Humans and wildlife while sharing the same landscape, come in interaction with each other, which sometimes leads to negative consequences such as wildlife causing physical, economic, or psychological harm to humans and humans persecuting wildlife (Bhushal, Wolde, & Lal, 2024; Lozano et al., 2019; Mekonen, 2020). With increasing fragmentation and degradation of natural habitats, wildlife are pushed to close proximity of human settlements and agriculture areas, increasing chances of negative interactions. These interactions are complex and context-specific, with the intensity of the impact depending on the characteristics of landscape, socio-economic context the species involved, and the adaptive capacity of local communities (Dickman, 2010; Ram et al., 2022; Redpath et al., 2013). Wildlife caused damage often disproportionately increase social vulnerability, particularly among local communities living in near to forest or protected areas, as repeated or severe negative interactions with wildlife undermine their livelihoods (Acharya, Paudel, Neupane, & Köhl, 2016; Lamichhane et al., 2018; Pereira, Rosalino, Ekblom, & Santos, 2024; Pereira et al., 2021).

The Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) is one of the endangered mega-herbivores living in human-dominated and highly fragmented landscapes. With destruction of habitats and their traditional migratory routes, they often come in confrontation with humans causing frequent incidents of crop raiding, property damage, and human casualties (Acharya et al., 2016; Bhushal et al., 2024; Pandey, Yadav, Selvan, Natarajan, & Nigam, 2024; Ram, Mondol, et al., 2021). Over 700 human deaths on elephant attacks are reported annually with highest in India (~ 500 human deaths annually) followed by Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal (Köpke et al., 2024; Pandey et al., 2024; Prakash, Wijeratne, & Fernando, 2020). Human–elephant conflict (HEC) is widespread, complex, contextual, and severe, influenced by multiple ecological and anthropogenic drivers. These factors include cropping practices and crop seasonality, settlement locations along elephant migratory routes, proximity to forests, protected areas, and water sources, as well as forest degradation, habitat fragmentation, agricultural expansion into elephant habitats and movement corridors (Acharya, Paudel, Jnawali, Neupane, & Köhl, 2017; Neupane, Johnson, & Risch, 2017; Pozo, Coulson, McCulloch, Stronza, & Songhurst, 2017; Prins, Liefting, & De Jong, 2022; Ram, Mondol, et al., 2021; Ram, Yadav, et al., 2021; Ram et al., 2022). In addition, the composition characteristics of the elephant or groups, whether a solitary “problem elephant” bull, a small herd, or a large herd, also influences the severity of conflict (Ram, Mondol, et al., 2021). Similarly, the socio-economic condition of local communities is also associated with HEC, especially the subsistence farmers, who live on proximity of forests, rely on small-scale farming with limited access to resources and governance, proper housing, and alternative livelihood opportunities are more vulnerable (Neupane et al., 2017; Nyirenda, Nkhata, Tembo, & Siamundele, 2018; Prins et al., 2022; Ram et al., 2022). Moreover, human behavior towards elephant is also one of the most prominent factor triggering human fatalities in elephant attacks (Ram, Mondol, et al., 2021).

To cope with exposure (the frequency with which people, property, or crops come into contact with elephants, and sensitivity (the extent to which people or their livelihoods are adversely affected when such encounters occur) associated with HEC, local communities and governments have adopted various strategies. One widely used approach is the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF), which identifies five key capital assets, such as human, natural, financial, social, and physical, that help buffer livelihood risks (Köpke et al., 2024; Morse, Mcnamara, & Acholo, 2009; Nyirenda et al., 2018). Each capital comprises components that can reduce social vulnerability (the degree to which individuals or communities are at risk due to their social, economic, and environmental conditions), such as awareness and skills development (human capital), local investment and compensation mechanism (financial capital), sustainable use of natural resources to offset losses (natural capital), access to infrastructure (physical capital), and community commitment and cooperation (social capital) (Lienert & Burger, 2015; Nyirenda et al., 2018). However, these components are often underdeveloped or insufficiently prioritized in the Asian context, including in Nepal.

In Nepal there are approximately 200 resident wild elephants and 130–150 transboundary migratory elephants visiting annually from various regions of India (DNPWC/DoFSC, 2025; Ram & Acharya, 2020). Despite the small population size, elephants account for approximately 30% of all humans–wildlife attacks in Nepal. Moreover, crop and property damage from elephants in Southern Terai region is widespread. There are a few studies at local scales and across different time periods in Nepal on nature and extent of such conflicts (Acharya et al., 2016; Baral et al., 2022; Neupane et al., 2017; Pant, Dhakal, Pradhan, Leverington, & Hockings, 2016; Ram, Mondol, et al., 2021). However, the broader impacts of HEC on the social vulnerability of subsistence farmers are little known, despite widespread reports of conflicts in the eastern and western lowlands of Nepal.

In this study, we examined the social dimensions of HEC and assess its impact on the livelihoods of subsistence farmers across Nepal’s east–west elephant distribution range. Specifically, we evaluated the exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity of these farmers to HEC. We hypothesized that subsistence farmers experience higher levels of social vulnerability to HEC due to their limited tolerance and adaptive capacity. The findings provide crucial insights for strengthening livelihood capitals to reduce vulnerability to elephant-induced crop loss, damage and casualties in the Tarai regions of Nepal.

This study provides a comprehensive assessment of socio-economic characteristics, exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacities of subsistence farmers relating to HEC in Tarai regions of Nepal. Our findings suggest that HEC remains a pervasive challenge across the elephant affected areas, with crop raiding imposing significant and recurring costs on rural livelihoods. Both the direct impacts of HEC and the underlying vulnerabilities of affected communities are shaped by a combination of demographic, socio-economic, and ecological factors. The subsistence farmers experience high exposure and sensitivity to crop damage but have limited adaptive capacity, particularly due to limited physical and financial capital. This highlights the urgent need to strengthen these livelihood capitals to better cope with HEC in Nepal.

HEC exposure and sensitivity were not evenly distributed among social groups. Janajati and Indigenous and BCT communities were the highest exposure to crop and property damage, while marginalized groups, such as Dalits and Madhesi communities, also experienced substantial human casualties (Bhushal et al., 2024; Pant et al., 2016; Ram, Mondol, et al., 2021). Marginalized communities often live in high-conflict zones due to historical settlement patterns, landlessness, limited access to alternative livelihoods, and residence near forest edges (Ram, Mondol, et al., 2021). The disproportionate burden on socially and economically disadvantaged groups reflects the intersection of ecological risk with structural inequalities, thereby exacerbating vulnerability (Prins et al., 2022).

The estimated total crop loss (782.2 metric tons; NPR 24.08 million/USD 204,077) highlights the severe economic consequences of HEC for subsistence farmers. Fragmented forests and destruction of migratory routes of elephants have increased the risks of crop damage as these areas are still used by elephants despite the expansion of human settlements and agriculture. Unprotected crop fields also increased the exposure of crops to elephant damage (DNPWC/DoFSC, 2025; Ram, Yadav, et al., 2021). The high prevalence of nocturnal crop raiding is consistent with elephant foraging behavior, and it also might be due to farmers’ limited capacity for effective night-time guarding. In addition, the most of these conflicts are due to elephant herds (8–45 individuals) and large solitary bulls and occurred predominantly in the early evening to nearly mid-night (18:00–23:00 hours). Despite receiving compensation, the extent of crop loss and its associated monetary damage remains high, forcing some farmers to abandon agriculture. Bardiya and Jhapa were among the most exposed and sensitive areas lying along the key migratory corridors for transboundary elephants from India, resulting in frequent interactions (Ram, Mondol, et al., 2021).

Socio-demographic variables influenced the risk of elephant-induced crop damage in both direct and indirect ways. For example, households with larger landholdings may be at greater risk if their fields are located along known elephant migratory routes or near forest edges, increasing the likelihood of crop raiding (Acharya et al., 2017; Barnes et al., 2005; Kumar, Bargali, David, & Edgaonkar, 2017; Ram et al., 2022). Similarly, age and marital status also played a role. Adults, particularly those who are married or live in joint families, may be more capable of guarding fields and responding to elephant incursions, compared to younger or single individuals. These patterns suggest that labor availability, household structure, and social roles influence the level of exposure and capacity to respond to conflict events (Ram, Mondol, et al., 2021; Ram et al., 2022). Therefore, socio-demographic factors should be systematically incorporated into vulnerability assessments and the design of HEC mitigation strategies. Such influence of such socio-economic attributes on HEC vulnerability has also been reported in other contexts across Asia and Africa (Köpke et al., 2024; Nyirenda et al., 2018; Ram, Mondol, et al., 2021).

Despite high levels of exposure and sensitivity to elephant-induced crop damage, most farmers in our study area exhibited low level of adaptive capacity. Among the five livelihood capitals, physical capital emerged as the most vulnerable, mainly due to inadequate and ineffective infrastructure for deterring elephants. The reliance on solar fencing and barbed wire, combined with the limited use of trenches and RCC walls, suggests that physical capital investments are neither sufficiently robust nor appropriately matched to local ecological and socio-economic contexts. It highlights both the limitations of these measures and the high vulnerability of financial capital. Financial resilience was further weakened by limited local investment and a compensation system that was often bureaucratic delayed, inconsistent, or inadequate coverage. To address this, the financial mechanisms should be improved through timely, adequate and transparent delivery of adequate compensation to the loss of crops and properties, considerable relief package to the human injuries and casualties. Specific provisions for marginalized and landless households are required. Introduction of insurance schemes should also be promoted in HEC areas as a safeguard against crop and property losses. Similarly, investment and management of natural capital such as habitat restoration, promotion of less preferred but high value cash crops, and sustainable use of natural resources are also necessary to reduce economic damage.

The human capital indicators such as environmental awareness and education was found as medium levels in this study, technical knowledge, and conflict mitigation skills and training opportunities were scored low. This skills gap is critical as more than half of the farmers who had adopted protective measures still experienced crop damage. The natural capital indicators also revealed vulnerabilities, particularly in the absence of effective elephant habitat management. Although resource availability was perceived as high by majority of the respondents, the lack of strategic ecological interventions (e.g., maintaining corridors, reducing habitat fragmentation) may exacerbate conflict intensity (Lienert & Burger, 2015; Sharma, Bhattarai, Katuwal, & Koirala, 2024). Although social capital, particularly community cooperation and trust, scored relatively higher and has been recognized in other contexts (Lienert & Burger, 2015; Nyirenda et al., 2018), it was not sufficient to mitigate the complex and recurring losses caused by HEC due to low adaptive capacity. Thus, required to strengthening farmers' livelihoods is necessary to reduce the effects of HEC (Efio et al., 2024). Overall, our findings reveal moderate to high levels of social vulnerability among subsistence farmers, reinforcing the need to enhance adaptive capacity, especially through improved physical infrastructure, awareness and more reliable financial support mechanisms.

Our study provides the first comprehensive assessment of the social vulnerability of subsistence farmers to HEC in Nepal. Despite experiencing high levels of exposure and sensitivity, most of subsistence farmers demonstrated low adaptive capacity, resulting in moderate to high levels of social vulnerability. Among the five livelihood capitals, physical and financial capitals were the most deficient, limiting the ability of communities to effectively cope with the impacts of HEC. It also pointed out the need of a multi-dimensional approach to HEC management.

We recommend strengthening physical capital by promoting cost-effective, locally appropriate, and community-managed elephant deterrent infrastructure, such as improved electric fencing, watch towers, early warning systems and rapid response mechanisms. To improve financial capital, provision of timely and adequate relief payments, introduction of insurance schemes, and strategic investments in high-value alternative crops are necessary. Finally, strengthening social capital through local institutions, cooperatives, traditional knowledge, and participatory governance structures can work as a bridge to minimize the gap between community willingness and institutional support. Together, these integrated measures can significantly enhance the adaptive capacity of vulnerable communities and reduce their social vulnerability to HEC.

Research permission and ethics:

The research permission was obtained from the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC; Ref. No. 3066/073/74). No live animals were handled in this study. Informed consent from each participant (respondent) was taken during data collection.