Why human-wildlife conflict happens
For thousands of years, people have protected themselves and their livelihoods from wild animals. The rise of agriculture and livestock keeping around 10,000 years ago marked the beginning of crop damage and livestock predation. In recent decades, the rapid conversion of wildlife habitats—areas where animals naturally thrive—has intensified competition over space and resources. This has led to more frequent and severe human-wildlife conflicts globally. Events like crop damage and human injuries or fatalities can devastate families who depend on farming. In turn, retaliatory killings of wildlife, especially endangered species, push them closer to extinction.
Why this study matters
Understanding how local communities prefer to live alongside wildlife is a key conservation strategy. These insights help protected area managers balance conservation goals with community needs. Coexistence can create mutual benefits, allowing people and wildlife to share landscapes with fewer conflicts.
Meet Nepals’ biodiversity hotspot
This motivation led me to conduct research in Nepal’s oldest national park, Chitwan National Park. Here, iconic species like the one-horned rhinoceros and Bengal tiger share space with local communities. Chitwan National Park is home to the world’s second-largest population of one-horned rhinoceros. It’s not unusual to see a majestic rhino strolling along village roads or grazing on crops. Coming from India, where cattle often roam the streets, I found it remarkable to witness rhinos using the same paths that people take to work.
How we did the study
While human-wildlife conflicts are a global issue, they are highly context specific. What works in one place may not work in another. As part of my PhD research, I aimed to:
- Understand community preferences for strategies that help them adapt and live alongside wildlife
- Identify which demographic groups are more likely to support these strategies
To do this, I conducted fieldwork in the buffer zones of Chitwan National Park. I engaged with buffer zone residents to learn about their experiences, both positive and negative, with wildlife. I also collaborated with park officials and local stakeholders working to promote coexistence.
To gather nuanced insights, we employed a discrete choice experiment methodology. This approach asked participants to choose between different hypothetical scenarios of human-wildlife coexistence. In each choice task, respondents were presented with two alternative strategies and a status quo option. By asking them to select their most preferred approach, we could systematically understand their preferences for coexisting with wildlife.
Between March and May 2022, we surveyed 506 households using face-to-face interviews in Nepali. A trained local enumerator, familiar with wildlife and community dynamics, assisted with data collection.
What we found
Our study revealed two key insights:
- Communities favored grassroots awareness programs, sustainable economic opportunities, blending science with indigenous knowledge, and stronger rapid response teams. These preferences reflect dissatisfaction with the current situation, which is marked by limited economic opportunities at the grassroots level, inadequate skills to mitigate conflicts, insufficient capacity to coexist with wildlife, and a lack of mechanisms to reorganize.
- Indigenous individuals and those with at least a middle school education were more likely to support these alternative strategies
These findings offer evidence-based guidance for park managers and policymakers. They highlight the importance of aligning conservation efforts with community preferences, an approach that resonates with Target 4 of the Global Biodiversity Framework, which emphasizes reducing human-wildlife conflict to promote coexistence.
What’s next
Despite the progress made, human-wildlife conflicts will continue in Chitwan National Park and beyond. Wildlife often takes refuge in human-dominated landscapes, unaware of political boundaries. There is no universal solution, each context demands tailored approaches.
Future research in Chitwan National Park could explore:
- Community preferences for managing specific species like deer and rhinos, which are major crop raiders
- A transboundary comparison of Tharu community perspectives between Chitwan and India’s adjacent Valmiki Tiger Reserve. Such studies could strengthen cross-border conservation strategies
Link to the full paper: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-025-01963-y
For those without subscription access, you can find a readable version here: https://rdcu.be/ezNLQ