Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Human–Wild Boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758) Conflict in Western Nepal

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Proceedings of the Zoological Society Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While human–wild boar conflict is common in conservation areas, there is a lack of information about aspects of conflict and conservation outside the protected areas. The study aimed to report on the crop damage and human casualties caused by wild boar in the western region of Nepal. Simple random sampling was used to collect the data on crop damage and human casualties caused by wild boar. Structured questionnaires were administered in face-to-face interviews with household heads in 219 households. The economic values of crops were calculated based on the local market rate. One-way ANOVA test was conducted to investigate the relationship between crop losses among different study areas, and the Pearson Chi square test was used to examine the perception held by local people about wild boar conservation. The total crop damage by wild boar was estimated to be NPR 26, 06,156 (US$23,962). Damaged agricultural crops included paddy, wheat, maize, mustard, pulses, vegetables, and others. Pulses (8.8%) and vegetables (8.7%) were the most affected crops. There were 10 human injuries among individuals aged 15 years and over. Our study found the majority of respondents (84%) had a negative attitude towards wild boar conservation. Furthermore, this study revealed that local people used deterrents and scare crows as measures to control wild boar. The current findings indicated food shortage and a loss of income caused by wild boar were the factors affecting peoples’ livelihoods, and the majority of respondents were against wild boar conservation. The awareness programme was found to be the best method to reduce human–wild boar conflict. The findings from this study suggest that the development and cultivation of alternative crops should be considered, because crop loss may be reduced by changes in cropping patterns and the cultivation of crops that wild boar do not prefer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

VDC:

Village development committee

NPR:

Nepali rupees

USD:

American dollar

References

  • Amici, A., F. Serrani, C.M. Rossi, and R. Primi. 2012. Increase in crop damage caused by wild boar (Sus scrofa L.): The “refuge effect”’. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 32 (3): 683–692. doi:10.1007/s13593-011-0057-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aryal, A., K.P. Acharya, U.B. Shrestha, M. Dhakal, D. Raubenhiemer, and W. Wright. 2017. Global lessons from successful rhinoceros conservation in Nepal’. Conservation Biology. doi:10.1111/cobi.12894.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Aryal, A., R.P. Lamsal, W. Ji, and D. Raubenheimer. 2016. Are there sufficient prey and protected areas in Nepal to sustain an increasing tiger population? Ethology Ecology & Evolution 28 (1): 117–120. doi:10.1080/03949370.2014.1002115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrios-Garcia, M.N., and S.A. Ballari. 2012. Impact of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in its introduced and native range: A review. Biological Invasions 14 (11): 2283–2300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bengsen, A.J., M.N. Gentle, J.L. Mitchell, H.E. Pearson, and G.R. Saunders. 2014. Impacts and management of wild pigs Sus scrofa in Australia. Mammal Review 44 (2): 135–147. doi:10.1111/mam.12011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cai, J., Z. Jiang, Y. Zeng, C. Li, and B.D. Bravery. 2008. Factors affecting crop damage by wild boar and methods of mitigation in a giant panda reserve. European Journal of Wildlife Research 54: 723–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calenge, C., D. Maillard, P. Fournier, and C. Fouque. 2004. Efficiency of spreading maize in the garrigues to reduce wild boar (Sus scrofa) damage to Mediterranean vineyards. European Journal of Wildlife Research 50 (3): 112–120. doi:10.1007/s10344-004-0047-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chauhan, N.P.S., K.S. Barwal, and D. Kumar. 2009. Human–wild pig conflict in selected states in India and mitigation strategies. Acta Silvatica Et Lignaria Hungarica 5: 189–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • District Development Committee. 2016. District profile of Rupandehi. http://ddcrupandehi.gov.np/en/district-profile.

  • Ficetola, G., A. Bonardi, P. Mairota, V. Leronni, and E. Padoa-Schioppa. 2014. Predicting wild boar damages to croplands in a mosaic of agricultural and natural areas. Current Zoology 60 (2): 170–179. doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2007.00377.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geisser, H. 1998. The wild boar (Sus scrofa) in the Thurgau (northeastern Switzerland): population status, damages and the influence of supplementary feeding on damage frequency. Gibier Faune Sauvage 15: 547–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geisser, H., and H.U. Reyer. 2004. Efficacy of hunting, feeding, and fencing to reduce crop damage by wild boars. The Journal of Wildlife Management 68 (4): 939–946. doi:10.2193/0022-541X(2004)068[0939:EOHFAF]2.0.CO;2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goulding, M. 2003. Wild boar in Britain. Essex: Whittet Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunduz, A., S. Turedi, I. Nuhoglu, A. Kalkan, and S. Turkmen. 2007. Wild boar attacks. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine 18 (2): 117–119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C.M. 1998. Conflicting attitudes towards elephants around the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. Environmental Conservation 25 (3): 244–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeyasingh, P.D., and P. Davidar. 2003. Crop depredation by wildlife along the Eastern boundary of the Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Southern India. Journal-Bombay Natural History Society 100 (1): 38–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keuling, O., M.B. Roth, and K. Hackländer. 2010. Managing wild boar—Considerations for wild boar management based on game biology data. Grouping patterns, space use, dispersal, hunting impact, and hunting efficiency, Fakultät Forst-, Geo- und Hydrowissenschaften, Dr. rer. n, 91.

  • Khanal, S., A. Aryal, C.G. Morley, W. Wright, and N.B. Singh. 2017. Challenges of conserving blue bull (Boselaphus tragocamelus) outside the protected areas of Nepal. Proceedings of the Zoological Society. doi:10.1007/s12595-017-0218-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kose, O., F. Guler, A.B. Baz, S. Akalin, and A. Turan. 2011. Management of a wild boar wound: A case report. Wilderness & Environmental Medicine 22 (3): 242–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linkie, M., Y. Dinata, A. Nofrianto, and N. Leader-Williams. 2007. Patterns and perceptions of wildlife crop raiding in and around Kerinci Seblat National Park, Sumatra. Animal Conservation 10 (1): 127–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombardini, M., A. Meriggi, and A. Fozzi. 2017. Factors influencing wild boar damage to agricultural crops in Sardinia (Italy). Current Zoology, 63 (5): 507–514. doi:10.1093/cz/zow099.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Manipady, S., R.G. Menezes, and B.K. Bastia. 2006. Death by attack from a wild boar. Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine 13 (2): 89–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, J.J. 2013. Wild pig attacks on humans. Wildlife Damage Management Conferences—Proceedings, 17–35. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_wdmconfproc/151.

  • Moore, N. 2004. The ecology and management of wild boar in southern England. Defra Final Project Report VC0325.

  • Naughton-Treves, L. 1998. Predicting patterns of crop damage by wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Conservation Biology 12 (1): 156–168. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.96346.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pandey, P., P.J.L. Shaner, and H.P. Sharma. 2016. The wild boar as a driver of human–wildlife conflict in the protected park lands of Nepal. European Journal of Wildlife Research 62 (1): 103–108. doi:10.1007/s10344-015-0978-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, V.V., B. Naresh, V.R. Reddy, C. Sudhakar, P. Venkateswarlu, and D.R. Rao. 2015. Traditional management methods used to minimize wild boar (Sus scrofa) damage in different agricultural crops at Telangana state, India. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development 2 (2): 32–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santilli, F., and R. Mazzoni della Stella. 2006. Electrical fencing of large farmland area to reduce crops damages by wild boars Sus scrofa. Agricoltura Mediterranea 136 (2): 79–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlageter, A., and D. Haag-Wackernagel. 2012a. A gustatory repellent for protection of agricultural land from wild boar damage: An investigation on effectiveness. Journal of Agricultural Science 4 (5): 61–68. doi:10.5539/jas.v4n5p61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlageter, A., and D. Haag-Wackernagel. 2012b. Evaluation of an odor repellent for protecting crops from wild boar damage. Journal of Pest Science 85 (2): 209–215. doi:10.1007/s10340-012-0415-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schley, L., M. Dufrêne, A. Krier, and A.C. Frantz. 2008. Patterns of crop damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa)in Luxembourg over a 10-year period. European Journal of Wildlife Research 54 (4): 589–599. doi:10.1007/s10344-008-0183-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schley, L., and T.J. Roper. 2003. Diet of wild boar Sus scrofa in Western Europe, with particular reference to consumption of agricultural crops. Mammal Review 33 (1): 43–56. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2907.2003.00010.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trygg, E.B. 2014. An investigation of Human–wild boar conflict—the perceived need for economical compensation among study in Arboga, Sweden.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the people who live in the study area. Thank goes to the staffs of District Forest Office of Rupandehi and Lumbini Development Trust. We are very thankful to Dr. Ross James for proof reading of this manuscript. Special thanks to Dr. Achyut Aryal (Sydney University, Australia) for his guidance in completing this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Central Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal

    Srijana Khanal & Nanda Bahadur Singh

Authors
  1. Srijana Khanal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nanda Bahadur Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Srijana Khanal designed the study, conducted the literature review, collected the data, analyzed the data and prepared the first draft of the manuscript. Nanda Bahadur Singh supervised the project, contributed to study design and data interpretation, and revised the manuscript. Both authors revised and agreed on the views expressed in the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Srijana Khanal.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of Data and Materials

The data sets supporting the conclusions of this article are available at the institutional repository of Tribhuvan University. According to the data protection regulation of Tribhuvan University, authors are not permitted to deposit the data elsewhere.

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Ethics approved was obtained from the Research and Ethics Approval Committee of Central Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan University. Participants were also made aware that they were free to choose not to participate, or leave the survey any time without any prejudice. The questionnaire did not contain any sensitive issues and respondents were not harmed through their participation.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khanal, S., Singh, N.B. Human–Wild Boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758) Conflict in Western Nepal. Proc Zool Soc 72, 46–53 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-017-0246-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12595-017-0246-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation