Large carnivores, despite occurring in lower densities (Karanth and Chellam, 2009), are highly involved in conflicts with humans, which reduces carnivore populations through active persecution based on real or perceived threats to themselves or their livestock (Graham et al., 2005; Inskip and Zimmermann, 2009; Goodrich et al., 2011). Human–wildlife conflict (HWC) has been one of the most significant conservation issues in recent years, exacerbated by increasing human populations, loss of natural habitats, and, in some cases, increased wildlife populations due to successful conservation programs (Sethy, 2013). Human–tiger conflict (HTC) is generally expressed in four forms: i) tiger attacks on humans, ii) tiger attacks on livestock, iii) threats to human safety from tigers living near human settlements, and iv) retaliatory killings of tigers (Goodrich, 2010; Bhattarai et al., 2019).

Two decades of conservation success in Nepal have led to a rapid increase in the tiger population (DNPWC and DFSC, 2022). The tiger population in Nepal was estimated at 121 individuals in 2009 (Karki et al., 2009), 198 in 2013 (Dhakal et al., 2014), 235 in 2018 (DNPWC and DFSC, 2018), and 355 in 2022 (DNPWC and DFSC, 2022), indicating an almost tripling of the population between 2009 and 2022. In recent years, there has been an increase in reported incidences of HTC. These incidents typically involve the depredation of livestock and attacks on humans trespassing into the park area or in the fringe area for the forest resources (Bhattarai and Fischer, 2014; Dhungana et al., 2022; Gurung et al., 2008; Paudel et al., 2024). Additionally, incidents of tiger mortalities arising from territorial disputes among male tigers have been reported in national parks (Bhatt et al., 2023; Kadariya et al., 2023).

In Nepal, Bardiya National Park (BNP), home to 125 tigers (DNPWC and DFSC, 2022), is ecologically connected to Banke National Park (BaNP) in the east, which harbors 25 tigers (DNPWC and DFSC, 2022). It is also connected to India’s Katarniaghat Wildlife Sanctuary (KWS) in the south with 59 tigers (Qureshi et al., 2023) through the Khata forest corridor, which forms one of the priority Tiger Conservation Landscapes of the Indian Subcontinent (Wikramanayake et al., 1998). As Nepal’s second-largest national park with an increasing tiger population (DNPWC and DFSC, 2022), BNP serves as the source population for the surrounding landscapes of Nepal and India (Sanderson et al., 2010).

Protected areas (PAs) cover 23.39% of the total land (DNPWC, 2022), where a high density of local communities dependent on natural resources live alongside PAs (Heinen et al., 2019), particularly in Nepal’s plains. BNP also has a high human population density (Government of Nepal, 2022). Along with the increasing tiger population, HTC is also on the rise in BNP and its associated forests (Kadariya et al., 2023). In the decade leading up to 2019, there were no human fatalities related to HTC—an important element of conservation success in the Bardiya region (Fitzmaurice et al., 2021). However, between September 2020 and May 2021, there were approximately 10 human fatalities due to tiger attacks within BNP (Rauniyar, 2021). According to park authorities, 12 people were killed in the park region during the fiscal year 2021/2022 (DNPWC, 2022). Community people who have benefited from PAs are active in management initiatives, are less reliant on natural resources, and are more likely to have a positive attitude toward tiger conservation (Dewu and Røskaft, 2018; Karanth and Nepal, 2012; Mutanga et al., 2015). Conversely, higher livestock losses, greater reliance on natural resources, and incidents of human attacks lead to negative attitudes toward tigers and their conservation among local people (Baral and Heinen, 2007; Mutanga et al., 2015). Such attitudes and retaliatory killings can seriously undermine conservation efforts (Aryal et al., 2015; Carter et al., 2014; Singh et al., 2015). Although all countries are affected by HWC, developing countries like Nepal are more vulnerable than developed nations since livestock and agriculture are important parts of rural livelihood (Khanal et al., 2022; Luitel, 1999).

In addition to a scientific understanding of wildlife conflicts, the attitudes of local people toward wildlife are critical for managing the conflict (Naughton-Treves and Treves, 2005). To ensure that wildlife management policies are effective and sensitive to local conditions, it is important to understand social factors, such as the attitudes of local people, which provide an overview of the cultural and sociopolitical context of human–wildlife conflicts (Kideghesho et al., 2007). Assessing local people’s attitudes can provide insight into how they will behave, how they comply with wildlife protection regulations, how they respond to economic losses caused by wildlife, and the degree to which they are willing to coexist with wildlife (Megaze et al., 2017).

This study investigates the socio-economic factors influencing local attitudes toward tigers and their conservation in the buffer zone of BNP, Nepal. By identifying key variables associated with positive or negative perceptions, the research aims to inform targeted conservation strategies that promote coexistence, reduce conflict, and support long-term tiger population sustainability.

Our study presents the most in-depth analysis of people’s attitudes toward tigers and their conservation in Bardiya National Park. Although Bardiya National Park experiences severe human–wildlife and human–tiger conflicts, social factors shaping an individual’s position in society had a greater influence on attitudes toward tigers than direct negative experiences with tigers. We found a significant influence of gender, ethnicity, source of income, and economic status. The finding is comparable to reports of positive attitudes toward tigers of the majority of the local people in Nepal (Dhungana et al., 2022) and Central India (Reddy and Yosef, 2016).

In the case of gender, women were more likely to have negative attitudes toward tigers and their conservation than men (Carter and Allendorf, 2016; Doubleday and Rubino, 2022). Paudel et al. (2024) mentioned that in 2019–2023 in the Bardiya–Banke Complex, a total of 76 human attacks by wildlife were recorded, of which 42% were on female individuals. Because of such a high number of attacks, women may feel that they are more vulnerable, and they have developed negative attitudes toward wildlife conservation. Similarly, studies in Chitwan National Park (CNP), another prominent tiger-bearing park in Nepal, found that women may develop negative attitudes toward tigers due to a lack of control over their interactions with them (such as being forced to enter forests to gather necessary natural resources) and limited perspectives on the advantages of doing so (Carter et al., 2014). Similarly, Doubleday and Rubino (2022) investigated if and how perceptions of tiger reintroductions are disparate among women and men living in and around Sariska Tiger Reserve in India and reported the clear gendered delineations in perceptions, where male participants predominantly focused on economic and ecological benefits, and female participants highlighted threats to personal safety. The local community around BNP in the study has a positive attitude toward tiger conservation. However, in CNP, Dhungana et al. (2016, 2022) found that many of the local people have negative attitudes toward tigers. Our result indicates that age is not a significant factor in attitudes toward tiger conservation, mirroring the results reported by Dhunagana et al. (2022) in CNP.

The higher caste (BCT) shows a positive attitude toward tiger conservation, which coincides with findings by Carter et al. (2014) and Dhungana et al. (2022). This also corroborates the finding of Heinen (1993) in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal, where higher-caste Hindus were more supportive of wildlife conservation. Additionally, in India, nomadic hunting tribes (often lower social strata) were involved in killing tigers, partly due to economic pressure and cultural practices (Malviya et al., 2022). However, Bhattarai et al. (2013) concluded that Tharu Janjati show a more positive attitude toward forest and resource conservation, which contradicts our findings. As the Tharu are the native residents and have been involved in the early stages of tiger conservation, and also because of their dependency on the forest, they are more vulnerable to tiger attacks, which may lead them to develop a negative attitude toward tiger conservation. Our study found a significant link between education and attitudes toward tiger conservation, while Shahi et al. (2023) observed a positive association. Similarly, in Kenya, the education level did not correlate with attitudes toward elephant conservation (Gadd, 2005). Also, Malviya et al., 2022 concluded that in India, education was inversely related to negative opinions about tiger conservation, while Carter et al. (2014) and Dhungana et al. (2022) highlighted education’s crucial role in tiger conservation in Chitwan National Park.

Community people are very interested in protecting tigers, even though human–tiger conflicts are rising. This positive view may come from their town’s “Tigerland” reputation and the revenue they make from tiger tourism (Gurung et al., 2008; Karanth and Nepal, 2012; Carter et al., 2012; Bhattarai and Fischer, 2014; Carter and Allendorf, 2016; Pudasaini, 2020). Notably, economic status positively affected attitudes toward tiger conservation, similar to the findings reported by Dhungana et al. (2022). We assume that the positive attitudes of well-off families may have mainly stemmed from their better access to conservation awareness, education, conservation benefits, and relief payments, as well as their enhanced capacity to cope with potential costs of tiger conservation. Since education can foster greater tolerance toward carnivores by shaping attitudes through rational thinking (Woodroffe et al., 2005) and expanding understanding of predator conservation (Espinosa and Jacobson, 2012), it is essential to strengthen conservation education programs, particularly for illiterate and less-educated communities living near the park.

Our study found that over 50% of the respondents were involved in daily wage work, such as guiding, driving, and other tourism-related activities. Indeed, 71% of local people are in favor of tiger conservation, indicating that the local people in the study area are more likely to be engaged in and benefit from ecotourism activities. They get seasonal employment in lower-paid positions, particularly as housekeepers and cooks in hotels, and this supports the positive attitudes of the community people toward tiger conservation. However, Shahi et al. (2023) observed that in BNP, the community had negative attitudes because of conflict with the park staff and military guards, as well as ineffective service delivery from the national park office. Due to the community’s heavy reliance on agriculture and livestock rearing, the short-term impact indicates that individuals who farm cows, buffalos, ducks, chickens, sheep, or goats are experiencing greater economic losses due to human–wildlife conflict.

The dependency on the park resources also influenced residents’ attitude (Shahi et al., 2023), but despite their high dependence on forest resources, community people had a positive attitude toward tiger conservation. However, Shahi et al. (2023) concluded that the community had a negative attitude toward the park management. Also, retaliatory killing of tigers has been reported in other tiger-occupied landscapes (Miquelle et al., 2005; Goodrich et al., 2011; Dhungana et al., 2016). However, in BNP, no retaliatory killing of tigers has been recorded up to 2024, despite a sevenfold increase in the tiger population and a high density of 7.15 (SD 0.38) by 2022 (DNPWC and DFSC, 2022). This exemplifies how community engagement and perceived benefits can mitigate conflict, providing a compelling blueprint for other carnivore-dense landscapes across South and Southeast Asia. With the increasing tiger population and high tiger density, this may lead to a rise in human–wildlife conflict in the near future if conservation efforts are not undertaken. Our study also concluded that human–tiger conflict is becoming very high, as in 5 years, a total of 18 individuals were killed and 10 people were injured. Despite the escalating human–tiger conflicts, the local community’s remarkable (71%) positive attitude toward tiger conservation offers a critical pathway for coexistence. This increasing conflict in BNP mirrors a pressing challenge for tiger conservation and the wellbeing of rural communities across tiger-bearing landscapes (Goodrich, 2010).

The study found that local respondents believe that conservation education, wildlife monitoring training, net wire fences, and fair relief payments are essential. These measures, also suggested by Kadariya et al. (2023), are seen as crucial for fostering human–wildlife coexistence and maintaining ecological balance. To achieve sustainable carnivore conservation, particularly for iconic species like tigers, a broader, multi-faceted approach is imperative. While our study is based on a limited sample size of households (n = 438) and identified key socio-demographic factors, future research must delve deeper into the causative factors shaping these perceptions and critically examine how the equitable access to and distribution of conservation benefits directly influence stakeholders’ attitudes. Incorporating the perspectives of a wider array of stakeholders, including local government bodies, community-based organizations, and non-governmental organizations, is essential for crafting comprehensive conservation strategies that transcend local boundaries. The insights from Bardiya National Park highlight that genuine coexistence between humans and large carnivores is not an idealistic goal but an achievable reality, contingent upon understanding the complex interplay of social, economic, and ecological factors, and fostering a shared vision where both human wellbeing and biodiversity thrive.