Economic Analysis of Electric Fencing for Mitigating Human-wildlife Conflict in Nepal

  • 1 Institute of Forestry, Tribhuvan University, Pokhara, Nepal;
    2 Department of National Park and Wildlife Conservation, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal;
    3 Institute of Natural and Mathematical Sciences, Massey University, New Zealand;
    4 Department of Forest, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal;
    5 Colleges of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Gwynedd, United Kingdom;
    6 Centre for Wildlife Management, University of Pretoria, South Africa;
    7 The Charles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Veterinary Science, and School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Received date: 2013-12-16

  Revised date: 2014-07-28

  Online published: 2014-09-10

Supported by

This study was supported by National Trust for Nature Conservation, Nepal.


Human-wildlife conflict is one of the biggest conservation challenges throughout the world. Various conservation strategies have been employed to limit these impacts, but often they are not adequately monitored and their effectiveness assessed. Recently, electric fencing has been constructed as a means to mitigate human-wildlife conflict surrounding many Nepalese protected areas. To date, there are no other studies analyzing the cost effectiveness and efficacy of fencing for conservation. This study aims to examine the cost effectiveness of electric fencing in the eastern sector of Chitwan National Park, Nepal, where the fencing has recently been constructed. Great Indian one-horned rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), wild boar (Sus scrofa), Asian elephant (Elephas maximus), and tiger (Panthera tigris) were the main wildlife species involved in human-wildlife conflict in the buffer zone area surrounding the park, where the fencing was deployed. Electric fencing was significantly effective in reducing crop damage by 78% and livestock depredation by 30%-60%. Human mortality was not reduced significantly in the study areas and continued at low levels. Our analysis suggested that total net present value of the cost of electric fence in Kagendramalli User Committee (KMUC) and Mrigakunja User Committee (MKUC) was 1 517 959 NPR (Nepalese Rupees, 21 685 USD) and 3 530 075 NPR (50 429 USD) respectively up to the fiscal year 2009/10. Net present benefit in KMUC and MKUC was 16 301 105 NPR (232 872 USD) and 38 304 602 NPR (547 208 USD) respectively up to 2009/10. The cost-benefit ratio of electric fence up to base fiscal year 2009/10 in KMUC is 10.73, whereas MKUC is 10.85. These results illustrate that the electric fencing program is economically and socially beneficial in reducing human-wildlife conflict (crop damage and livestock depredation) around the protected areas where large mammals occur.

Cite this article

Saraswoti SAPKOTA, Achyut ARYAL, Shanta Ram BARAL, Matt W. HAYWARD, David RAUBENHEIMER . Economic Analysis of Electric Fencing for Mitigating Human-wildlife Conflict in Nepal[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2014 , 5(3) : 237 -243 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2014.03.006


Aryal A, D Brunton, D Raubenheimer. 2103a. Impacts of climate change on human-wildlife- ecosystem interactions in the Trans-Himalayan region of Nepal. Theoretical and Applied Climatology. DOI: 10.1007/s00704-013-0902-4

Aryal A, D Brunton, W Ji, et al. 2013b. Human-Carnivore conflict: Ecological and economical sustainability of predation on livestock by snow leopard and other carnivores in the Himalaya. Sustainability Sciences. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-014-0246-8

Aryal A, D Raubenheimer, D Brunton. 2013c. Habitat assessment for the translocation of blue sheep to maintains a viable snow leopard population in the Mt Everest Region, Nepal. Zoology and Ecology, 23(1): 66-82.

Aryal, A, D Brunton, TK Shrestha, et al. 2012. Biological diversity and management regimes of the northern Barandabhar Forest Corridor: An essential habitat for ecological connectivity in Nepal. Tropical Conservation Sciences, 5(1):38-49.

Bista R and A Aryal. 2013. Status of the Asiatic black bear Ursus thibetanus in the southeastern region of the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Zoology and Ecology, 23(1): 83-87. DOI:10.1080/21658005.2013.774813

Hanley D and C Spash. 1993. Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. New York: Edward Elgar Publishing Co.

Hayward M W and M J Somers. 2012. An introduction to fencing for conservation. In: Somers M J, M W Hayward (Eds.). Fencing for Conservation: Restriction of Evolutionary Potential of a Riposte to Threatening Processes? New York: Springer, 1-4.

Hayward M W. 2012. Perspectives on fencing for conservation based on four case studies: Marsupial conservation in Australian forests; bushmeat hunting in South Africa; large predator reintroduction in South Africa; and large mammal conservation in Poland. In: Somers M J, M W Hayward (Eds.). Fencing for Conservation: Restriction of Evolutionary Potential of a Riposte to Threatening Processes? New York: Springer, 7-20.

Hayward M W and G I H Kerley. 2009. Fencing for conservation: Restriction of evolutionary potential or a riposte to threatening processes? Biological Conservation, 274: 1-13.

Hayward M W. 2011. Using the IUCN Red List to determine effective conservation strategies. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20: 2563-2573

Heinen J T, P B Yonzon. 1994. A review of conservation issues and programs in Nepal: From a single species focus towards biodiversity protection. Mountain Research and Development, 14(1): 61-76.

Jnawali S R. 1989. Conflict between rhinos and people adjacent to the Park emphasising on crop damage and local harassment 1988-1989, 1 field season. KMTNC/Agricultural University of Norway,

Karanth K K, A M Gopalaswamy, P K Prasad, S Dasgupta. 2013. Patterns of human-wildlife conflicts and compensation: Insights from Western Ghats protected areas. Biological Conservation,166: 175-185.

Packer C, A Loveridge, S Canney, et al. 2013. Conserving large carnivores: Dollars and fence. Ecology Letters, 16: 635-641

Shrestha B. 1994. Studies on park-people conflict, investigation on resolving resources conflicts between park conservation and adjoining settlements in the northeastern boundary of RCNP. Kirtipur, Nepal: Tribhuwan University.