Wildlife attacks on humans and economic losses often result in reduced support of local communities for wildlife conservation. Information on spatial and temporal patterns of such losses in the highly affected areas contribute in designing and implementing effective mitigation measures. We analyzed the loss of humans, livestock and property caused by wildlife during 1998 to 2016, using victim family’s reports to Chitwan National Park authorities and Buffer Zone User Committees. A total of 4,014 incidents were recorded including attacks on humans, livestock depredation, property damage and crop raiding caused by 12 wildlife species. In total >400,000 US dollar was paid to the victim families as a relief over the whole period. Most of the attacks on humans were caused by rhino, sloth bear, tiger, elephant, wild boar and leopard. A significantly higher number of conflict incidents caused by rhino and elephant were observed during full moon periods. An increase in the wildlife population did not coincide with an equal rise in conflict incidents reported. Underprivileged ethnic communities were attacked by wildlife more frequently than expected. Number of attacks on humans by carnivores and herbivores did not differ significantly. An insignificant decreasing trend of wildlife attacks on humans and livestock was observed with significant variation over the years. Tiger and leopard caused >90% of livestock depredation. Tigers killed both large (cattle and buffalo) and medium sized (goat, sheep, pig) livestock but leopard mostly killed medium sized livestock. Most (87%) of the livestock killing during 2012–2016 occurred within the stall but close (<500m) to the forest edge. Both the percentage of households with livestock and average holding has decreased over the years in buffer zone. Decreased forest dependency as well as conflict mitigation measures (electric and mesh wire fences) have contributed to keep the conflict incidents in control. Strengthening mitigation measures like construction of electric or mesh wire fences and predator-proof livestock corrals along with educating local communities about wildlife behavior and timely management of problem animals (man-eater tiger, rage elephant etc.) will contribute to reduce the conflict.

Buffer zones around parks/reserves are designed to maintain ecological integrity and to ensure community participation in biodiversity conservation. We studied the fund utilization pattern of buffer zone programs, mitigation measures practiced, and attitudes of residents in buffer zone programs of Chitwan National Park, Nepal. The buffer zone committees spent only a small portion (13.7%) of their budget in direct interventions to reduce wildlife impacts. Human-wildlife conflicts were inversely related to investment in direct interventions for conflict prevention and mitigation. Peoples' attitudes towards wildlife conservation were largely positive. Most of the people were aware of buffer zone programs but were not satisfied with current practices. We recommend that buffer zone funds be concentrated into direct interventions (prevention and mitigation) to reduce wildlife conflicts. Our findings will be helpful in prioritizing distribution of funds in buffer zones of parks and reserves.

Ecological theory predicts that sympatric species should avoid competition through diet, spatial and/or temporal partitioning. In carnivores, interference is widespread between species with similar diets. Smaller species are expected to differentiate their diet from that of larger, dominant ones, to reduce the risk of potentially lethal encounters. Interference has been reported between tigers and common leopards, with the former dominant over the latter. In 2009–2011, in an area of Terai, South‐West Nepal, we assessed food habits and prey selection of tigers and common leopards, to evaluate whether prey partitioning occurred between these large cats. Prey availability was high, both in terms of number of species (at least seven wild ungulates beside livestock, two primates and an array of smaller prey) and density (large ungulates, livestock and primates: 130.8–174.8 individuals per km2). Wild vertebrates were the staple of both cats (tigers: 82.7%; common leopards: 66.6%), but common leopards used livestock significantly more than tigers did. Diet breadth of leopards was c. 20% larger than that of tigers, indicating a broader trophic niche. Significant differences in prey use and selection occurred between tigers and leopards, with the former using large (i.e. >100 kg) prey more often and small (i.e. 5–25 kg) prey less often than the latter did. Medium‐sized prey were taken in comparable proportions by the two cats, with a great overlap of diet (Pianka index: 0.85). In conclusion, in our study area, apparently tigers and leopards did not base their coexistence on diet partitioning, suggesting a major role for spatial and/or temporal partitioning.

We investigated the factors facilitating co-occurrence of two large carnivores, tigers (Panthera tigris) and common leopards (Panthera pardus), within a human-dominated landscape. We estimated their density and population size using camera-trap photographs and examined spatial segregation of habitats, temporal activity pattern, and diets in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. A Bayesian spatially-explicit capture-recapture model estimated densities of 3.2-4.6 (3.94 ± 0.37) tigers and 2.6-4.1 (3.31 ± 0.4) leopards per 100 km 2 with abundance of 70-102 tigers and 66-105 leopards. Tigers occupied the prime habitats (grasslands and riverine forests) in alluvial floodplains of the Park whereas leopards appeared in Sal forests and marginal areas where livestock are present. Both tigers and leopards showed crepuscular activity patterns with a high overlap but tigers were less active during the day compared to leopards. Leopards' activity in the day increased in the presence of tigers. Tiger and leopard diet overlapped considerably (90%). Compared to leopards, tigers consumed a higher proportion of the large prey and a smaller proportion of livestock. Our study demonstrates that sympatric large carnivores can coexist in high densities in prey rich areas that contain a mosaics of habitats. To increase the resilience and size of the Chitwan carnivore population, strategies are needed to increase prey biomass and prevent livestock depredation in adjacent forests. Long-term monitoring is also required to obtain a detailed understanding of the interaction between the large carnivores and their effects on local communities living in forest fringes within the landscape.