathi and Daumdame, 13 Arthar
dada and Kaule, 8 from Chitre and 8 from Wangsing)
were sampled by using the semi structured questionnaires
related to crop damage, livestock depredation and human
casualty and injury. The selected area and house hold
were categorized into three groups based on their
proximity towards the forest edge as near (<0.5 km),
medium distance (0.5-1 km) and far (>1 km). The
questionnaire was translated into Nepali language by
interviewers. In general, male are the head of the family
in Nepal and hence most of the respondents involved in
this sampling were male than female (Male = 66, Female
= 34). The detail of the demographic profile of the
respondents is listed in Table 1. The focus group
discussion, informal interview, key informant interview
(local healers, community leaders, teachers) were
performed during the field study for the verification and
further information. Information on human casualties,
cattle depredation and crop damage by the large mammals
was collected from the forest department, field staffs and
villagers. The compensation paid for various casualties
and injuries were collected from district forest office for
the validity of the data.
Table 1. Demographic profile of the respondents in Panchase area
Respondents features
Categories
Scoring Method
Number of Respondents
Summary
Age
30-40
Years
14
Mean = 20
SD = 16.01
SE = 7.16
41-50
36
51-60
38
61-70
9
70 above
3
Occupation
Farmer
Number
52
Mean = 20
SD = 18.85
SE = 8.43
Teacher
8
Social workers
11
Government Employer
7
Business
22
Gender
Female
Number
34
Mean = 50
SD = 22.62
SE = 16
Male
66
Education status
Illiterate
Year of
schooling
9
Mean = 20
SD = 13.50
SE = 6.04
Literate
38
Secondary
31
Intermediate
12
University
10
Caste system
Dalit
Number
24
Mean = 20
SD = 23.44
SE = 10.48
Gurung
59
Magar
2
Brahmin/Chhetri
11
Gharti
4
Data analysis
Estimation of economic loss due to crop damage may lead
to biased results, especially in the comparative studies as
the economic value of such assets depend on many site
and species - specific factors. As there is a general
tendency of villagers and victims to expand the loss
(Upreti 1985). Total loss of a given crop was calculated
using the following equation (1).
Li = Ai×Yi (1)

Jagan Nath Adhikari, Bishnu Prasad Bhattarai, Tej Bahadur Thapa
33
Where, Li = Loss of a given crop (kg/year) incurred by
household i, Ai = Area damaged by elephant as reported
by household i and Yi = Average yield in (kg/year/unit
area) for a given crop as reported by household i.
The monetary value of the total crop damage was
calculated by multiplying the total loss of a given crop
with the unit farm get price of the crop. The farm get price
of the different crops was determined by calculating mean
price indicated by district agriculture office and local
market price. The tentative price of different vegetables
(reddish, pea, cabbage, cauliflower, tomato, bean, carrot,
pumpkin, squash fruit, bottle gourd, sponge gourd, snake
gourd and cucumber) grown mainly in their home gardens
are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Farm get price of the crops in 2018 April (Price
in NRs/Kg)
Crops
District
Agriculture
Office
Market
Price
Farm Get
Price
Paddy
25
30
27.5
Wheat
25
27
26
Millet
30
32
31
Oat
30
38
34
Maize
20
25
22.5
Potato
25
35
30
Vegetable
40
50
45
The data obtained from questionnaire survey were
analyzed by descriptive statistics, regression analysis and
presented in charts and tables. The price rate of the cattle,
buffaloes, sheep or goat was estimated by calculating the
mean price of district veterinary office and nearest local
market. Market prices of livestock were obtained from
local people during interview and also verified with the
nearest local market. Cow, ox and buffalo in this area
were the local indigenous breeds and therefore they were
comparatively low priced. The rate of the livestock was
fixed according to their age and sex (Table 3).
Table 3. Average farm price of livestock (April, 2018)
(Price in NRs)
Livestock
District
Veterinary
Office
Market
Price
Average
Farm-
Price
Cow-milked
15000
25000
20000
OX
10000
20000
15000
Young cow
5000
5000
5000
Milked buffalo
50000
70000
60000
Male buffalo
15000
25000
20000
Young buffalo
10000
20000
15000
Goat/sheep
8000
12000
10000
Pig
4000
6000
5000
Dog (local breed)
0
2000
2000
The total economic loss by crop depredation was
calculated by multiplying the unit rate of the livestock
with number of livestock killed by carnivores. Linear
regression was used to find out the relation between the
distance of the forest and economic loss by crop damage
and livestock depredation. Data obtained from the
questionnaire were tabulated in tables and presented in bar
diagrams, and also analyzed using the PAST version 3.20.
software (Hammer et al. 2001).
RESULTS
Crop damage
Most of the people around the Panchase area depend upon
the agriculture (52 % respondents, Table 1). The
agriculture contributes major income source of the
farmers. The major crops around Panchase area were
paddy, wheat, oat, maize, potatoes and vegetables (Table
4). Besides food grains, horticultural crops i.e., pear,
bananas, mangoes were also common in the study area.
Northern red muntjac (Muntiacus vaginalis) (Boddaert,
1785), monkey (Macaca mulatta) (Zimmermann, 1780)
and Semnopithecus entellus (Dufresne, 1797), porcupine
(Hystrix indica) (Kerr, 1792), Indian hare (Lepus
nigricollis F.) (Cuvier, 1823) were major wild mammals
responsible for crop damage in Panchase. Maize was the
major target crops of many wildlife species where
monkeys in Panchase area accounted for the highest crop
raiding species (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2. Crop damage by different wild mammals in
Panchase area
The total value of crop yield losses due to damage done
by wild mammal in villages around Panchase area was
about NRs. 325175 (US$ 2956.13, US$ 29.56 per
household) in a year (Table 2 and 4). The results show
that distance to the forest or wildlife habitats is the major
determinant of the intensity of the economic loss due to
crop damage by problematic wild mammals. The
economic loss was found significantly high near the forest
area as compared to area far from forest as shown in Fig.
3 (F = 7.436, r2 = 0.075, p = 0.0075).

Human-wild mammal conflict in a human dominated midhill landscape: a case study ….
34
Table 4. Total economic loss from crop damage by wild
mammals in Panchase area (1 US$ = NRs 110)
Crops
Damge
area in
Ropani
(Ai)
Crop
damge in
Kg (Yi)
Total
economic loss
in NRs (Li)
Maize
75.5
6510
146475
Vegetable
16.5
1280
57600
Millet
19.5
1650
51150
Paddy
18
1100
30250
Wheat
9
550
14300
Potato
7
450
13500
Oat
4.5
350
11900
Total loss economic (NRs)
69950
Total economic Loss US$
2956.13
Economic loss per HH (US$)
29.56
Fig. 3. Relationship between the distance from the forest
and economic loss by crop damage
Livestock depredation
Animal husbandry is the mainstay occupation in the mid
hills of CHAL. Majority of people around Panchase area
depend on animal husbandry (Table 1). Most of them
have own shed and pasture (Kharka) for rotational and
free grazing systems (personal communication during
field study 2017-18). Hence, most of the calf of the cows,
buffalo, goat and sheep will be the target of the predator
(Table 5). Leopard killed the highest number of goat and
sheep (51.76 %) compared to other livestock like ox/cow
(21.17 %), buffalo (12.94 %), dog (10.58 %) and pig
(3.52%) around the Panchase protected forest. These
depredations cost a total value of about NRs. 1238000
(US$ 11254.54) i.e., US$ 112.54 per household (Table 3
and 5).
The linear regression analysis to find out the relation
between the economic loss by the wild animals and
distance from the forest of wildlife habitat showed that
rate of livestock depredation was significantly higher near
or inside the forest area than the area far from the forest
area and hence significantly more economic loss by
livestock depredation near the forest area as depicted in
Fig. 4 (F = 8.292, r2 = 0.078, p = 0.004).
Table 5. Livestock depredation and economic loss in
Panchase area
Livestock
Number
Depredation
(%)
Total
economic
loss (NRs)
Buffalo
11
12.94
500000
Goat/sheep
44
51.76
440000
Cattle
18
21.17
265000
Dog
9
10.58
18000
Pig
3
3.52
15000
Total economic loss (NRs)
1238000
Total economic loss (US$)
11254.54
Economic loss per house hold (US$)
112.54
Fig. 4. Relationship between the distance from the forest
and economic loss by livestock depredation
Human casualty and injury
In general, attacks by wildlife were significantly
associated with the location where the people interact with
natural resources (forest), farmland and home. All attacks
of wildlife to people were inside the forest or nearby the
forests (personal communication). A total of five cases of
attack (4 injuries and 1 fatal) were recorded from
Panchase area. Among these cases, Himalayan black bear
contributed 80 % of the total attacks and 20 % attack was
contributed by leopard (Table 6).
Human wild mammals conflict hotspots
Human wild mammal conflict was very common in and
around the Panchase protected forest area. Results showed
Sidhane area possessed the highest economic loss of NRs
437550 due to conflict followed by Panchase Bhanjyang
area (NRs 343300), Arthar Dada (NRs 196350), Bhadaure
(NR. 151500), Chitre (NRs 91750) and the least in Pumdi
Bhumdi area (NRs 87500). However, other areas
possessed less economic loss due to wild mammals.

Jagan Nath Adhikari, Bishnu Prasad Bhattarai, Tej Bahadur Thapa
35
Table 6. Human fatalities and injury by mammals
(number in the bracket indicate fatal cases)
Mammals
Contribution
(%)
Number of Attack
in 2017/18
Mountain
black bear
80
4 (1)
Leopard
20
1 (0)
DISCUSSION
To identify the pattern of HWC and evaluate the major
causes of the conflicts are important components of
conservation biology. This study shed light on the pattern
of crop damage, livestock depredation and human death
and injury caused by wild mammals in Panchase area.
Muntjac deer, monkeys, porcupines were top crop
depredators whereas, leopard was main livestock
depredators. For the kill/injury ratio, Himalayan black
bear ranked the highest, followed by leopard. From the
field study and local people, the number of wildlife had
increased after the establishment of Panchase protected
area and community forest. Similar to our study, many
research have suggested that human-tiger conflicts, human
elephant conflicts, human rhinoceros conflicts and human
herbivores (Chital) were very common in Terai and
human-bear, human-leopard conflicts, human-monkey
conflicts and human herbivore conflicts are the most
serious human-wildlife conflicts in mid-hills and high
mountains of Nepal (Srivastava & Begum 2005, Inskip &
Zimmermann 2009, Aryal et al. 2010, Bista & Aryal
2013, Adhikari et al. 2018b). However, the majority of
issues of conflicts occurred in human-dominated
landscapes (i. e, mid-hills), that highlights the need for
proper conservation management outside Protected areas
(Lamichhane et al. 2018).
Fig. 5. Hotspots of human wild mammal conflict in and around the Panchase Protected Forest (RM- rural municipality,
M- municipality, MC- metropolitan city)
Primates, mainly Rhesus macaques and Hanuman langur
are pest species that share food and space with humans in
the rural and urban areas and are also known to cause
suffering and economic loss by means of crop raiding and
robbing and attacks on human (Lamichhane et al. 2018,
Bhattarai & Rijal 2018). The people of Panchase area
were also suffering from such problems from monkeys
that created highest crop damage (mainly maize) and
economic loss. Muntjac deer among the ungulates was the
main crop raider (Fig. 2).
Some villages of Panchase are located inside the forest
areas and there was no electric or mesh fencing for
controlling the crop damage. Similar type of study
conducted by IUCN (2014) in Panchase and associated
area found that crop damage was the most widespread
with estimated average economic loss of US$ 150 per
household. Currently, the crop damage rate has reduced
(US$ 29.56 per HH), as some people left the land for
cropping due to migration to city area for better life.

Human-wild mammal conflict in a human dominated midhill landscape: a case study ….
36
Animal husbandry and agriculture are important part of
household’s livelihoods and incomes in human dominated
mid-hills that creates competition between local
communities and wildlife for the use of natural resources,
that creates escalating conflict (Bayani et al. 2016). Total
loss of livestock predation per household in ACA at US $
95 in 2009 and US$ 42 in 2010, with leopards blamed for
94.9 % of the losses (Koirala et al. 2012). Similarly, loss
of livestock to carnivores caused more than two third
villagers annual income in the Jigme Singye Wanhchuck
National Park, Bhutan, with leopards blamed for 53 % of
the losses (Wang et al. 2006). Leopard caused substantial
economic damage to the rural people (Lamichhane et al.
2018, Bhattarai & Rijal 2018). Such type of loss was
found in the Panchase area, where leopard contributed
100% of livestock depredation with the loss of US$
112.54 per household. Such type of study conducted by
different researchers also indicated that increasing tiger
population within a protected area was correlated to
higher incidences of livestock depredation outside the
protected area by leopards (Harihar et al. 2011, Thapa
2011). This study showed that livestock depredation was
significantly higher near to the forest area (Figs 3 and 4).
This study also showed that human-dominated landscapes
(e.g., Panchase) and not PAs were the major wildlife
conflict hotspots in Nepal.
A total of five cases of attack were recorded from
Panchase area. Among these cases, Himalayan black bear
contributed 80% of the total attacks and 20% attack was
contributed by leopard (Table 6). The progress report
from 2005 to 2013 of NTNC (2013) found that six cases
of Himalayan black bear attack were noted in various
locations of Manaslu Conservation Area, Nepal. Thapa
(2014) reported that at least 137 persons were attacked
and 40 were killed by leopard in Nepal during 2006 to
2013. Similarly, 45 individuals were attacked and 14 were
killed in Chitwan Annapura Landscape (CHAL). The
study in different parts of mountain area of world
concluded that Himalayan black bear and leopard were
the major mammals responsible for human attack (Bhatia
et al. 2013, Kabir et al. 2014, Constant et al. 2015). The
carnivore people conflict is high in areas where natural
prey base is low and high human disturbance in their
natural habitats as observed in the CNP (Bhattarai &
Kindlmann 2013, 2018). The widespread common leopard
and Himalayan black bear caused conflicts along the
entire mid-hills of Nepal far from the PAs (Koirala et al.
2012, Bista & Aryal 2013, Atreya et al. 2015). But district
forest offices have no institutional capacity for capturing
and handling the leopard and Himalayan black bear, and
monitoring of the other wildlife species in regular basis.
Hence, we suggest that there is an urgent need to train the
staffs to address the issues of conflicts and animal
handling. This study focused only the issues and status of
conflicts in the Panchase area, a representative of mid-
hills and Chitwan Annapurana Landscape that directly and
indirectly affect the landscape change. Thus, recommends
that future study should be conducted to highlight the
mitigation and preventing methods to minimize the issues
of human wildlife conflicts.
CONCLUSION
Crop damage by ungulates and primates, livestock
depredation by leopard and human injury and casualties
by Himalayan black bear and leopards were the common
issues of conflict in Panchase area. The maize was the
predominant crop (total loss: 6510 kg). The total
economic loss from the crop damage was US$ 2956.13
(US$ 29.56/HH). The frequency of the crop damage and
livestock depredation was significantly higher near the
forest area. Leopard alone contributes 100 % of livestock
depredation causing US$ 112.54/HH economic loss. Goat
and sheep, cow, calf of buffalo were the main target of
leopard. A total of five human attacks (one fatal, four
injuries) have been recorded. Eighty percent of the total
attacks were contributed by Himalayan black bear and 20
% by leopard. This study focused on the major issues and
status of human wildlife conflicts in Panchase area, a part
of the Chitwan Annapurna Landscape. Further study
about the mitigation and control measures of human
wildlife conflict is recommended for future in mid-hills.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the District Forest Office, Kaski
and Panchase Protected Forest Management Committee
for granting permission to conduct the research work. We
also extent our thanks to USAID funded Hariyo Ban
Program, WWF Nepal for granting the PhD Research
Grants. Our thanks also go to people of Panchase area
who supported and provided the information about issues
of human wild mammals’ conflicts
REFERENCES
Adhikari, B., Pendry, C. Måren, I., Bhattarai, K. and
Chaudhary, R. 2017. Distribution and preliminary
conservation assessments of commonly used forest
species in the Nepalese Himalayas. Banko Janakari
27: 43-54.
Adhikari, S., Baral, H. and Nitschke, C. 2018a.
Adaptation to climate change in Panchase Mountain
ecological regions of Nepal. Environments 5: 42.
Adhikari, K., Khanal, L. and Chalise, M.K. 2018b. Status
and effects of food provisioning on ecology of
assamese monkey (Macaca assamensis) in Ramdi
area of Palpa, Nepal. Journal of Institute of Science
and Technology 22: 183-190.
Amaja, L.G., Feyssa, D.H. and Gutema, T.M. 2016.
Assessment of types of damage and causes of human-
wildlife conflict in Gera district, south western
Ethiopia. Journal of Ecology and the Natural
Environment 8: 49-54.

Jagan Nath Adhikari, Bishnu Prasad Bhattarai, Tej Bahadur Thapa
37
Aryal, A., Sathyakumar, S. and Schwartz, C.C. 2010.
Current status of brown bears in the Manasalu
Conservation Area, Nepal. Ursus 21: 109-114.
Atreya, A., Kanchan, T. Nepal, S. and Acharya, J. 2015.
Brown bear attacks in a Nepalese scenario: a brief
review. Wilderness & Environmental Medicine 26:
587-588.
Baral, S., Adhikari, A., Khanal, R., Malla, Y., Kunwar,
R., Basnyat, B., Gauli, K. and Acharya, R. 2017.
Invasion of alien plant species and their impact on
different ecosystems of Panchase Area, Nepal. Banko
Janakari 27: 31-42.
Bayani, A., Tiwade, D., Dongre, A., Dongre, A.P.,
Phatak, R. and Watve. M. 2016. Assessment of crop
damage by protected wild mammalian herbivores on
the western boundary of Tadoba-Andhari tiger
reserve (TATR), central India. PloS one 11:
e0153854.
Bhatia, S., Athreya, V., Grenyer, R. and Macdonald, D.W.
2013. Understanding the role of representations of
human–leopard conflict in Mumbai through media-
content analysis. Conservation Biology 27:588-594.
Bhattarai, K., Måren, I. and Chaudhary, R. 2011.
Medicinal plant knowledge of the Panchase region in
the middle hills of the Nepalese Himalayas. Banko
Janakari 21: 31-39.
Bhattarai, B.P. and Kindlmann, P. 2013. Effect of human
disturbance on the prey of tiger in the Chitwan
National Park – implications for park management.
Journal of Environmental Management 131: 343–
350.
Bhattarai, B.P. and Kindlmann, P. 2018. Human
disturbance is the major determinant of the habitat
and prey preference of the Bengal tiger (Panthera
tigris tigris) in the Chitwan National Park, Nepal.
European Journal of Ecology 4(1): 13-21.
Bhattarai, B.P. and Rijal, M.K. 2018. Human-wildlife
conflict and people’s perception towards wildlife
conservation in Chitwan National Park, Nepal.
Proceedings of the Nature Research Society, in press.
Bista, R. and Aryal, A. 2013. Status of the Asiatic black
bear Ursus thibetanus in the southeastern region of
the Annapurna conservation area, Nepal. Zoology and
Ecology 23: 83-87.
Constant, N., Bell, S. and Hill, R. 2015. The impacts,
characterisation and management of human–leopard
conflict in a multi-use land system in South Africa.
Biodiversity and Conservation 24: 2967-2989.
Cromsigt, J.P., Kuijper, D.P., Adam, M., Beschta, R.L.,
Churski, M., Eycott, A., Kerley, G.I., Mysterud, A.,
Schmidt, K. and West, K. 2013. Hunting for fear:
innovating management of human–wildlife conflicts.
Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 544-549.
Dhungana, R., Savini, T. Karki, J.B. and Bumrungsri, S.
2016. Mitigating human-tiger conflict: an assessment
of compensation payments and tiger removals in
Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Tropical Conservation
Science 9: 776-787.
Fernando, P., Wikramanayake, E. Weerakoon, D.
Jayasinghe, L., Gunawardene, M. and Janaka, H.
2005. Perceptions and patterns of human–elephant
conflict in old and new settlements in Sri Lanka:
insights for mitigation and management. Biodiversity
& Conservation 14: 2465-2481.
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D.A.T. and Ryan, P.D. 2001. PAST:
Paleontological statistics software package for
education and data analysis. Palaeontologia
Electronica 4(1): 9pp.
https://folk.uio.no/ohammer/past/
Harihar, A., Pandav, B. and Goyal, S.P. 2011. Responses
of leopard Panthera pardus to the recovery of a tiger
Panthera tigris population. Journal of Applied
Ecology 48: 806-814.
Inskip, C., and Zimmermann, A. 2009. Human-felid
conflict: a review of patterns and priorities
worldwide. Oryx 43: 18-34.
IUCN. 2014. A report on human wildlife conflict: In
Panchase area, juncture of Kaski, Parbat and
Syangja diatricts. IUCN Nepal, pp. 88.
Kabir, M., Ghoddousi, A. Awan, M.S. and Awan, M.N.
2014. Assessment of human–leopard conflict in
Machiara National Park, Azad Jammu and Kashmir,
Pakistan. European Journal of Wildlife Research 60:
291-296.
Koirala, R.K., Aryal, A., Amiot, C. Adhikari, B.
Karmacharya, D. and Raubenheimer, D. 2012.
Genetic identification of carnivore scat: implication
of dietary information for human–carnivore conflict
in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Zoology
and Ecology 22: 137-143.
Lamichhane, B.R., Persoon, G.A., Leirs, H., Poudel, S.,
Subedi, N., Pokheral, C.P., Bhattarai, S., Thapaliya,
B.P. and De Iongh, H.H. 2018. Spatio-temporal
patterns of attacks on human and economic losses
from wildlife in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. PloS
one 13: e0195373.
Lamsal, S. 2012. The park-people conflict in the Chitwan
National Park with reference to the Asiatic one-
horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis). Institutt
for biologi.

Human-wild mammal conflict in a human dominated midhill landscape: a case study ….
38
Madden, F., and McQuinn, B. (2014). Conservation’s
blind spot: the case for conflict transformation in
wildlife conservation. Biological Conservation 178:
97-106.
Måren, I.E., Bhattarai, K.R. and Chaudhary, R.P. 2014.
Forest ecosystem services and biodiversity in
contrasting Himalayan forest management systems.
Environmental Conservation 41: 73-83.
Messmer, T.A. 2009. Human–wildlife conflicts: emerging
challenges and opportunities. Human-Wildlife
Conflicts 3: 10-17.
Mwamidi, D.M., Renom, J.G., Fernández-Llamazares, Á.,
Burgas, D., Domínguez, P. and Cabeza, M. 2018.
Contemporary pastoral commons in east africa as
oecms: a case study from the daasanach community.
Parks 24: 79.
Nepal, W. 2007. A Case Study on Human-Wildlife
Conflict in Nepal. World Wildlife Fund, Kathmandu,
Nepal
NTNC. 2013. Distribution and abundance of Himalayan
black bear and brown bear and human-bear bonflict
in Manaslu Conservation Area, Nepal. Report
submitted to Taronga Conservation Society,
Australia.
Ogutu, J.O., Reid, R.S., Piepho, H.P., Hobbs, N.T.,
Rainy, M.E., Kruska, R.L., Worden, J.S. and
Nyabenge, M. 2014. Large herbivore responses to
surface water and land use in an East African
savanna: implications for conservation and human-
wildlife conflicts. Biodiversity and Conservation 23:
573-596.
Park, J. and Alam, M. 2015. Ecosystem-based adaptation
planning in the Panchase mountain ecological region.
Hydro Nepal: Journal of Water, Energy and
Environment 17: 34-41.
Redpath, S.M., Bhatia, S. and Young, J. 2015. Tilting at
wildlife: reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx
49: 222-225.
Srivastava, A. and Begum, F. 2005. City monkeys
(Macaca mulatta): a study of human attitudes.
Commensalism and conflict, The human-primate
interface 258-269.
Thapa, T.B. 2011. Habitat suitability evaluation for
Leopard (Panthera pardus) using remote sensing and
GIS in and around Chitwan National Park, Nepal.
PhD Thesis, Saurashtra University, India.
Thapa, T.B. 2014. Human caused mortality in the Leopard
(Panthera pardus) population of Nepal. Journal of
Institute of Science and Technology 19: 155-150.
Upreti, B. 1985. The park-people interface in Nepal:
problems and new directions. In: Proceeding of
international workshop on the management of
National Parks and protected areas in the Hindu
Kush-Himalaya. KMTNC and ICIMOD, Kathmandu.
Wang, S.W., Lassoie, J.P. and Curtis, P.D. 2006. Farmer
attitudes towards conservation in Jigme Singye
Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Environmental
Conservation 33: 148-156.