Factors Escalating Retaliation and Poaching in Chitwan ...

Factors Escalating Retaliation and Poachingin Chitwan National Park of Nepal

Rakshya Thapa

Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, NepalE-mail: [email protected]

KEYWORDS Chitwan National Park. Protected Areas. Poaching. Human-Wildlife Conflicts. Village DevelopmentCommittees

ABSTRACT Poaching has been a huge concern throughout the world in many protected areas(PAs). Globally, manyspecies are threatened due to poaching and illegal trade. Considering the causes and minimizing the consequences hasbeen an exigent task to the park officials because wildlife is mostly targeted at protected areas. Varieties of factorsinfluences poaching which includes poverty, attraction towards economical profit with ease in minimum effort andtime period, lack of awareness, lack of employment and opportunities, lack of proper policies and low penaltycharges. The main purpose of this research work was to determine the crucial factors associated with poaching inChitwan National Park, of Nepal. Five village development committees (VDCs) namely Gardi, Madi, Patihani,Kumroj and Meghauli adjacent to CNP were selected for the study. The survey was conducted by using both structuredand semi-structured questionnaires. In total, 300 samples were chosen but later one sample was excluded for notmeeting up the criteria of the research. Therefore, the whole sample size was 299.The stratified random samplingmethod was adopted by the researcher while taking the sample of local communities. A significant relationshipbetween two categorical variables and the data was analyzed via computerized programming SPSS (version 21) togenerate the conclusions.

INTRODUCTION

Human population growth has created a sig-nificant effects on land, forest and wild resourc-es in the developing countries. The overpopu-lation of human has become a major problem inrecent years because there is a high demand ofspace, food and other requirements. Human pop-ulation growth, demand of increasing resourceneeds, habitat alteration and fragmentations hascompelled the wild animals to live in vicinity tohuman habitats (Inskip and Zimmerman 2009).The sharing of same habitat leads to competi-tion especially for the fulfillment of the basicneeds like space, food and security originatingsevere conflicts between human and wildlife.This factor seems to be an indirect driver thatleads to loss of biodiversity (Kideghesho 2009).The wildlife associated damages mainly involveloss of crops, livestock depredation, occasion-ally leading to human casualty and animal ha-rassment which in turn results to retaliatory kill-ing of wildlife. Wildlife is therefore under threatbecause of human activities.

Human-Wildlife Conflict (HWC) and trade ofwildlife parts have become burning issues thesedays. Conflicts between humans and wildlife areas old as human itself (Lamarque et al. 2009). It

takes place when the requirements of one, hu-man or wildlife overlaps the other creating a neg-ative impact on both wildlife and human (Diste-fano 2005). HWC thus has been the conserva-tion concern worldwide (Treves et al. 2006). Con-flicts challenge human being because it affectsthem socio-economically (Distefano 2005). Onthe other side, wildlife is being retaliated or killed.The major form of HWC has been the killing ofhuman by wildlife (Gurung et al. 2008) and theretaliation done against wildlife as a return oflosses. Bartos and Wehr (2002) have also statedthat conflict rises for wealth, power and prestigeand land. There are several reasons of HWCand the single reason cannot justify the causesand effects. The conflicts has been raised moreafter the establishment of the buffer zone for-ests adjacent to protected areas because the zonehas become the meeting point for both wildlifeand human where most of the incident do takesplace.

Poaching is an illegal harvesting of the wild-life species which has many ecological and so-cial consequences on the nature and the man-agement of natural resources. Generally,wildanimals are commercially hunted for their prod-ucts like bone, hide, ivory, tusk, antlers, fur, meat,horn, teeth, nails, pharmaceutical perfumes, cos-

J Hum Ecol, 61(1-3): 78-87 (2018)DOI: 11.258359/KRE-99

2018

FACTORS ESCALATING RETALIATION AND POACHING IN CHITWAN NATIONAL PARK 79

metics and ornamental purposes since time im-memorial. According to TRAFFIC International(Trade Record Analysis of Flora and Fauna inCommerce) wildlife trade involves hundreds ofmillions of individual plants and animals fromtens of thousands of species. The wildlife crime/trade is the fifth largest international criminalactivity worldwide after narcotics, counterfeit-ing and illicit trafficking of humans and oils (Hak-en 2011) thus wildlife trade has become theblooming industry where the people makes mon-ey in billions. According to Haken (2011), theglobal value of the illegal trade of wildlife is notknown, however the estimation is around US$7.8- $10 billion excluding timber and fisheries.Therefore, poaching continues for variety of rea-sons like economic greed, survival and trophyhunting (Muth and BoweJr 1998). One of themost serious threats to the survival of plant andanimal populations is poaching, an act that in-tentionally contravenes the laws and regulationsestablished to protect renewable wildlife resourc-es (Muth and Bowe 1998). The increased poach-ing pressure experienced in many protected ar-eas across the globe explains that the poachingpressure has become a major problem in most ofthe countries. If the poaching continues in hastein a similar pattern then almost all the wild ani-mals will be affected, some might even go forextinction and these changes are going to dis-turb the whole ecosystem. The illegal activitiescreate significant impact on regional ecosystemsand the conservation of threatened species. PAsare being targeted by increasingly violent andruthless criminal syndicates who have made along chain and networking globally for sellingthe wildlife parts in an international market.Poaching has been attributed to many of thesocio-economic and cultural causes but it maybe poverty, unawareness, high demand of ani-mal products in international market, weak gov-ernance and a low management capacity of for-est managers and protection staffs that acceler-ated retaliation and poaching ratio. The numer-ous conflict drivers that makes people hostiletowards the wildlife species includes numeroussocial and cultural factors like economic andopportunity costs of damage, visibility of spe-cies, wealth or power, cultural norms and expec-tations, social tensions, fear/lack of knowledge,cultural value of the livestock species and hu-man values. It is very essential to understandthe conflict drivers in order to develop effective

mitigation strategies (Dickman 2013).The human-wildlife coexistence should be understood con-ceptually and practically so that the multifacet-ed complexities of this growing and intensifyingconservation challenges can be analyzed (Madden2004).

Background of Study Area

The study area covers the Chitwan Nation-al Park (CNP) situated in the Chitwan valley. TheChitwan National Park (CNP) is the most uniqueprotected areas established in 1973 and coversan area of 932 sq. km. Identified as the first na-tional park of Nepal, renowned worldwide forthe distinguished flora and fauna along with therich cultural heritage, it is situated in the sub-tropical inner terai lowlands of south central partof Chitwan, Makwanpur, Parsa and Nawalparasidistricts of Nepal. The park is bounded by Raptiand Narayani River in the north, Parsa wildlifereserve in the east and Madi settlements and In-dian border in the South. CNP has some of thehighest population densities of large mammalsincluding tigers and rhinos in South Asia and isthe place for large numbers of mammalian species(Wikramanayake et al. 2001).The uniqueness andrichness in the varieties of species recorded CNPin World Heritage List in the year 1984.

Prior to the official establishment of the Parkin the year 1973, local people were freely allowedto use the park area for collecting firewood, graz-ing livestock, and collect thatch grasses. Butonward 1976, the local communities were onlypermitted to cut the grasses for 20 days a yearespecially during winter season which was fur-ther reduced to 15 days after 1981. It was furtherreduced to 10 days and therefore, these chang-es in management forced the local people tothink that their rights have been unobserved.Livestock/Poultry rearing and crop plantation isvery common in the area for livelihood whichprovides food and generates revenue to the lo-cal people residing nearby area. According toAdhikari et al. (2009), the local communities liv-ing near the park lives below food sufficiencylevel and mostly are dependent upon the plantresources and animal resources of the forest.Ethnicity, cultural practices and wealth has beenassociated with the types and level of resourceextraction (Baral and Heinen 2007). The depen-dency of people on the forest products entirelydepends on the source of income (Vedeld et al.

80 RAKSHYA THAPA

Fig.

1.

Chi

twan

Nat

iona

l Pa

rk a

nd b

uffe

r zo

ne (

http

://u

pdat

e.nt

gp.o

rg.n

p/ch

itw

an)

NEP

AL

Lege

ndPA

Hea

dqua

rter

Oth

er P

osts

Settl

emen

tsPA

Bou

ndar

yR

iver

Sys

tem

Roa

d N

etw

ork

Hig

hway

Oth

er R

oads

Lan

duse

Cla

ssFo

rest

Lan

dB

ush/

Shru

b La

ndG

rass

Lan

d

Pond

/Lak

eSa

ndy

Are

aW

ater

Bod

ies

Cul

tivat

ed L

and

N

Chi

twan

Nat

iona

l Par

k (C

NP)

and

Buf

fer

Zone

Chi

twan

NP

Sour

ce: T

opog

raph

ic M

ap, D

ept.

of S

urve

y, C

NP

and

DN

PWC

GoN

S

cale

0

0

7

14

Kilo

met

ers

K

osor

e

FACTORS ESCALATING RETALIATION AND POACHING IN CHITWAN NATIONAL PARK 81

2007). The illegal harvesting of resources andhunting of wild animals has become a majorquandary in the National Park and surroundingareas. There is no doubt that the exploitation ofnatural resources is challenging the park-peo-ple relationship (Stræde and Treue 2006).Thecompensation process has been started in Ne-pal in order to resolve the conflicts. Implementa-tion of both preventive and curative activitiesbased on 3 R’s (relief, reduce and resolve) strat-egies has been used by the park management.However, recent studies suggest that conflictsbetween conservation interests and local devel-opment are increasing in areas adjacent to Chit-wan National Park (CNP). The crop depredationand killing of livestock/man by wildlife has ac-celerated the issues. Households for the mostpart, lying near to the forest edges and parks areadversely affected by crop raids-crop loss, hu-man injuries, human sickness, and even humanfatalities by wild animals (Gillespie and Chap-man 2006). The extent to the struggle and toler-ance of local people depends on the degree ofdamage from wild animals and their dependencyon crops (Naughton-Treves1999) along with thepresence and absence of reimbursementschemes (Archabald and Naughton-Treves2001). The conflict though has affected overallwild species of the park but mainly larger andmagnificent species like rhino and tiger has beenaffected.

Objectives

The main objectives of the study was to findout the major factors that influences poachingand retaliation of wild animals in Chitwan Na-tional Park (CNP) of Nepal.

METHODOLOGY

The researcher used mixed method ap-proaches for analysis of the study. The mixedmethods design is used in capturing best of bothqualitative and quantitative approaches. Thequestionnaires include both open ended typequestions and closed type questions. Despitethe questions were prepared in English, Nepalilanguage was used while taking an interview.The data were collected via interviews whichincluded semi-structured interviews, in depthinterviews, participatory appraisal methods, fo-

cus group discussions, community forum dis-cussions and direct observations by the re-searcher during field visit. Necessary photo-graphs were also taken as per the requirement ofthe study. The stratified random sampling meth-od has been adopted by the researcher in thestudy while taking the sample of local communi-ties. The sample size of the study has been cal-culated by using the Krejcie and Morgan (1970)model. The sample size was 300 but later 1 sam-ple size was excluded from the study for notmeeting up the criteria of the study. Five Villagedevelopment committees (VDCs) out of 37 VDCssurrounding the CNP were selected randomly.The VDCs includes Gardi, Madi, Patihani, Kum-roj and Meghauli and two wards from each VDCswere chosen for the study. The field survey wasconducted from September to December 2015.The collected data were then analyzed and inter-preted with the help of computerized softwareprogram SPSS, version 21. Necessary figures,charts and tables were prepared with the help ofadvanced excel. The Chi Square test for Indepen-dence was determined to find out the relation-ship between variables depending on the prob-lems, objectives and hypothesis of the study.

RESULTS

General Characteristics of the Respondents

The VDCs selected by researcher were fivenamely, Gardi, Kumroj, Madi Kalyanpur, Meghauliand Patihani. Total number of respondents par-ticipated for interview was 299.

There were 60 (20.1%) respondents fromGardi, 59 (19.7%) from Kumroj, 62 (20.7%) fromMadi Kalyanpur, 57(19.1%) from Meghauli and60 (20.1%) from Patihani (Table 1).

Table 1: Statistics of respondents- VDC wise

VDCs Frequ- Per- Valid Cumu-ency cent per- lative

cent percent

1 0.3 0.3 0.3Gardi 6 0 20.1 20.1 20.4Kumroj 5 9 19.7 19.7 40.1

Valid Madi 6 2 20.7 20.7 60.9 KalyanpurMeghauli 5 7 19.1 19.1 79.9Patihani 6 0 20.1 20.1 100.0Total 299 100.0 100.0

82 RAKSHYA THAPA

Demographic and Social Characteristics

The general characteristics of the respon-dents in terms of age group, gender/sex, andeducation are described with the necessary ta-bles. Age wise distribution showed that therewere 110 respondents above 50, 64 respondentswere between the age group 41-50, 78 were be-tween age group 31-40, 42 were between 21-30and remaining 3 respondents belong to agegroup upto 20 (Table 2).

The respondents on the basis of categori-zation of sex showed that there were 61.2 per-cent males and 38.8 percent females(Table 3).

The education level of the respondents inwhole sample showed that the highest respon-dents attending the interview were illiterate, fol-lowed by Primary level, Secondary level, Pre-primary level, Higher Secondary and then leastrepresentatives were from University level.

Majority of the respondents were illiterate thatis, 114, 77 were from primary level, 51 were fromsecondary level, 34 were from pre-primary level,16 were from higher secondary and the respon-dents from University level were only 5 in num-bers (Table 4).

The average number of poultry was highestfollowed by goat. Besides livestock rearing, lo-cal people were also dependent on other live-stock products for their livelihood. These in-clude meat, milk, eggs, and ghee (Table 5).

Table 2: Age group of the respondents

Age-group Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative percent

Valid Up to 20 3 1.0 1.0 1.021 to 30 4 2 14.0 14.1 15.231 to 40 7 8 26.1 26.3 41.441 to 50 6 4 21.4 21.5 63.0Above 50 110 36.8 37.0 100.0Total 297 99.3 100.0

Missing System 2 0.7Total 299 100.0

Table 3: Gender/sex of the respondents

Sex of the respondents VDC of the Respondents

Gardi Kumroj Madi Kalyanpur Meghauli PatihaniCount Count Count Count Count Count

Male 0 3 9 3 7 3 7 3 1 3 9Female 1 2 1 2 2 2 5 2 6 2 1Others 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 4: Education level of the respondents

Education level of VDC of the Respondentsthe respondents

Gardi Kumroj Madi Kalyanpur Meghauli PatihaniCount Count Count Count Count Count

Illiterate 1 3 0 1 9 2 6 2 2 1 6Pre-primary 0 7 9 8 5 5Primary 0 1 3 2 6 1 0 1 4 1 4Secondary 0 7 4 1 1 1 4 1 5Higher Secondary 0 2 1 4 2 7University 0 1 0 3 0 1

Table 5: Livestock in average owned by respon-dents

S.No. Livestock Livestock inaverage(Mean)

1. Cow 2.162. Buffalo 2.013. Pig 1.294. Goat 2.995. Poultry 3.88

FACTORS ESCALATING RETALIATION AND POACHING IN CHITWAN NATIONAL PARK 83

Local people were found depending on dif-ferent sources for their livelihood. Among themthe major ones were crop farming, livestock farm-ing and employment. The average sources oflivelihood was taken out so as to analyze onwhich source the local people rely mostly on.Despite crop farming and livestock rearing is anintegral part of Nepalese people, these days peo-ple are attracted towards the employment andother job opportunities. Employment was fol-lowed by crop farming and then followed bylivestock farming (Table 6).

The respondents were further asked whatsort of losses they suffer from. They listed thetypes of losses as livestock loss, crop loss andothers (casualty, property loss, diseases, fear).The crop losses and livestock loss was the ma-jor consequences that the local people havebeen suffering from (Table 7).

The surrounding villages around the CNPhave been suffering from the damages causedby wildlife since long time. The query related tothe wildlife damages was asked to the local peo-ple of the sampled households.

Out of 282 respondents, 275 said they havenot suffered in these last two years as they usedto suffer in past years but still there were 7 re-spondents saying they have suffered from live-stock loss (Table 8).

There were 212 respondents stating that theyhave been suffering from the crop depredationwhile there were only 619 respondents sayingthey have not suffered within the last two yearsthough in the past years they have passedthrough the tough times because of heavy cropraiding by wild animals (Table 9).

Table 6: Mean value of different sources of liveli-hood of people

S.No. Sources of livelihood Mean valueof livelihood

1. Crop 1.872. Livestock 1.753. Employment 4.324. Others 3.45

Table 7: Types of losses by wildlife

Types of losses Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulativepercent

Valid Livestock 6 2.0 2.6 2.6Crop 214 71.6 93.0 95.7Others 1 0 3.3 4.3 100.0Total 230 76.9 100.0

Missing System 6 9 23.1Total 299 100.0

Table 8: Livestock depredations in last two years

Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulativepercent

Valid Yes 7 2.3 2.5 2.5N o 275 92.0 97.5 100.0Total 282 94.3 100.0

Missing System 1 7 5.7Total 299 100.0

Table 9: Suffered from crop depredation in last two years

Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulativepercent

Valid Yes 212 70.9 77.7 77.7N o 6 1 20.4 22.3 100.0Total 273 91.3 100.0

Missing System 2 6 8.7Total 299 100.0

84 RAKSHYA THAPA

The reasons for disliking wildlife to the par-ticipants were also asked (Table 10).

Out of 66 (77.6%) respondents, 21 (24.7%)said that fear as the reason for disliking wildlife,13 (15.3%) said wildlife kills/harm human so thatis the reasons for dislike, 12 (14.1%) said thedisease transfer is one of the reasons for dislik-ing wildlife, 10 (11.8%) said wildlife destroy cropsso that is the reason, 5 (5.9%) said livestock lossby wildlife is the reason for disliking them andremaining 5 (5.9%) said fear and disease transferbothare the reasons for disliking wildlife (Table10).

The reasons for involvement in poaching bylocal community were asked once the research-er found local people disliking wildlife. The rea-sons for involving in illicit activities by localpeople can be analyzed via the results collectedvia questionnaires related to retaliation of wild-life and reasons of involvement in poaching.

Out of 81 (95.3%) respondents, 18 (21.2%)said poverty as the main reasons for involve-ment in poaching, 18 (21.2%) said lack of em-ployment as the reasons, 17 (20%) said igno-rance and awareness as the main reasons, 9(10.6%) said poverty and ignorance and aware-ness as the main reasons, 7 (8.2%) said lack of

policy is the main reasons, 6 (7.1%) said lowpenalty charges is the main reasons and remain-ing 6 (7.1%) said all of the above stated reasonshas led local people involve towards poaching(Table 11).

DISCUSSION

Considerations on patterns of human-wild-life conflict along with identification of the un-derlying causes are important aspects in con-servation biology. The predominance of wildlifedamages and attacks mostly occurred in human-dominated landscapes, which indicates the needfor conservation management focusing outsidePAs.

The study showed that the reasons for get-ting involved in poaching by local people in viewof visitor are given as lack of employment orpoverty, followed by ignorance and unaware-ness. The other reasons included lack of policyand low penalty charges. Poverty and lack ofemployment was determined as the major fac-tors in poaching of rhinos and tiger (Shrestha2015). The influence of perceived threat fromthat particular species is directly related withthe attitude of the people (Knight 2008). The atti-

Table 10 : Reasons of disliking wildlife by local people

Reasons Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulativepercent

Valid 1. Destroy crops 1 0 11.8 15.2 15.22. Livestock losses 5 5.9 7.6 22.73. Harm/kill human 1 3 15.3 19.7 42.44. Fear 2 1 24.7 31.8 74.25. Disease transfer 1 2 14.1 18.2 92.46. 4 and 5 5 5.9 7.6 100.0

Total 6 6 77.6 100.0Missing System 1 9 22.4

Total 8 5 100.0

Table 11: Reasons of involvement in poaching by local community

Reasons of involvement Frequency Percent Valid percent Cumulative in poaching percent

Valid 1. Poverty 1 8 21.2 22.2 22.22. Ignorance and unawareness 1 7 20.0 21.0 43.23. Lack of employment 1 8 21.2 22.2 65.44. Lack of policy 7 8.2 8.6 74.15. Low penalty charges 6 7.1 7.4 81.56. 1 and 2 9 10.6 11.1 92.67. All of the above 6 7.1 7.4 100.0

Total 8 1 95.3 100.0Missing System 4 4.7

Total 8 5 100.0

FACTORS ESCALATING RETALIATION AND POACHING IN CHITWAN NATIONAL PARK 85

tudes of people are mainly influenced by perceivedcost and benefits received from PAs. It may bebecause livestock depredation and crop loss inthe area reduces the economic status of peoplewhich influences their behavior towards prob-lematic animals (Newmark et al.1994). Local peo-ple are negative towards wildlife because of fear,they harm/kill human; destroy crops, kill/harm live-stock and even transfer of the diseases.

The local people living in the surroundingvillages of Chitwan National Park are prone tothe damages caused by wildlife damages espe-cially from larger mammals like rhinos and tigers.The damages have affected the socio-economicconditions of the people. The local people’s at-titude towards the natural resource managementis directly linked with the demographic and so-cio-economic factors (Sesabo et al. 2006). Thereshould be a reason for keeping wild animals inhigh value. Some local people were found shift-ing their livelihood basis from agriculture andlivestock farming towards other sources of live-lihood, but it is not the solution. The alterna-tives can minimize the conflicts and changes thelivelihood conditions but it is just a temporarysolution. The employment opportunities andsome sorts of benefits can sort out their prob-lems making them positive towards the conser-vation of biodiversity. The attitude is depen-dent on the factors like severity of damagescaused by wildlife and attitude towards an ob-ject can be seen as constructive and unconstruc-tive depending on the extent of damages theyhave been passed through (Allendorf 1999). Itis very essential because the conservation goalcannot be achieved unless people are positiveand involve themselves in planning and deci-sion making processes. Local people’s partici-pation plays very important role in the develop-ment of PAs so there should be the mutual co-operation, understanding and communicationbetween the PAs members and local people.Understanding the problems of people and un-dertaking their issues while designing the plancan mitigate the conflicts. Holmes in the studyof Tanzania, also stated that communities receiv-ing benefits have possibility to support conser-vation goals (Holmes 2003). The government hasmade a provision of paying a relief fund to thelocal people for the losses occurred, however,the fund provided was not enough to cover allthe losses/expenses that has taken place andmoreover, the long reimbursement procedure and

the proof/evidences to be submitted prior thereimbursement is tough because people explainthat all the losses done by wild animals cannothave proof nor can it be quantified. Economiclosses due to wildlife damages are being real-ized as a serious negative impact of protectedarea management by local communities becauseof smaller holdings, geographic marginality andlack of income generating options and this of-ten forces local people towards illicit poachingof wildlife or retaliation (Katel et al. 2015). Nev-ertheless, as long as wild animals and peopleshare the same habitats conflict is bound to hap-pen however the problem should be lowered totolerable limits to ensure the healthy environ-ment. The pronounced occurrences of conflictshave been attributed to the loss of forests alongseasonal migratory routes and the shrinkage ofavailable forested areas. It is therefore very es-sential to identify the ongoing threats in CNP,quantify those threats, their underlying causes.The proper assessment for their prevalence andimplementation of proper mitigation measures isthe major requirement to achieve cent percentsuccess in meeting conservation goals. Co-man-agement of the conflicts at the local level alongwith the concessions including settlements ofrights for collecting the forest resources mayhelp to accommodate the needs and necessityof local people and at the same time elicit theirsupport for wildlife conservation (Badola 1998).The well designed, systematized plan and con-certed attention is the necessity for preventingconflicts in PAs. The policies should be strictlyimplemented and the cost of penalty should bemade very expensive in order to minimize theillicit activities and wildlife trade. Poaching isidentified as the major threat which is done foreconomic benefits and sometimes as a revengefor the losses therefore the main mitigation mea-sures might be the high penalty or charges thatis to be paid by poachers and strict managementstrategies. Besides, for the long term conserva-tion, educational and awareness program shouldbe organized for local community to learn/knowabout the importance of wildlife and they shouldbe provided with alternative sources of liveli-hoods, facilitated with opportunities and em-ployment which could be options for reducingnegative attitudes towards wild animals and min-imize poaching and retaliation.

86 RAKSHYA THAPA

CONCLUSION

The results showed that the major factorsthat influenced poaching and retaliation of wildanimals in Chitwan National Park (CNP) includ-ed various losses created by wildlife. Moreover,the lack of employment and poverty triggeredthe retaliatory killing and poaching of wildlifeby local people as a reimbursement for the loss-es that occurred.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The prevention should not only includethe technical problems of controlling pre-dation and disturbances but also shouldinvolve the social costs.

2. The changes in cropping patterns shouldbe prioritized though people think that re-placing the cash crops by some othertypes of crops do not make a profit anddoes not hold the market. The attemptshould be made by planting crops like to-bacco, capsicum, chillies, oil-seeds, rad-ish, cottons and flowers like marigoldwhich serve as animal repellants. Even theplants with thorns like cactus and bee keep-ing can be placed on the edge of PAs toreduce animal’s attraction towards the area.

3. Habitat fragmentation and shrinking of thehabitat makes shrinking of space leadingto limitations in availability of food neces-sary for wild animals which makes animalsstray out of the wild habitat to human set-tlements and farms in search of food. So,the local people and visitors should bemade aware regarding the consequencesof habitat destruction and their effects onlife through formal and informal education.The education and trainings may promotecommitment towards wildlife conservation.

4. The protective livestock management prac-tices along with the proper grazing tech-niques should be applied to suffer fromlosses at minimum range.

5. Sometimes, accidentally meeting with wildanimals’ forces human to conduct the illic-it activity inside PAs. Even, wild animalssometimes accidentally encounter peoplewhen they come in front of each other soproper security and strict implementationof policies is required to control the illegalacts.

6. The creation of wildlife corridors linkingwildlife areas where human activities are

prohibited and wildlife are free for move-ment, can alleviate conflict between hu-man and wildlife.

7. The design of specific policy dealing withhuman wildlife conflict management couldbe useful in reducing conflict.

8. There should be proper collaboration andcoordination between national and inter-national bodies to stop the wildlife crime.

REFERENCES

Adhikari KR, Tan YC, Lai JS, Pant D 2009. Irrigationintervention: A strategy for conserving biodiversityand improving food security in Royal Chitwan Na-tional Park buffer zone, Nepal. Irrigation and Drain-age, 58(5): 522-537.

Allendorf TD 1999. Local Resident’s Perceptions ofProtected Areas in Nepal beyond Conflict and Eco-nomics. A Thesis Submitted for Partial Fulfillment ofthe Requirements for the Degree of Doctor ofPhilosophy.Minnesota, USA: Faculty of the Gradu-ate School of the University of Minnesota.

Archabald K, Naughton-Treves L 2001. Tourism reve-nue sharing around national parks in Western Ugan-da: Early efforts to identify and reward local commu-nities. Environmental Conservation, 28: 135-149.

Badola R 1998. Attitudes of local people towards con-servation and alternatives to forest resources: A casestudy from the lower Himalayas. Biodiversity andConservation, 7(10): 1245-1259.

Baral N, Heinen JT 2007. Resources use, conservationattitudes, management intervention and park-peo-ple relations in the Western Terai landscape of Ne-pal. Environmental Conservation, 34: 64-72.

Bartos OJ, Wehr P 2002. Using Conflict Theory. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dickman AJ 2013. From cheetahs to chimpanzees: Acomparative review of the drivers of human-carni-vore conflict and human-primate conflict. Folia Pri-matologica, 83(3-6): 377-387.

Distefano E 2005. Human-Wildlife Conflict Worldwide:Collection f Case Studies, Analysis of ManagementStrategies and Good Practices . Rome, Italy: Foodand Agricultural Organization of the United Nations(FAO), Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Develop-ment Initiative (SARDI).

Gillespie TR, Chapman CA 2006. Prediction of para-site infection dynamics in primate meta-populationsbased on attributes of forest fragmentation. Conser-vation Biology, 20(2): 441-448.

Gurung MK, Khadka M, Darjee KB 2008. Buffer ZoneManagement Policy Implication on the Livelihoodsof Excluded Groups: A Study from Chitwan NationalPark and Parsa Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Nepal: So-cial Inclusion Research Fund (SNV).

Haken J 2011. Transnational crime in the developingworld. Global Financial Integrity, 22: 17-24.

Holmes CM2003. The influence of protected area out-reach on conservation attitudes and resource use pat-terns: A case study from western Tanzania. Oryx,37(3): 305-315.

FACTORS ESCALATING RETALIATION AND POACHING IN CHITWAN NATIONAL PARK 87

Inskip C, Zimmerman A 2009. Human-felid conflict: Areview of patterns and priorities worldwide. Oryx,43: 18-34.

Katel ON, Pradhan S, Schmidt-Vogt D 2015. A surveyof livestock losses caused by Asiatic wild dogs, leop-ards and tigers, and of the impact of predation on thelivelihood of farmers in Bhutan. Wildlife Research,41(4): 300-310.

Kideghesho JR 2009. The potentials of traditional Af-rican cultural practices in mitigating overexploita-tion of wildlife species and habitat loss: Experienceof Tanzania. International Journal of BiodiversityScience and Management, 5(2): 83-94.

Knight AJ 2008. Bats, snakes and spiders, oh my! Howaesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other con-cepts predict support for species protection. Journalof Environmental Psychology, 28(1): 94-103.

Krejcie RV, Morgan DW 1970. Determining samplesize for research activities. Educational and Psy-chological Measurement, 30(3): 607-610.

Lamarque F, Anderson J, Fergusson R, Lagrange M,Osei-Owusu Y, Bakker L 2009. Human-Wildlife Con-flict in Africa: Causes, Consequences and Manage-ment Strategies.Rome: Food and Agriculture Organi-zation of the United Nations, P. 112.

Madden F 2004. Creating coexistence between humansand wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts toaddress human-wildlife conflict. Human Dimensionsof Wildlife, 9(4): 247-257.

Muth RM, Bowe Jr JF 1998. Illegal harvest of renew-able natural resources in North America: Toward atypology of the motivations for poaching. Societyand Natural Resources, 11(1): 9-24.

Naughton-Treves L 1999. Whose animals? A history ofproperty rights to wildlife in Toro, western Uganda.Land Degradation and Development, 10(4): 311-328.

Newmark WD, Manyanza DN, Gamassa DG, Sariko HI1994. The conflict between wildlife and local peopleliving adjacent to protected areas in Tanzania: Hu-man density as a predictor. Conservation Biology, 8:249-255.

Sesabo JK, Lang H, Tol RSJ 2006. Perceived Attitudeand Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Establishment:Why Households’ Characteristics Matters in CoastalResources Conservation Initiatives in Tanzania. Work-ing Paper FNU-99. Germany: Hamburg Universityand Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences.

Shrestha S 2015. The Role of Environmental Educa-tion for Biodiversity Conservation: A Case Study inthe Protected Areas of Nepal. Doctoral Dissertation.US: Arizona State University.

Stræde S, Treue T 2006. Beyond buffer zone protec-tion: A comparative study of park and buffer zoneproducts’ importance to villagers living inside RoyalChitwan National Park and to villagers living in itsbuffer zone. Journal of Environmental Management,78(3): 251-267.

Treves A, Wallace RB, Naughton-Treves L, Morales A2006. Co-managing human-wildlife conflicts: A re-view. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11(6): 383-396.

Vedeld P, Angelsen A, Bojö J, Sjaastad E, Berg GK 2007.Forest environmental incomes and the rural poor.Forest Policy and Economics, 9(7): 869-879.

Wikramanayake ED, Carpenter C, Strand H, McK-night M 2001. Ecoregion-based Conservation in theEastern Himalaya: Identifying Important Areas ofBiodiversity Conservation. Kathmandu: WWF, ICI-MOD.

Paper received for publication on July 2016Paper accepted for publication on March 2018