Negative interactions between humans and Asiatic black bears (Ursus thibetanus) in northern Pakistan

The conservation of the vulnerable Asiatic black bear (Ursus thibetanus) in Pakistan is challenged by retaliatory killing, driven by negative interactions between people and bears, such as livestock depredation. We distributed a questionnaire among 369 individuals in rural communities within the Mansehra District, Pakistan, where bear retaliatory killings are often reported. We focused on human–Asiatic black bear negative interactions, such as livestock depredations, crop damage, and human injuries occurring between 2015 and 2019. Although the number of livestock depredation events was small in absolute terms (an average of 11.5 livestock heads reported to be killed annually), it had a large estimated economic impact in terms of local economies ($1367 per year, or a total of $5.469 between 2015 and 2019). Such annual estimated costs account for 93% of the per capita gross domestic product for Pakistan, roughly equivalent to $55,853 for a US citizen. Additionally, 30 incidents between people and bears were registered, where 6% human were fatal. We recommend awareness campaigns on different mitigating interventions, and training on how to use them, as well as behaviors to reduce the risk of negative interactions.


| INTRODUCTION
Persecution (e.g., retaliatory killing, legal and illegal wildlife trade) have contributed to large carnivore decline worldwide (Ripple et al., 2016;Wolf & Ripple, 2017). The predatory behavior of large carnivores can result in livestock depredation or mauling of people and their pets, representing one of the main factors challenging humanlarge carnivore coexistence (e.g., L opez- Lute et al., 2018). These negative interactions can lead to opposition towards the presence of large carnivores or even retaliatory killing (Liu et al., 2011;Treves et al., 2006). For example, although human maulings are rare (e.g., Bombieri et al., 2019;Penteriani et al., 2016), they can trigger strong opposition to sharing the landscape with large carnivores. Conflicts over large carnivores and their conservation are driven by different socio-economic, political, psychological, and ecological factors. For example, the impact of livestock depredation on household economic status can be critical in some marginalized rural and remote mountainous areas (Liu et al., 2011;Mishra, 1997;Suryawanshi et al., 2013), where livestock losses or crop damage is more impactful on livelihoods (Charoo et al., 2011;Morrison, 2009).
In Pakistan, it is estimated that the Asiatic black bear population has decreased by around 49% during the last three decades. Up to nine distinct bear areas can be found in the northern region (Abbas et al., 2015), including Neelum valley (Ahmad et al., 2016), Kohistan valley, Swat, Dir (Perveen & Abid, 2013), Kaghan Valley (Ali et al., 2018), and Gilgit Baltistan (Ali et al., 2015). Among these, the district of Mansehra has been reported as one of the main conflict hotspots (Ali et al., 2018;Awais et al., 2016;Awais & The Wildlife Society, 2008;Perveen & Abid, 2013;Ullah et al., 2020;Waseem & Ali, 2017a, 2017bWaseem et al., 2020). Bear poaching has been reported in recent years associated with varying motivations, such as in the case of killing adult females to get the cubs for street dancing (a practice which has decreased over time, but can still be observed in some areas of Pakistan), for the illegal trade of bear body parts (Abbas et al., 2015;Ullah et al., 2020;Waseem et al., 2020), or as retaliation after bears have caused damage. At least nine Asiatic black bears were killed in retaliation by local residents during the study period (March-October 2019).
We aim to understand the nature of conflicts around Asiatic black bears in Mansehra District of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), Pakistan, and the associated economic impact to local economies. Our study may help to understand the impact of bears on the well-being of local communities, as well as the conservation challenges for the species in north of Pakistan.

| Study area
This study was conducted in the Mansehra District of KPK, Pakistan, covering an area of about 4579 km 2 ( Figure 1). This landscape is a part of the greater Himalaya ranges, where heavy snowfall occurs in January (Metrological Department Pakistan). Human population density in the area is 340 inhabitants/km 2 (District Mansehra, 2007). Main economic activity in this area relies on livestock and agriculture practices. Increasing demand on natural resources, for instance, on forests, has been observed in recent years. The livestock commonly kept includes several species such as ass, buffalo, cattle, goat, horse, mule, poultry, and sheep (Ahmad et al., 2015). Owing to the rapid increase of human population in this area in recent decades, small land holdings, and lack of alternative sources of income, there is substantial pressure on land and natural resources. Intense illegal logging activities, for example, have resulted in small forest patches only remaining in remote areas (Waseem et al., 2020). Asiatic black bear (U. thibetanus) have been blamed as the most problematic predator in the study area (Awais & The Wildlife Society, 2008). The common leopard (Panthera pardus) are also distributed in the study area however there are few reported interactions (Ali et al., 2017;Roberts, 1997).

| Survey design
We developed a questionnaire to obtain information on negative interactions between humans and bears (e.g., livestock depredation, crop damage). As a first step, we used official records of conflicts around bears in this region, available at the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Wildlife Department regional headquarters from 2015 to 2019, in order to identify conflict areas to administer the survey. These records included the name of the village, the year and/or season, the location of the damage/incident, main landscape, household affected, and any sighting of Asiatic black bears (Ambarlı & Bilgin, 2008). Once the conflict zones were identified, we randomly selected households for face-to-face interviews (Wang & Macdonald, 2006).
We interviewed people who were over 18 years old and who carried out their activities in forests and pasture areas, such as grazing livestock, or collecting herbs or mushrooms (these activities are carried out mainly by men in this area). Thus, the interviewed people were more likely to have the possibility for an interaction with a large carnivore (e.g., either by just observing the animals during their activities outside or by experiencing negative interactions with bears) (Gros, 1998). Interviews were conducted between March and October 2019, and ethical consent was granted from each participant prior to interview, including providing respondents with information about the purpose of this study.
We used a mix of qualitative and quantitative questions (Alexander et al., 2015;Dar et al., 2009). The questionnaire was available in Urdu, a national language, and Hindko, a local language (Perveen & Abid, 2013). We first gathered demographic data, including gender, age, education history, and professional activities. We then asked questions related to their perception towards Asiatic black bears, associated negative interactions between bears and humans (e.g., occurrence of livestock depredations and the type and number of livestock killed, incidences of crop damage or interaction with humans), and the methods used to prevent damages (presence of shepherds, livestock guarding dogs, or both). We also recorded perceptions in relation to the trends of incidents (Ali et al., 2018).
If interviewees reported incidents with humans, we also noted information on the number of bears involved, the context where the incident happened, the reaction of people, and the occupation of the people involved. We additionally noted the location of the incident: forest, agricultural land, or village and the available evidence about the involvement of bears in the incident (e.g., direct observation, indirect signs such as footprints/ pugmarks, soil digs, hairs, scats, bite marks, claw marks, or peeling of tree bark). Every negative interaction between bears and people registered was classified according to the season (Spring: March-April, Summer: May-August, Autumn: September-November, Winter: December-February) and time of the day (Morning and

| Data analysis
We first applied a Chi-square test of independence to determine the relationship between livestock loss, incidents with humans (lethal and nonlethal), and crop raiding with different factors: season (summer, autumn, winter, or spring), sex (male or female), time (day, evening, or night), location (agricultural land, forest, or village), occupation (livestock holder, former, govt. servant, business man), and experience (sighting, claw marks). We used a Fisher's exact test in cases where there were a small number of frequencies (<5 in cross tabulation). Financial loss associated to livestock depredations was calculated based on the average annual market prices in Pakistani rupees, which was then converted to US dollars on May 15, 2020 (National Bank of Pakistan). This calculation was based on the type of livestock killed (e.g., age, sex). However, for crop damage, overall loss was recorded first in Pakistani rupees from each respondent who experienced it and later converted to US dollars on the same day, for example, May 15, 2020. For analysis, we used the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS v.26) and considered p < .05 as statistically significant.

| Demographic information
We carried out 400 face-to-face interviews, but only 369 were fully completed and considered in subsequent analyses. The majority of responses were from males (89%) and only 1.6% of respondents were <20 years old. Most interviewees were from age groups 20-30 (38.4%) and 30-40 (31%), with older age groups featuring to a lesser degree (age groups 40-50: 16%, 50-60: 10.2%, and 60: 2.4%). The majority of interviewees (58.8%) reported that they did not have access to education, followed by primary education (30.8%). Only 10.2% of respondents reported having a higher education level. The occupations of most respondents were related to farming and forest activities (94.0%).

| Perceptions about sharing the landscape with Asiatic black bears
Half of the respondents believed they were competing with bears for resources in the area, and that coexistence with bears was not possible (55.7%; Table 1). Forty-three percent of respondents perceived bears as a threat to livestock, and the majority of respondents identified bears as the most problematic predator in the area (Table 1). Sixty-three percent also believed that Asiatic black bear incidents have increased in recent years (Table 1).
Most respondents did not respond to the question about damage prevention measures. Respondents felt that an achievable solution to reduce livestock depredation was to use bonfires (20.5%) or livestock guarding dogs (8.6%).

| Livestock depredation and economic loss
Respondents noted that Asiatic black bears were responsible for killing 46 livestock heads between 2015 and 2019. Bears mainly killed sheep (23 heads) and goats (22 heads). They only reported one head from cattle. Respondents blamed the Asiatic black bear for an estimated economic loss of $5469 between 2015 and 2019, around $1367 per year.

| Incidents with humans
Respondents reported a total of 30 incidents between bears and humans between 2015 and 2019; with two of them being fatal (6.6%). Most incidents were reported on males (63.3%), older than 30 years old (83.3%). Most incidents were reported in 2015 (30%) and 2016 (36.6%). Half of these incidents occurred in forest areas, mainly associated with collecting wood or medicinal plants, followed by agricultural lands (36.6%), when people were working among crops. Only 13.3% of incidents were reported in villages (χ 2 = 49.7, p = .000; Table 2). Most incidents were reported in autumn (40%) and summer (36.6%) and occurred in the evening (40%) or at night (33.3%) ( Table 2). About 16.6% incidents involved a female bear with cubs.

| DISCUSSION
Our survey aimed to identify perceptions and interactions between humans and Asiatic black bears in the District Mansehra area of Pakistan. Anthropogenic activities, such as the expansion of infrastructures and forest conversion to agricultural land, are often implicated in conflicts between bears and humans in this area (Ali et al., 2018). The majority of respondents reported negative perceptions and high costs associated with sharing the landscape with Asiatic black bears, primarily due to livestock depredations. The estimated economic loss in the case of livestock depredation was $5469 ($1367 per year). This is remarkable in this socio-economic context, accounting for 93% of the per capita gross domestic product for Pakistan. For comparison, this figure would be equivalent to $55,853 for a US citizen.
Our results revealed sheep and goats as the most vulnerable livestock to Asiatic black bears depredation, which is similar to findings reported in other areas (Kabir et al., 2014;Waseem et al., 2020). Few respondents used livestock damage prevention methods. Therefore, awareness campaigns promoting the use of different interventions to mitigate conflicts, and training on how to use them properly, may contribute to reducing livestock depredation (Eklund et al., 2017;Van Eeden et al., 2018). These campaigns have the potential to also reduce human bear incidents (Conover, 2002;Gore & Knuth, 2006;Sato, 2008) and may increase favor of human bear co-existence in the study area. For example, a study from Quichua community (South America) evaluated community knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions towards Andean bear (Tremarctos ornatus) conservation after administering an environmental education program over a 5-year period. They reported that the behavioral intentions that favored bear conservation increased over time (Espinosa & Jacobson, 2012).
We found that livestock predation followed a seasonal pattern, with most incidents occurring during springsummer (Dar et al., 2009;Sogbohossou et al., 2011). This is the season when residents graze their livestock in dense forest areas, and coincides with when bears are more active. Thus, more efforts should be invested in protecting livestock at this time of the year, when livestock is free-ranging. For example, nonstationary electric fences and calving control could be used at this time of the years, together with increasing livestock guarding (Mulej et al., 2013;Sillero-Zubiri & Laurenson, 2001). Livestock guarding dogs, may be an effective strategy that can be easily accepted by locals, since some respondents already reported less conflicts when livestock guarding dogs were present. Despite the low number of incidents with humans in Asia, they have been reported in many other countries including India, Bhutan, and Japan (Charoo et al., 2009(Charoo et al., , 2011Honda & Kozakai, 2020;Huygens et al., 2004;Jamtsho & Wangchuk, 2016;Sathyakumar, 2001). About 30 people were injured in different incidents between 2015 and 2019 of which two cases were fatal. Around seven people on average were injured by Asiatic black bears annually during the study period, compared to only two humans per year according to previous records from 1998 to 2015 (Perveen & Abid, 2013). Most incidents occurred inside the forest when people were collecting timber or medicinal plants, or following their grazing livestock. Around 90% of rural people in this area depend on the surrounding forests for timber , and more than 95% for medicinal plants (Ahmad et al., 2015). Similar findings were reported in other studies, high human-black bear conflicts in forest areas, where people relied on the forest for resources (Babar Zahoor et al., 2020;Charoo et al., 2009;Chauhan, 2003;Liu et al., 2011). This contrasts with a study in India which found the majority of incidents by Asiatic black bear towards humans occurred in agricultural lands and only 23.5% occurring in the forest (Charoo et al., 2011). This demonstrates the importance of understanding regional differences between human bear interactions in order to identify and mitigate against human-bear conflicts.
Based on our survey results, we recommend the following suggestions to mitigate conflicts associated to Asiatic black bears presence in the western Himalayan. First, since most livestock depredation and incidents with bears were reported at night, more efforts are needed to protect livestock during this time, and to raise awareness of how to reduce the chance of a risky encounter. For example, a report from China suggests that bear-proof fences for households which suffer substantial losses through bear incidents are an effective and cost-saving intervention to diminish human-bear conflict (Papworth et al., 2014). Second, community training programs about various nonlethal interventions could be implemented, as few people reported using nonlethal interventions. Such programs could be an effective way for capacity building in reducing negative interactions between bears and humans, shifting perceptions towards bears, and facilitating landscapes of coexistence (Campbell, 2012). It is of high practical value to study what interventions can play a critical role in conflict mitigation in this area, especially regarding livestock depredation and reducing the likelihood of a human incident. For example, nonstationary electric fences, calving control, and the use of livestock guarding dogs, may be interventions that can be easily implemented (Khorozyan & Waltert, 2020;Landry et al., 2005;Linnell et al., 2012). Third, improvement of bear habitat, such as increasing availability of natural sources of food, may reduce bear visits to village areas (Ali et al., 2017).
Capacity building to effectively mitigate humanwildlife conflicts is recommended for local staff. Wildlife department staff should collaborate closely with experts and locals to implement interventions and reduce the likelihood negative bear interactions. Currently, the wildlife departments have limited resources and there is no NGOs contributing to support these actions. As such, such collaboration remains extremely rare in Pakistan.
Iftikhar-uz-zaman: Data collection and project administration. Talha Omer: Formal analysis. Shakeel Ahmad: Writingoriginal draft preparation. José Vicente L opez-Bao: Monitoring, writingreview & editing and investigations. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Our deepest thanks to everyone who helped in conducting the interviews, reviewing the study, and all the respondents who give us time of their busy schedule to T A B L E 2 (Continued)

Variables
Categories Livestock killed (%) Chi-square p value Govt. servant 1 (3.7) Business man 1 (4.8) participate in this study. Also, we are thankful to the Mansehra Wildlife Department, Pakistan for their kind cooperation in the field survey. Finally, we thank the reviewers and editors for valuable comments and suggestions for improving the manuscript. This study received no external funds. José Vicente L opez-Bao was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness (Grant numbers: CGL2017-87528-R, RYC-2015-18932).