An assessment of the Human-Elephant conflict in Sapahi and Kakadi Village of Kolhabi Municipality, Bara, Nepal

Our Nature Pub Date : 2021-12-14 DOI:10.3126/on.v19i1.41223
Akshay Chaudhary, S. Timilsina, S. Gautam, Prajwol Babu Subedi
{"title":"An assessment of the Human-Elephant conflict in Sapahi and Kakadi Village of Kolhabi Municipality, Bara, Nepal","authors":"Akshay Chaudhary, S. Timilsina, S. Gautam, Prajwol Babu Subedi","doi":"10.3126/on.v19i1.41223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to assess the trend, extent, and impact of Human-Elephant conflict (HEC) in Sapahi and Kakadi villages of Bara district. Direct field observation, Household Survey (HHs), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), and Key Informant Interview (KII) were carried out during November and December 2016 where 11 wards were selected purposively from two village and 50 households from each village. Also, 12 KII and one FGDs from each ward were performed. SPSS 20.0, and MS Excel 2016 were used to calculate mean, percentage, frequency count, and chi-square test was used to determine the variation in people’s perception towards wild Elephant conservation. The total average damage of paddy per year per HHs was 834.1 kg followed by wheat 153.7 kg, and mustard 2.12 kg. The economic value of average annual crop damage per year per HHs accounted for NRs. 22669.70. Among total HHs, 84% of the respondents said that the trend of crop damage is increasing, 10% found no differences in crop damage, and remaining 6% said decreasing. During the last 5 years, 7 people were injured, and 6 were killed. The lighting fire, beating drum, and making noise were the local techniques used by all the respondents to chase away elephant for the mitigation of HEC. The farmers also guard their fields at night time. 60% of the respondents are positive towards elephant conservation and remaining 40% seems no significance for conservation. The compensation scheme for crop damage should be properly implemented in the study area to minimize the HEC. A sustained conservation education program especially focusing on female, farmers, and nomads are recommended to conserve wild elephants, and their habitat.","PeriodicalId":19905,"journal":{"name":"Our Nature","volume":"43 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Our Nature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3126/on.v19i1.41223","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to assess the trend, extent, and impact of Human-Elephant conflict (HEC) in Sapahi and Kakadi villages of Bara district. Direct field observation, Household Survey (HHs), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), and Key Informant Interview (KII) were carried out during November and December 2016 where 11 wards were selected purposively from two village and 50 households from each village. Also, 12 KII and one FGDs from each ward were performed. SPSS 20.0, and MS Excel 2016 were used to calculate mean, percentage, frequency count, and chi-square test was used to determine the variation in people’s perception towards wild Elephant conservation. The total average damage of paddy per year per HHs was 834.1 kg followed by wheat 153.7 kg, and mustard 2.12 kg. The economic value of average annual crop damage per year per HHs accounted for NRs. 22669.70. Among total HHs, 84% of the respondents said that the trend of crop damage is increasing, 10% found no differences in crop damage, and remaining 6% said decreasing. During the last 5 years, 7 people were injured, and 6 were killed. The lighting fire, beating drum, and making noise were the local techniques used by all the respondents to chase away elephant for the mitigation of HEC. The farmers also guard their fields at night time. 60% of the respondents are positive towards elephant conservation and remaining 40% seems no significance for conservation. The compensation scheme for crop damage should be properly implemented in the study area to minimize the HEC. A sustained conservation education program especially focusing on female, farmers, and nomads are recommended to conserve wild elephants, and their habitat.
尼泊尔巴拉市科尔哈比市萨帕希村和卡卡迪村人象冲突评估
本研究旨在评估Bara地区Sapahi和Kakadi村人象冲突(HEC)的趋势、程度和影响。在2016年11月和12月进行了直接实地观察、住户调查(HHs)、焦点小组讨论(fgd)和关键信息访谈(KII),有目的地从两个村庄和每个村庄的50户家庭中选择11个病房。每个病房进行12例KII和1例FGDs。采用SPSS 20.0和MS Excel 2016计算平均值、百分比、频次计数,采用卡方检验确定人们对野生象保护认知的变化。稻谷年平均受害总量为834.1 kg,其次是小麦153.7 kg,芥菜2.12 kg。每个HHs每年平均作物年损失的经济价值占NRs。22669.70. 在所有HHs中,84%的受访者表示作物损害的趋势正在增加,10%的受访者认为作物损害没有差异,其余6%的受访者表示减少。在过去的5年里,有7人受伤,6人死亡。点燃火、打鼓、制造噪音是所有被调查者为减轻HEC而采用的赶走大象的当地技术。农民们也在晚上守卫他们的田地。60%的受访者对保护大象持积极态度,剩下的40%似乎对保护大象没有什么意义。应在研究区合理实施作物损害补偿方案,以尽量减少HEC。建议开展持续的保护教育项目,特别关注女性、农民和游牧民族,以保护野生大象及其栖息地。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信