CONDITION OF HUMAN WILD BOAR CONFLICT IN NEPAL AND ITS MITIGATION PROCEDURE

1. HUMAN-WILD BOAR CONFLICT AT BUFFER ZONE AREA IN BANKE
NATIONAL PARK, NEPAL
(A case study of Human-wild boar conflict at Mahadevpuri VDC)
Supervisor:
Dil Bahadur Purja Pun
Chief Conservation officer
(BaNP)
Advisor:
Prof. Basudev Pokhrel
Assistant Dean (AFU)
Researcher:
Khim Prakash kc
(Source:www.hubertushuntingtours.com/images/wild_boar_jpg)
2017
kpkc1633@gmail.com
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY UNIVERSITY,HETUDA NEPAL

2. 2.Rationale of study
1.Introduction
3.Study Area
4.Objectives
5.Methodology
6.Result and Discussion
7.Conclusion
8.Acknowledgement
Recommendation
Outline Of Presentation
and

3. Introduction
 Conflict: It takes place whenever incompatible activities occur. One party is
Interfering,disturbing,obstructing, or in some other way making another
party’s Actions less effective (Deutsch,1973).
 Human-wildlife conflict is defined as “any interaction between humans and wildlife
that results in negative impacts on human social, economic or cultural life, on the
conservation of wildlife population, or on the environment” (WWF 2005).
 Wild boar: Wild boar (Sus scrofa:Linnaeus,1758) also known as wild pig, wild
swine or wild Hog, is a species of the pig genus Sus, part of the biological family
Suidae found in the dense Jungle of Nepal.
 Wild boar are normally most active in the early morning and late afternoon.
They can be found in a variety of habitats. They may inhabit grassy savanna areas,
wooded forests, agricultural areas, shrublands and marshy swamp lands. They
require a nearby water source and shelter (dense vegetation) to protect and
conceal them from predation (Chapman and Trani, 2007).
 Wild boars are omnivorous, feeding on just about anything edible.

4. Rationale of study:
 The human wildlife conflict evaluation analysis gives the factual
figure of entire conflict condition of any species population within
the certain area or the location.
 This Reasearch mainly aims on achieving the information whether
the pattern of the human-Wild boar conflict surrounding the
Buffer zone area is cause of their habitat loss, land use pattern of
human or cause of human enchroachment of Buffer zone area.

5. ®
0 40 80 120 16020
Kilometers
Legend
Mahadevpuri VDC
Nahar
Forest
Agricultre Land
Exposed Land
Water body
Sand Gravel/Khare khola
Study Area
MAP OF NEPAL
BANKE DISTRICT
MAHADEVPURI VDC

6. BaNP(Core Area):
Establishments:2010 AD.
Area:550 sq.km
Buffer area:
Establishments:2010 AD.
Area:344 sq.km
Districts: Banke(7 VDCs), Badiya(1 VDC), Dang(3 VDCs) and Salyan(3 VDCs)
Coordinates: 81o39’29’’ to 82o12’19’’ east longitude and 27o58’13’’ to 28o21’26’’
north latitude.
Eight ecosystem type: Sal forest, Deciduous Riverine forest, Savannahs and
Grasslands, Mixed hardwood forest, Flood plain community, Bhabar and foot hills of
Chure range.
 90% natural forest is composed of mainly Sal, Karma, Khair and Sissoo species
(Blon, 2014)
 The BaNP Buffer Zone falls in seven VDCs of Banke among which Mahadevpuri VDC
(Recently Re-structured Rapti Sunari Gaupalika ward no.08 and 09 ) is the most
incidental VDC (Gaupalika) in regarding of Human-wild boar Conflict.
 Mahadevpuri area is one of the major bottleneck area in TAL Nepal.
Cont.>
Study Area

7. Objectives:
General objectives;
The aim of the study is to explore the human-Wild boar conflict at
buffer zone area (Mahadevpuri VDC) in Banke National Park, Nepal, and
entrust solutions for an effective future conservation strategy.
Specific objectives;
To find out the current status of their natural habitat (water,space,
food, cover) and develop the human wild boar conflict distribution
cartography.
To find out Wild boar damage levels and other associated impacts;
To understand the perception and level of tolerance of people living
in the vicinity of wild boar habitats.

8. Selection of study sites
Data collection
Data analysis
Result and
discussion
Conclusion and
Recommendation
Primary data collection
1.Reconnaissance survey
2.Grop discussion
3.Direct observation
4.Use of diagram and picture
5.GPS data collection
Secondary data
collection
Research reports, project
documents,Journal article,
literature,electronic media
Book,Other publish and unpublish
documents
Research Flow Chart

9. Methodology
1.Questionnaire survey:
A) Primary data collection
 Several structured self-administered questionnaire survey was used to collect data on
human-wild boar conflict.
Questions Types: i)close ended ii) open ended
 Altogether 74 households were included in the study using a simple random
sampling method where it covered surrounding area of forest which cover about
500m of settlement area from nearby forest in which at least 10% households
was selected randomly.
2.Group discussions:
 This discussion mainly focused on adult and older people.
 Discussions was made with randomly selected 6-10 respondent in each selected
ward under the guidance of a supervisor.

10. 3.Direct observation:
 It was done in the affected area practically that enhanced for better analysis of present
situation.
 It had help to judge the distance of farms from the buffer zone, crop damages, different
techniques used in the farms to scare wild boar, changes in vegetation cover, the affected
crops, nature of wild animals’ habitat fragmentation, and frequency of coming crop
raiding wild boar to farm lands, estimating crop lost by crop raider, type and diversity of
the top ranked damage caused by wild boars.
4.Use of diagrams and pictures;
 Diagrams and pictures or photo for Wild boar had used to identify animal
species and its role in conflicts setting.
 This method had applied in those respondents who confuse about which
wildlife damaged to their crops and it helped to collect details and clear
information about wild boar where the problem of misunderstanding and
language problem had to be solved.
5.GPS data collection
GPS coordinates of the sites along with its aspect was collected and the location of conflict
area was recorded to support in the conflict distribution analysis of Human-wild boar
conflict.
Cont.>

11. In this study, Landsat image (2017,January) of Banke National Park along with Buffer zone
study area was collected from USGS Earth Explorer (earthexplorer.usgs.gov). Based on the
objectives of study, Four types of features relevant to animals’ habitats had identified:
presence of water, land cover, vegetation types (Mixed forest and Sal forest), and Space.The
classifications for land cover and vegetation type had set up from a sample survey in the
field. The land cover was typically divided into village areas, arable lands, forest and
grasslands.
The identified features had digitized into the GIS software ArcGIS 10.2, thus transformed
into GIS layers easier to analyze. Simple Procedure of land use/land cover map with
conflict distribution as follows:
Cont.>>
DATA ACQUISITION RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY
DATA ENHANCEMENT, PROCESSING AND
INTEGRATION
LAND USE /LAND COVER CLASSIFICATION
DEVELOPMENT OF A CLASSIFICATION
CONTRIVE
EDITING OF LAND USE/LAND COVER MAPS AND ENTERING OF FIELD
COLLECTED GPS POINTS
FINAL PRODUCTION OF LAND USE/LAND COVER MAPS WITH
CONFLICT DISTRIBUTION
OBJECTIVES OF LAND USE/LAND COVER

12. Software used for data analysis:
(a) ArcGIS 10.2– This was used for the development of land use land cover classes
and finally used to compliment the display and processing of the data.
(b) Microsoft word – was used basically for the presentation of the research
(c) Google Earth Pro:- Verification of classified image and sample data.
(d) MS Excel :- Statistical analysis of results.
B. Secondary data collection
Secondary data for this research was mainly from archival sources such as office of
Banke national park/ Buffer zone FUG office, various published and unpublished
documents including project documents, thesis reports, literature, journal and
electronic media.

13. Result and Discussion
Natural habitat status
Land Use/Land Cover
(Habitat)
Area of National
Park (Core area
+Buffer zone
area) in (Sq.km)
Percentage
Sal Dominant Forest 184.89 20.68
Mixed Forest 549.97 61.54
Water body 5.56 0.62
Crop Land 45.62 5.10
Sand Gravel/Khare
khola
35.09 3.92
Exposed Land 43.05 4.81
Irrigation Canal/Nahar 1.51 0.16
Grassland 16.28 1.83
Marsh Land/Pond 11.69 1.30
Total 893.66 100

14. DISTRIBUTION OF SAL AND MIXED FOREST
Land cover
class(Habitat
)
Area (Core
area +Buffer
zone area)in
sq.km
Percentage
Mixed forest 549.97 61.54
Sal
Dominant
forest
184.89 20.68
Others 158.8 17.78
Total 893.66 100
Cont.>

15. Land cover
class(Habit
at)
Area (Core
area
+Buffer
zone
area)in
sq.km
Percentage
Water body 17.15 1.91
Grassland 16.28 1.82
Others 860.23 96.26
Total 893.66 100
Cont.>>

16. Wild boar habitat analysis based on land use/land cover map and existing
information:
Four factors were identified as being the most important in determining the suitability of
wild boar. Each factor was then subdivided into four levels of suitability. The table below
represents the factors that were used to determine habitat suitability for wild boar.
Vegetation type Proximity to water
body
Distance to Human
Habitation
Suitability
Mixed forest Within 2km More than 5km 4
Grassland/Shrub
land
2-3km 3-5km 3
Sal forest 3-3.5km 2-3km 2
Exposed land
includes Sand
Gravel
More 3km Less than 2km 1
Suitability
value
Suitability code
1 Not suitable
2 Little suitable
3 Moderately suitable
4 Highly suitable
Table : habitat suitability factor for wild boar
Table : Suitability code for Habitat

17. Suitability
code
Area in
sq.km
Percentage
Out of range 62.66 7.01
Not suitable 79.86 8.93
Little suitable 184.89 20.68
Moderately
suitable
16.28 1.82
Highly
suitable
549.97 61.54
Total 893.66 100
Cont.>>>>

18. Cont.>>>>>CONFLICT DISTRIBUTION CARTOGRAPHY

19. Based on land use/land cover map of Banke National Park, above Habitat
suitability class of Wild boar and conflict distribution cartography map following
reason concluded why Human-Wild boar Conflict occurred in selected VDC or
Gaupalika:
1. Land use/land cover Map denotes that because of limitations of water resources in
core area of park, natural habitat in that area is not in good condition whereas around
the buffer zone ,the area consists of little more water and marsh land in contrast to the
national park core area, resulting to transformation of wild boar nearer to human
society.
2. Wild boar prefer moist area with sufficient water resource so they are more
concentrate towards water body area.
3. In summer season there is high chance of fire occurrence in forest leading to lack of
food for wild boars, these conditions compels the wild boars to prefer their suitable
food and water resources from cropland area where farmer make their cropland green
almost every month of the year. From above reasons and causes we expect the conflicts
to be greater in this area at those times.
4. Highly suitable habitat, moderately suitable habitat and little suitable habitat are
distributed in near side of human settlements area or crop land area, this proves
maximum number of wild boar may settle surrounding area of South part of buffer zone
area which is close to crop land area. Due to such all combined habitat in those area
wild boar can enter any time in agriculture land and consequently conflict arise with
human.

20. Classification Accuracy
Accuracy of Landsat image classification (2017, January) was assessed.
As imposed in ArcGIS 10.2, the overall classification accuracy was
found to be 86.16% the kappa coefficient (k) was found to be 0.8334.
Thus the supervised classification was found to be satisfactory.
Accuracy assessment table is given below.

21. Classifi
ed data
Sal fores
t
Mixe
d forest
Gras
s land
Wate
r
body
Sand, Grave
l
Irrigatio n
cannel
Cro
p land
Mars
h land
Expose
d land
Total
( user
)
Sal forest 20 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 25
Mixed
Forest
0 47 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 51
Grasslan d 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
Water body 0 0 0 10 1 0 0 0 0 11
Sand, Gravel 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 1 11
Irrigation cannel 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 7
Crop land 0 0 0 0 2 0 14 0 0 16
Marsh land 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 12 0 16
Exposed land 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 11 13
Total ( produce
r)
21 52 9 10 15 5 15 16 16 159
Table 6: image classification: Error matric

22. Class Names Reference totals Classified totals Number
correct
Producer Accuracy User
Accuracy
Sal forest 21 25 20 95.23% 80%
Mixed forest 52 51 47 90.38% 92.15%
Grassland 9 9 8 88.88% 88.88%
Water body 10 11 10 100% 90.90%
Sand, Gravel 15 11 10 66.67% 90.90%
Irrigation cannel 5 7 5 100% 71.42%
Crop land 15 16 14 93.33% 87.5%
Marsh land 16 16 12 75% 75%
Exposed land 16 13 11 68.75% 84.61%
Table 7: image classification: Accuracy totals

23. Crop types Crop growing seasons More severe
season(more
conflict time)
Results
Maize (1)May/June-
Aug./Sept.,(2)Jan./Feb-
May/June
April,May,June Because of
insufficient
food,water and
shelter(extreme
heat,forest fire
etc.) in Natural
forest,Feb/Mar/A
pr/May were
most conflict
occurring seasons
out of 12 month.
Wheat Oct/Nov-Mar./Apr. February,March
Potatoes (1)Sept./Oct.-
Dec./Jan.,Dec./Jan.-
Feb./Mar.
February
Rice June/July-Sept./Oct. Anytime between
Growing season
Dioscorea alata(Yam or Tarul),co-co
Yam(pidaalu)
Apr./May-Oct./Nov. April,May,June
Mustard Sept./Oct.-Dec./Jan. February,March
Lentil Oct/Nov-Mar./Apr. February,March
Calendar of Seasonal crops occurring Month with seasonal crop
being damaged by wild boar:
Table : Calendar of Seasonal crops damaged condition by wild boar
Cont.>>>>>>>

24. Crop types Average area
damaged per
year per HH
(katha)
Average damage
per year per HH
(kg)
Economically
Average
annual
damage per
year per HH
(NRs)
Total damage
per year (kg)
Total damage in
term of
money(NRs)
Maize (2 times
per year)
3 244.5 5868 18093 434232
Wheat 1.5 148.7 4014.9 11003.8 297102.6
Rice or paddy 1 124 1984 9176 146816
Potato(2 times
per year)
1 141.6 2241.6 10478.4 167654.4
Dioscorea
alata(Yam or
Tarul),co-co
Yam(pidaalu)
0.12 29.65 889.5 2194.1 65823
Lentil 0.5 11 990 814 73260
mustard 0.25 08 640 592 47360
Pea 1 9.65 675.5 714.1 49987
Extent of wild boar destruction in term of area and money Cont.>>>>>>>>

25. Perception of people about arrival of wild boars to
the cropland
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Other
Deforestationoftheforest
Forestfire
ImprovementofBZCM
Encroachmentofforestarea
foragricultureland
Insearchofwater
Insearchofpalatablefood
Increaseinthenumberofwild
boar
HabitatDegradationinthe
forest
Totals
Expanseofbarelandand
Sand,Gravelintheforest
1.35 5.4 6.75 12.16 13.51 14.86 32.43 100 2,70
Sum of f by %
Cont.>>>>>>>>>

26. Erection of used colored sarees
This method is also a farmer’s innovation, which has a behavioral background as far as wild boar is
concerned. By arranging used sarees of different colors around the crop will make wild boars to
assume human presence in the area there by not preferring to enter into such areas. Even though, not
feasible in all situations it has some marginal benefit in the areas of human movement. By using this,
extent of damage by wild boar can be minimized to the level of 30-55%.
Photo 1 : Fixing of used coloured sarees as border around the crop

27. DISCUSSION
.
For the whole year, it seems that conflict used to occur mostly due to
availability of suitable habitat for feeding and sheltering, on the
proximity of water sites for drinking, wallowing and cleaning. Farms
seems as attractive factor for wild boars, possibly due presence of
some types of crops ,such as small cereals, maize, barley, potatoes in
addition nearby streams and other irrigation sources etc.that exist
almost every month of the year.
The management strategy suggested in this study can be useful for
predicting the future presence of wild boars, assessing the quality of
habitat for the species, and suggesting management actions which
should aimed both at improving the carrying capacity and at avoiding
damage to agriculture.

28. As a conclusion, the Banke national park including its buffer zone
area both were found affected in equal like parameter.
Destruction of Natural forest by local people, crop damage by wild
boar, depredation of livestock, Decline of Natural habitat, poor
relation with protection units etc. were the major factors that are
impelling for the rising of human wild boar conflict and the most
importantly crop destruction is very noticeable and unforgettable
aspect where more than half of total crop production were found
damaged.
Though they have positive concept about wild boar conservation but
damages, disturbances by wild boar and more than that the absence
of wild boar damage compensation policies was leading majority of
peoples to develop more aggressive attitude toward wild boar and
their conservation.
Conclusion

29. Recommendation:
1.Recent legislation system of Nepal is insufficient for
coverage of compensation scheme of all wild animal so that it
should be revised over time period.
2.To achieve sustainable mitigation of conflict ,fencing is the
most appropriate way that should be regularly maintined.
3.Nation-wide species distribution and status surveys are
needed for the wild boar where human-wild boar contact is
needed to be prevented.
4.Habitat improvement-Water bodies has declined, So
Further study is recommended. Extensive study on lower
vegetation is recommended to ensure habitat of Wildlife.

30. Agricultural Activities:
field of Maize crop Vegetable cultivation land
Photo Plates:

31. co-co yam cultivation field
Cultivation land of maize and vegetable together

32. Agriculture crops(Maize) damaged by wild boar

33. Destructed wheat crop land by wild boar Co-Co Yam(pidaalu) Damged by wild boar

34. Farmer’s Potatoes,Maize and Wheat crop land damaged by wild boar

35. Tradional Machan Guard prepaerd
by Local people
Traditional Bamboo fencing

36. Fire wood fencing

37. Traditional rope bed in crop land for watching wild boar during Night time

38. Interaction with community people

39. Cont. >
Using Diagram and photo for data collection
with Local people

40. Cont. >

41. Pointing the areas destructed by wild boar ( photo on the left side)

42. Wild boar foot print found on Wheat land