3 Human–wildlife conflict (hereafter HWC) is an ongoing issue in many parts of the world and is creating significant problems in the parts where wildlife and human populations coexist and share limited resources (Bhandari et al., 2019; Wang & Macdonald, 2006; Woodroffe, 2000). Conflicting situations arise when wildlife negatively affect the lives of humans or when the activities of humans negatively affect the needs of wildlife (Dickman & Hazzah, 2016; Wang & Macdonald 2005). Conflict between humans and wildlife is escalating due to the increased human population, loss of natural habitat, and in some areas, even increasing wildlife populations as a result of successful conservation programmes (Baral et al., 2021; Laurance et al., 2000; Naha et al., 2018; Syombua, 2013). HWC is not only an issue for humans and their livestock but when humans retaliate, this also has an impact on the survival of many endangered mammalian predators. As a consequence, large predator numbers are declining and at the same time people have concerns about their welfare, health and safety, economic existence and social costs (Aryal Banko Janakari, Vol 32 No. 1, 2022 Pp 3‒14https://doi.org/10.3126/banko.v32i1.45434 Spatio–temporal pattern of human leopard conflict and mitigation strategy in Baitadi district, mid–hills of Nepal Human–wildlife conflict is increasing globally, particularly in the areas, where wildlife and humans coexist and share resources. Large mammalian predators such as common leopards not only kill livestock but they are also killing humans. Baitadi is among the top ranked districts in Nepal in terms of number of human common leopard conflict events in last 10 years. The fieldwork for this study was carried out between January and June 2020 in the villages of Bishalpur, Udayadev, Pancheshor and Aamchaura of Baitadi district. Field observation, questionnaire survey, key informant interview and literature review were used for the data collection. Our study found that common leopards killed 23 and injured eight people between 2011 and 2019 in the district. In retaliation, people killed 26 common leopards in the same period, which must have spelt disaster for these rare cats. Despite the increasing number of conflict events, the local people, in general, were found to have positive attitude towards wildlife conservation. Therefore, improved prey species management, awareness raising among the local people and detailed study on habitat assessment, population status of leopards and their prey species are the urgent needs for the mitigation of human common leopard conflict in the district. Keywords: Conservation, habitat management, human–wildlife conflict, mitigation strategy K. Baral 1*, 2,A. Aryal 2, C. Morley 3, R. M. Kunwar 4, S. Bhandari 5 H. P. Sharma 6, K. T. Magar 7, B. Adhikari 8, and J. Weihong 2 Received: 8, March 2022 Revised: 25, April 2022 Accepted: 20, May 2022 Published: 31, May 2022 1 Division Forest Office, Ministry of Forests and Environment, Government of Nepal, Kaski, Nepal,*E–mail: baralk6@gmail.com 2 Institute of Natural and Mathematical Science, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand 3 Toi Ohomai Institute of Technology, Rotorua, New Zealand 4 Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA 5 Morgan State University, Baltimore, MD 21251, USA 6 Central Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal 7 Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA 8 Institute of Forestry, Tribhuvan University, Pokhara, Nepal https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2869-8901 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6658-8714 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7149-4915 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9303-0932 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2933-4883 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0708-1769 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2511-9687 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1777-5879 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5240-3344 Banko Janakari, Vol 32 No. 1 4 Baral et al. et al., 2016; Bhandari & Chalise, 2016; Le Bel et al., 2011). HWC may range from simple nuisance issues, such as crop damage, through to livestock depredation and potentially human life–threatening emergencies. Thus, HWC is a burgeoning problem in several parts of Nepal where people and wildlife share forest areas to fulfill their needs (Aryal et al., 2014a; Aryal et al., 2014b). HWC has become quite a serious issue in and around the Protected Areas (PAs) of Nepal, (Adhikari et al., 2018; Bhandari et al., 2019; Neupane et al., 2018; Sharma et al., 2019). Due to the increased forest cover as a result of the successful Community Forestry (CF) programme, now a day, conflict has increased outside PAs as well (Baral et al., 2021; Gurung et al., 2008; Reddy et al. 2018). Over two thirds of the HWC incidences reported in last five years in Nepal occurred outside PAs (DNPWC, 2017). Previously, these incidents may have be underreported because there were no relief or compensation packages available from the government. The scheme to compensate the victims of human wildlife in PAs was started in 1996 following the endorsement of the Buffer Zone Regulation (DFO, 2018; 2019; DNPWC, 2017). However, this scheme for outside PAs was started only in 2012. So, people did not use to report HWC outside PAs before 2012 (DNPWC, 2017). Out of the 77 districts in Nepal, 69 have reported human wildlife conflicts. Twenty–six species of animals were found to be involved in HWC (DNPWC, 2017). Among them, snow leopards (Panthera uncia), common leopards (P. pardus), tigers (P. tigris), Himalayan brown and black bears (Ursus arctos isabellinus and U. thibetanus laniger, respectively), elephants (Elephas maximus), rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis) and Rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulata) are the most common species involved in human wildlife conflict (DNPWC, 2017). Baitadi, a district in Far Western Province of Nepal, is among the most highly affected districts by HWC in Nepal (DNPWC, 2017)). During 2011 to 2019, common leopard killed 23 and injured eight people in the district. In retaliation, people killed 26 common leopards in the same period, in the district (DFO, 2019). Despite the increasing number of conflict events, limited number of scientific studies focusing on human common leopard conflict have been carried in the district. In this study, we investigated the spatial and temporal pattern of human common leopard conflict and assessed the causes and the potential strategies for mitigation of the ongoing conflict. Materials and methods Study area Baitadi district (29o 19' – 29o 40' N and 80o 22' – 80o 50' E) is located in the Far Western Province of Nepal (Figure 1). Its elevation ranges between 390 and 2,950 meters above sea level (m a.s.l.). The total area of the district is 1,519 km2. Sixty– two percent of the district is covered by forests. Of which, 69% are being managed under community forest system and the rest under the government management system (Kunwar et al., 2016). Majority of the forests are dominated by Pinus roxburghii while the rest are dominated by mixed broadleaved species and Sal (Shorea robusta). The total population of Baitadi district is 250,898 (DDC Baitadi, 2017). More than 80% of the population depends on agriculture for their livelihoods, followed by government jobs and businesses. Seasonal migration to India as laborers is also common in the district (Sharma, 2008). The overall literacy rate of Baitadi district is well below the national literacy rate, with only 63% of the males and 49% of female can read and write (DDC 2018). Compounding this is the large number of people living in poverty. In the Baitadi district, 37% of the population lives in below poverty line compared to the national average of 18% in Nepal (NBS 2018). The fieldwork for this study was carried out between January and June 2020 in the villages of Bishalpur, Udayadev, Pancheshor and Aamchaura as several common leopard attacks on villagers were reported from these villages (DFO, 2018). These are the remote villages with limited access to electricity and road facilities, where people are living in extreme poverty (Thapamagar et al., 2019). The villagers have low literacy rate Banko Janakari, Vol 32 No. 1 5 Baral et al. and very low level of awareness about potential measures for mitigation of ongoing human common leopard conflict. Figure 1: The study area map with (A) showing the location of Baitadi district within Nepal, (B) showing the location of four study villages within Baitadi district and (C) showing the four study villages Data collection Questionnaire survey Questionnaire survey was used for the collection of information on HWC with victimized and non– victimized people. A total of 359 people (330 males and 29 females; Table 1) from Bishalpur, Pancheshor, Aamchaura and Udayadev were surveyed between May and June 2020. Most of the survey respondents were males because women in these villages rarely attended public gatherings and did not wish to be surveyed individually. We collected information on the demography and socio–economy of the victims and their family (Table 2), the leopard attacks on humans and their consequence (death or injury), season of attack (autumn, winter, spring, rainy), time of attack (morning, day, evening, night), location of attack (forest, farmland, home). Table 1: Details of the respondents of questionnaire survey. The respondents are disaggregated by village, sex and age Villages Sex Age group (yr) Total Male Female < 30 30–60 >60 Amchaura 93 7 4 83 13 100 Bishalpur 78 10 9 71 8 88 Pancheshor 74 7 8 64 9 81 Udayadev 85 5 17 65 8 90 330 29 38 283 38 359 Table 2: Socio–economic details of the respondents of questionnaire survey Villages Profession Literacy Economic status Total Ag J B O I P S U L M H Amchaura 77 19 3 1 20 39 38 4 38 61 1 100 Bishalpur 81 3 3 1 27 16 43 2 46 42 0 88 Pancheshor 61 14 4 2 11 27 37 6 22 59 0 81 Udayadev 82 8 0 0 12 35 38 5 38 52 0 90 301 44 10 4 70 117 156 17 144 214 1 359 Details on respondents’ profession (Ag = agriculture, J = Government or private sector job, B = Business person, O = other), literacy or education (I = illiterate, P = primary, S = secondary, U = University), and economic status (L = low, M = medium, H = high) are shown. Banko Janakari, Vol 32 No. 1 6 Baral et al. Literature review We reviewed Division Forest Office (DFO) Baitadi records to obtain information on number of HWC events. We used the HWC data between 2011 and 2019 because we couldn't find the records of HWC before 2011 at DFO Baitadi. We also obtained information on a range of other species involved in HWC from the records. Information about the victims (age group, gender, and ethnicity) were obtained from DFO Baitadi and Province Forest Directorate. In addition, the current policies related to the forest and wildlife conservation and the directives were also thoroughly reviewed. Key informant interview We interviewed DFO Baitadi staffs to obtain information on the current HWC policies, legal provisions, major interventions carried out to date and their effectiveness, and future strategies to combat HWC. Perception survey We surveyed perception of respondents to collect their impressions about need of wildlife conservation. Open–ended questionnaire was used and the people were asked whether they want to conserve wildlife or not and why. For the ease of analysis, the responses of people were broadly categorized into five categories namely, i) legal (punishment and imprisonment), ii) cultural importance, iii) identity, iv) ecosystem balance, and, v) tourism promotion (Table 3). Table 3: Categorization of respondents’ perceptions of wildlife conservation We want to conserve wildlife and not kill them because : Category If we kill them, we will be punished. Wildlife is protected by the law of Nepal and we respect our law. Legal We worship nature (plants, wildlife, water, etc.) according to Hindu religion. Goddess Durga is believed to use leopard as her Vahana (vehicle) according to Hindu religion. Every wildlife has some religious value. If we disturb wildlife, our god will be angry with us and we will have to face different catastrophes like, heavy rain, landslide, hail stone, fire, epidemic, etc. Cultural importance Wildlife are the ornaments of our forests. Many of them helps to retain identity of our forests. Wildlife are the gifts of god to us. Identity Our livelihoods are closely connected to many wildlife. If we disturb them, our livelihoods will be disturbed. Snakes help us to control the mouse and birds help us in pollination of the crops. Ecosystem balance Wildlife help us promote tourism. Many local and foreign tourists come to Nepal to observe and to study wildlife. Wildlife support livelihoods of people. Tourism promotion. Data analysis Data on HWC events between 2011 and 2019 obtained from DFO Baitadi records were tabulated based on year and species involved in the events. By examining the location of the incidents, and various characteristics of victims (age, gender, ethnicity, occupation, literacy etc), we performed an associative statistical analysis to identify whether correlated variables (positive/ Banko Janakari, Vol 32 No. 1 7 Baral et al. negative) could help managers reduce wildlife attacks. The association between temporal variables (year, month, season, and time) and the HWC events were analyzed using Fisher’s exact test. We classified the time of attack in four categories (Morning: 4.00 to 9.59, Day: 10.00 to 15.59, Evening: 16.00 to 21.59 and Night: 22.00 to 3.59) and seasons of attack also in four categories (Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter) and tested whether time and season factor is significant in terms of occurrence of attack events. Similarly, we categorized the location of attacks i.e. home yard / settlement area, farm / cultivated land and forestland and tested the association of these variables with the attack events. Logistic regression was used to analyze the association between peoples’ perception of wildlife conservation. Results Overall scenario of HWC in Baitadi district During 2011 to 2019, 34 people were attacked by wildlife in Baitadi district. Of the 34 reported attacks, common leopard attacks accounted for 91% (n= 31), Himalayan black bear for 6% (n=2) and porcupine for 3% (n=1). The number of common leopard attacks are significantly higher than attacks by any other wildlife species (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.02). Of the 34 reported attacks, in 23 events, people (68%) were killed and in 11 events, people (32%) were injured. Common leopards were responsible for all human killings. They mainly attacked females (65%: n = 22) below 13 years. The age of humans attacked by wildlife ranges between 1.5 and 55 years. Since more children were attacked/killed, age is significantly associated with the wildlife attacks (Fisher's exact test; p = 0.0003). In contrast, wild bears attacked and injured 2 people resulting in no deaths and one person was injured from a porcupine attack (Table 4). Eighty–eight percent (n = 27) of all attacks occurred around the victim’s home and/or backyard, while the rest occurred in farmland and forest area. Most of the leopard attacks occurred in 2012. Ten people were killed in 2012. Most of the victims were uneducated farmers or the children of uneducated farmers 65% (n = 22, Fisher's exact test, p = 0.0053). DFO Baitadi records showed that 26 leopards were killed by people in retaliation in the same period. Thus, retaliatory killing appears to be a great challenge for the conservation of common leopards in the district. Table 4: Human casualty and injury caused by wildlife in Baitadi district Year Wildlife Number of human death Number of human injured 2011 Leopard 5 0 2012 Leopard 10 0 2013 Leopard 3 0 2014 Leopard 1 0 2015 Leopard 2 0 2016 Leopard 2 0 2017 Leopard 0 3 2017 Bear 0 1 2018 Leopard 0 2 2018 Bear 0 1 2018 Porcupine 0 1 2019 Leopard 0 3 Total 23 11 Of the 34 people attacked by wildlife, 20 (59%) were poor and 14 (41%) were medium class people. There is no significant difference in number of people killed or injured by wildlife by socio economic status (Fisher's exact test, p = 1). Among the victims, 35% (n = 12) were literate and 65% (n = 22) were illiterate. It shows that illiterate people are more often victimized by wildlife than literate people. Human common leopard conflict situation in Baitadi district Villages affected by human common leopard conflict In total 13 villages (previously they were Village Development Committees–VDCs) namely, Amrhaura, Bishalpur, Dashrath Chand, Giregadha, Kulau, Mahakali, Melauli, Panchesor, Patan, Rhodidewl, Shrmali, Shivanath and Udayadev were found affected by human common leopard Banko Janakari, Vol 32 No. 1 8 Baral et al. conflict in Baitadi district. The village that suffered the greatest loss was Bishalpur, where nine people were killed by common leopards in last nine years. Table 5: Number of human death in different villages Villages B is ha lp ur Pa nc he sh or A am ch ou ra U da ya de v Sh ar m al i K ul au G ir eg ad a Number of human death due to leopard attack 9 4 4 4 1 1 1 Time and season of leopard attacks In 24 occasions, common leopards attacked their victims in the evening (16.00 to 21.59; Figure 2A). but leopards also attacked 5 people in the morning (4.00 to 9.59), 3 people during the day (10.00 to 15.59)and, two people at night (22.00 to 3.59) (Figure 2A). Further, most of the attacks of common leopard (n = 12) occurred during autumn followed by nine attacks in winter, eight in summer and, five in spring (Figure 2B). Our results show that common leopards attack people significantly more often in the evening (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.001) and in the autumn season (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.009). 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Evening Night Morning Day Frequency of attack (%) Ti m e Time of attack 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Autumn Spring Frequency of attack (%) Se as on Season of attack A B Figure 2: A) Time pattern of wildlife attack B.) Seasonal pattern of wildlife attack in Baitadi district Spatial pattern of leopard attack Out of 31 attacks of leopard 88% (n=27) were occurred close to the victims home and settlement area, 9% (n=3) in cultivated land and 3% (n=1) in forest area. As leopard attacks were significantly higher in home yard (Fisher's exact test; p = 0.0002), there were other common features of the attacks site i.e. absence of security lighting at village or around home in evening, presence of dense vegetation and unsupervised children playing at home yard in the evening. Eyewitnesses reported that the common leopards that attacked people were either old individuals or were females with cubs. Possible causes of leopard attacks From the questionnaire survey and the key informant interview, habitat modification and behavior of the villagers were identified to be the two key reasons of leopard attacks. Of the 359 people surveyed, 167 people thought prey scarcity inside the forests was the main reason of leopard attacks. Many of the interviewees freely admitted that illegal hunting of deer, wild boar (Sus scrofa), and other wildlife is common in the study villages. Other issues, such as, water scarcity (n = 97), forest fires (n = 59) and deforestation (n = 36) were also identified as possible reasons of leopard attacks. However, the perceptions were significantly different between the male and female respondents (χ2 = 51.8; df = 3; p < 0.0001). Lack of awareness about wildlife and leopard behavior among the villagers was identified to be a reason of leopard attacks by 209 respondents. Many respondents (n = 103) identified continual incursions and frequent entering to the forests to collect firewood and food were also major contributing factors. Habitat modification or land–use change i.e. encroachment of forest areas for agriculture and infrastructure, was identified as another reason of leopard attacks by 13% of the respondents. The perceptions of male and female respondents were not significantly different (χ2 = 4.27; df = 2; p = 0.1181). Banko Janakari, Vol 32 No. 1 9 Baral et al. Perception on wildlife conservation Despite the serious loss of lives inflicted by common leopards, 71% (n = 254) of the respondents showed positive perception towards wildlife conservation. They expressed the view that coexistence of human and wildlife is necessary so long as they do not cause harm to each other. We asked the respondents to rank the reasons why they think they should conserve wildlife and 50% of them ranked fine and imprisonment (i.e. if they kill the wildlife then they will be punished) the first. Cultural reasons were ranked second (34% (n = 124) of the respondents). Similarly other reasons identity, ecosystem balance and tourism promotion were stood in third, fourth and fifty ranks with the 40 (11%), 11(3%) and 2 (1%) respectively. The ANOVA test showed that the perception of the respondents were not significantly different (F=0.000; df = 24; p > 0.005) between male and female respondents. Discussion We found that common leopards killed 23 people in Baitadi district during period of 2011–2019. Most of the leopard victims were children and they were killed in close proximity to their homes. While other wildlife species have been reported to injure people, none of them has killed any humans. Habitat deterioration and decreased natural prey base within forests were identified to be the major causes for common leopards invading the human settlements, which is in line with the findings of Baral et al. (2021). Large predators like common leopards are more than capable of killing people and some have reported to switch their prey to specialize on humans (Brain, 1983; Sillero–Zubiri & Laurenson, 2001; Treves & Naughton–Treves, 1999; Woodroffe, 2000). Villagers are concerned that if common leopards are moving into villages because their natural prey is declining and their habitats are being modified, then the number of attacks are bound to increase in future further heightening the tension between people and leopard. Most people killed by common leopards were children aged below 13 years. This is in line with the findings from Gharawal, India, where 41% of leopard victims were children aged under 10 years (Sathyakumar et al., 2018). Majority of attacks occurring in the evening may has to do with the crepuscular or nocturnal nature of common leopards (Bailey, 1993; Grimbeek, 2006; Martins & Harris, 2013). Bhatia et al. (2017) have suggested that sickly or older leopards or female with cubs are more likely to attack vulnerable children because they would be easy to kill. Thus, organized efforts are required to raise awareness and to educate people about not leaving young children alone in the evening to prevent future leopard attacks. In Nepal, autumn is the season of festivals and a large number of people travel during this time presenting an opportune time for leopards to attack people. Our data indeed showed that many attacks occurred in autumn in Baitadi district. Acharya et al. (2016) also found in their study from 2010 to 2014 that more people were killed in leopard attacks in autumn. On the other hand, spring is the dry season and most of the forests remain dry in this time. Though the lowest number of leopard attacks were recorded in spring in Baitadi district, leopards may still attack people because this is when a large number of forest fires erupt (Bhatia et al. 2017; Pitman et al., 2012; Ritchie & Johnson, 2009) and the leopards may retreat to settlements in search for shelter and water. The most highly affected villages in the Baitadi district lies in the western most border of Nepal that adjoins Pithauragadh district of India. The study villages are often scattered apart but most are situated near the patches of forests. This must be the reason most leopard attacks occurred within 1 km radius from the forest edges. P. roxburghii is the dominant forest type in the study villages in Baitadi district. Fallen pine needles take long time to decompose on the forest floor and because of this, it prevents most grass species from growing well in the forests (Jackson, 1994). Consequently, the population of wild ungulates may be decreasing. This might be the major cause of prey scarcity of leopard within forest area. Unlike other ungulate species that live deep inside the forests, barking deer (Muntiacus vaginalis) depend on grasses on the forest edges Banko Janakari, Vol 32 No. 1 10 Baral et al. near village. In absence of deer deep inside the forests, common leopards prowl the forest margins looking for deer, rather than hunting deep inside the forests (Wang & Macdonald, 2006). Common leopards are opportunistic hunters (Balme et al., 2007; DNPWC, 2017; Jenny & Zuberbuhler, 2005) and will attack any available prey when the occasion arises. With deer browsing close to the villages and common leopards seeking food, they may stray into villages seeking easy prey, which, in turn, may create situation for frequent encounter of leopard with people subsequent increase in number of attack events. As few police and DFO staffs are present in these remotely scattered villages, poaching is rife. Villagers are poaching the species that are preferred by common leopards. Such competition for prey may intensify the problem of common leopards roaming in villages in search for food. Deforestation, agricultural encroachment and construction of rural roads are reported to cause habitat fragmentation and subsequent decline in prey numbers triggering behavior changes in wildlife (D'Angelo et al., 2004; Laurance et al., 2000; Laurance et al., 2009; Syombua, 2013). This situation is being exacerbated by drying up of natural water sources in the forests. As a results of habitat modification and recent forest fires natural water sources are drying up in the forests. Indeed, the anthropogenic changes in forest structure has been highlighted as a key issue contributing to the increasing HWC (Bhandari & Chalise, 2016; Kshettry et al., 2017; Treves & Naughton–Treves, 1999). Most of the villagers depend on the natural resources in the forests for their livelihoods. For example, more than 80% of villagers rely on firewood from the nearby forests for cooking and heating. The villagers often visit forests for collection wild fruits and fodder (DFO, 2019). Such continual presence of the villagers in the forests is increasing the frequency of HWC in the study villages. As result of out–migration of youths to the urban areas and abroad for education and employment, majority of agriculture lands in the villages are being left abandoned to be converted into bushy area in absence of work force in the villages for agriculture works (Childs et al., 2014; Sharma, 2008). The situation is not different in the study villages. Such conversion of agriculture lands that used to function as buffer the forests and human settlements into bushy areas could be a cause that is facilitating common leopards to close to human settlements and subsequently increasing the human wildlife encounters. It is promising to find that two third of the respondents are positive towards wildlife conservation despite the higher number of human casualties in the Baitadi district (Table 4). This is probably due to the religious belief of the people. Most of the people (> 92%) in the district are Hindus and in Hindu myth, common leopard is believed to be the vehicle (Vahan) of the goddess Durga (Dickstein, 2002; Miller, 2010; Mukul et al., 2012). Regrettably, such beliefs are gradually eroding as people are becoming less religious (Adeola, 1992; Dickstein, 2002; Miller, 2010; Mukul et al., 2012) and this is reflected in our results that 26 leopards were killed in retaliation in last nine years in Baitadi district. In other regions with adequate skilled human resources and facilities, nuisance leopards are darted, captured in snares or traps and translocated (DFO, 2019; Viollaz, 2016). However, translocation is only a short–term solution to human common leopard conflict (DFO, 2019; Kshettry et al., 2017). Conservation of their habitats and prey base are required so that there is little need for the leopards to stray into the villages. Unfortunately, there have been no studies on population of leopards and their prey species in Baitadi district. Provided insufficient prey are available because their habitats are constantly eroding, appropriate conservation/ management plans and actions are required to revive prey population. Population studies will be helpful to adopt the appropriate management strategies in future. Conclusion Human common leopard conflict is one of the major conservation issues in Baitadi district. During 2011 to 2019, common leopards killed 23 Banko Janakari, Vol 32 No. 1 11 Baral et al. people and 26 leopards were killed in retaliation. Bishalpur, Pancheshor, Aamchaura and Udayadev are the highly affected village of leopard attack where female, illiterate, poor people and farmers / children of farmers are extremely victimized. Attacks were occurred significantly higher in evening time and autumn season. Similarly, 88 percent of the attacks were held close to or around home of the victims. Habitat modification and lower level of awareness on villagers regarding the habitat management of leopard were identified to be the two key reasons of leopard attacks. There is no single solution to control HWC and promote coexistence. Therefore, there is a need to develop multilayer mitigation strategies (Dickman & Hazzah, 2016). To mitigate ongoing HWC and avoid future HWC, we recommend DFO Baitadi, concerned rural municipalities and CFUGs 1) to initiate habitat management activities such as construction/maintenance of water holes, grassland management for the ungulates/prey species of leopards, control forest fires, control poaching, and control forest fragmentation, 2) to carry out community awareness programmes to the villagers about leopards ecology and behavior and precautions to be taken to avoid HWC, and 3) to undertake detailed study on habitat assessment, population status of leopards and their prey species that will be helpful in prioritizing appropriate future management strategies. Acknowledgments We thank the staff of the Division Forest Office, Baitadi for supporting us in the field. Our thanks goes to the local people who participated in the questionnaire survey. We would like to highly appreciate the diligent efforts of Mr. Binaya Adhikari and Mr. Milan Baral Graduate students of Institute of Forestry, Pokhara, Nepal during the data collection and compilation. Finally, we are extremely thankful to the Small Grant Program, WWF Nepal/Hariyo Ban Program for providing financial support to carry out this study. References Acharya, K. P., Paudel, P. K., Neupane, P. R., & Köhl, M. (2016). Human–wildlife conflicts in Nepal: patterns of human fatalities and injuries caused by large mammals. PLoS One, 11(9), e0161717. Adeola, M. O. (1992). Importance of wild animals and their parts in the culture, religious festivals, and traditional medicine, of Nigeria. Environmental conservation, 19 (2), 125–134. Adhikari, J. N., Bhattarai, B. P., & Thapa, T. B. (2018). Human–wild mammal conflict in a human dominated midhill landscape: a case study from Panchase area in Chitwan Annapurna Landscape, Nepal. Journal of Institute of Science and Technology, 23 (1), 30–38. Aryal, A., Brunton, D., & Raubenheimer, D. (2014a). Impact of climate change on human–wildlife–ecosystem interactions in the Trans–Himalaya region of Nepal. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 115 (3), 517–529. Aryal, A., Brunton, D., Ji, W., Barraclough, R. K., & Raubenheimer, D. (2014b). Human–carnivore conflict: ecological and economical sustainability of predation on livestock by snow leopard and other carnivores in the Himalaya. Sustainability Science, 9 (3), 321–329. Aryal, A., Lamsal, R. P., Ji, W., & Raubenheimer, D. (2016c). Are there sufficient prey and protected areas in Nepal to sustain an increasing tiger population? Ethology Ecology & Evolution, 28 (1), 117–120. Bailey, T.N. (1993). The African Leopard: Ecology and Behavior of a Solitary Felid. Columbia University Press, New York, U.S.A. Baral, K., Sharma, H. P., Kunwar, R., Morley, C., Aryal, A., Rimal, B., & Ji, W. (2021). Human Wildlife Conflict and Impacts on Livelihood: A Study in Community Forestry System in Mid–Hills of Nepal. Sustainability, 13 (23), 13170. Banko Janakari, Vol 32 No. 1 12 Baral et al. Baral, K., Sharma, H. P., Rimal, B., Thapa– Magar, K., Bhattarai, R., Kunwar, R. M., & Ji, W. (2021). Characterization and management of human–wildlife conflicts in mid–hills outside protected areas of Gandaki province, Nepal. PloS One, 16 (11), e0260307. Bhandari, S., & Chalise, M. K. (2016). People’s attitudes toward striped hyaena (Hyaenahyaena Linnaeus, 1758) (Mammalia: Carnivora: Hyaenidae) conservation in lowland Nepal. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 8(9), 9125–9130. Bhandari, S., Mawhinney, B. A., Johnson, D., Bhusal, D. R., & Youlatos, D. (2019). Coexistence of humans and leopards in Shivapuri Nagarjun National Park, Nepal. Russian Journal of Ecology, 50 (6), 590–592. Bhasin, V. (2011). Pastoralists of Himalayas. Journal of Human Ecology, 33 (3), 147–177. Bhatia, S., Redpath, S. M., Suryawanshi, K., & Mishra, C. (2017). The relationship between religion and attitudes toward large carnivores in northern India? Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 22 (1), 30–42. Balme, G., Hunter, L., & Slotow, R. O. B. (2007). Feeding habitat selection by hunting leopards Pantherapardus in a woodland savanna: prey catchability versus abundance. Animal Behaviour, 74 (3), 589–598. Brain, C. K. (1983). The hunters or the hunted? An introduction to African cave taphonomy. University of Chicago Press. Childs, G., Craig, S., Beall, C. M., & Basnyat, B. (2014). Depopulating the Himalayan highlands: Education and outmigration from ethnically Tibetan communities of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development, 34 (2), 85–94. D'Angelo, S. A., Andrade, A. C., Laurance, S. G., Laurance, W. F., & Mesquita, R. C. (2004). Inferred causes of tree mortality in fragmented and intact Amazonian forests. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 243– 246. DDC. (2017). District Profile of Baitadi District. District Development Committee, Baitadi, Nepal. DFO. (2018). Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Division Forest Office, Baitadi, Nepal. DFO. (2019). Monitoring Report. Divisional Forest Office, Baitadi, Nepal. Dickman, A. J., & Hazzah, L. (2016). Money, myths and man–eaters: Complexities of human–wildlife conflict. In Problematic wildlife (pp. 339–356). Springer, Cham. Dickstein, M. (2002). Leopards in the Temple: The Transformation of American Fiction, 1945–1970. Harvard University Press. DNPWC. (2017). Profiling of Protected and Human Wildlife Conflicts Associated Wild Animals in Nepal. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal. Grimbeek, A. M. (2006). The ecology of the leopard (Panthera pardus) in the Waterberg. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria. Gurung, B., Smith, J. L. D., McDougal, C., Karki, J. B., & Barlow, A. (2008). Factors associated with human–killing tigers in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Biological Conservation, 141 (12), 3069–3078. Jackson, J. K. (1994). Manual of afforestation in Nepal. Forest Research and Survey Center. Kathmandu, Nepal. Jenny, D., & Zuberbühler, K. (2005). Hunting behaviour in West African forest leopards. African Journal of Ecology, 43(3), Banko Janakari, Vol 32 No. 1 13 Baral et al. 197–200. Kruuk, H., & Kruuk, S. P. O. N. H. (2002). Hunter and hunted: relationships between carnivores and people. Cambridge University Press. Kshettry, A., Vaidyanathan, S., & Athreya, V. (2017). Leopard in a tea–cup: A study of leopard habitat–use and human–leopard interactions in north–eastern India. PLoS One, 12 (5), e0177013. Kunwar, R. M., Baral, K., Paudel, P., Acharya, R. P., Thapa–Magar, K. B., Cameron, M., & Bussmann, R. W. (2016). Land–use and socioeconomic change, medicinal plant selection and biodiversity resilience in far Western Nepal. PLoS One, 11 (12), e0167812. Laurance, W. F., Delamônica, P., Laurance, S. G., Vasconcelos, H. L., & Lovejoy, T. E. (2000). Rainforest fragmentation kills big trees. Nature, 404 (6780), 836–836. Laurance, W. F., Goosem, M., & Laurance, S. G. (2009). Impacts of roads and linear clearings on tropical forests. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24 (12), 659–669. Laurance, W. F., Vasconcelos, H. L., & Lovejoy, T. E. (2000). Forest loss and fragmentation in the Amazon: implications for wildlife conservation. Oryx, 34 (1), 39–45. Le Bel, S., Murwira, A., Mukamuri, B., Czudek, R., Taylor, R., & La Grange, M. (2011). Human wildlife conflicts in southern Africa: riding the whirlwind in Mozambique and in Zimbabwe. The importance of biological interactions in the study of biodiversity, 283–322. Martins, Q., & Harris, S. (2013). Movement, activity and hunting behavior of leopards in the Cederberg mountains, South Africa. African Journal of Ecology, 51 (4), 571–579. Miller, I. L. (2010). Voice of the leopard: African secret societies and Cuba. Univ. Press of Mississippi. Mukul, S. A., Rashid, A. M., & Uddin, M. B. (2012). The role of spiritual beliefs in conserving wildlife species in religious shrines of Bangladesh. Biodiversity, 13 (2), 108–114. Nabi, D. G., Tak, S. R., Kangoo, K. A., & Halwai, M. A. (2009). Comparison of injury pattern in victims of bear (Ursus thibetanus) and leopard (Panthera pardus) attacks. A study from a tertiary care center in Kashmir. European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, 35 (2), 153–158. Naha, D., Sathyakumar, S., & Rawat, G. S. (2018). Understanding drivers of human–leopard conflicts in the Indian Himalayan region: spatio–temporal patterns of conflicts and perception of local communities towards conserving large carnivores. PLoS One, 13(10), e0204528. NBS. (2018). Statistical Handbook. National Bureau of Statistics, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal. Neupane, B., Budhathoki, S., & Khatiwoda, B. (2018). Human–elephant conflict and mitigation measures in Jhapa District, Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 16 (1), 103–112. Pitman, R. T., Swanepoel, L. H., & Ramsay, P. M. (2012). Predictive modelling of leopard predation using contextual G lobal P ositioning S ystem cluster analysis. Journal of Zoology, 288 (3), 222–230. Reddy, C. S., Pasha, S. V., Satish, K. V., Saranya, K. R. L., Jha, C. S., & Murthy, Y. K. (2018). Quantifying nationwide land cover and historical changes in forests of Nepal (1930–2014): implications on forest fragmentation. Biodiversity and Conservation, 27 (1), 91–107. Banko Janakari, Vol 32 No. 1 14 Baral et al. Ritchie, E. G., & Johnson, C. N. (2009). Predator interactions, mesopredator release and biodiversity conservation. Ecology Letters, 12 (9), 982–998. Sathyakumar et al. (2018). Human leopard interaction in India. Add publisher and address. Sharma, H. P., Belant, J. L., & Shaner, P. J. L. (2019). Attitudes towards conservation of the Endangered red panda Ailurus fulgens in Nepal: A case study in protected and non–protected areas. Oryx, 53 (3), 542– 547. Sharma, J. R. (2008). Practices of male labor migration from the hills of Nepal to India in development discourses: Which pathology? Gender, Technology and Development, 12 (3), 303–323. Sillero–Zubiri, C., & Laurenson, M. K. (2001). Interactions between carnivores and local communities: conflict or co– existence?. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY SERIES–CAMBRIDGE–, 282–312. Syombua, M. J. (2013). Land use and land cover changes and their implications for human–wildlife conflicts in the semi–arid rangelands of southern Kenya. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 6 (5), 193–199. Thapamagar, T., Bhandari, S., Ghimire, K., & Bhusal, D.R. (2019). Threats to endangered musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster) in the Khaptad National Park, Nepal. Folia Oecologica, 46 (2), 164–167. Treves, A., & Naughton–Treves, L. (1999). Risk and opportunity for humans coexisting with large carnivores. Journal of Human Evolution, 36(3), 275–282. Viollaz, J. S. (2016). When Human–Leopard Conflict Turns Deadly: A Cross–Country Situational Analysis. PhD dissertation, Graduate Center, City University of New York, USA. Wang, S. W., & Macdonald, D. W. (2006). Livestock predation by carnivores in Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Bhutan. Biological Conservation, 129 (4), 558–565. Wang, S. W., & Macdonald, D. W. (2009). Feeding habits and niche partitioning in a predator guild composed of tigers, leopards and dholes in a temperate ecosystem in central Bhutan. Journal of Zoology, 277 (4), 275–283. Woodroffe, R. (2000). Predators and people: using human densities to interpret declines of large carnivores. Animal Conservation, 3 (2), 165–173.