# A Qualitative Analysis of Human–Animal Interactions with Respect to Zoonoses in Nepal

## TL;DR

This study explores how human-animal interactions in Nepal contribute to zoonotic diseases and highlights the need for community involvement in policy-making.

## Contribution

The study provides a qualitative analysis of zoonotic disease dynamics in Nepal from multiple stakeholder perspectives.

## Key findings

- Rodents are frequently linked to human-animal conflict in Nepal.
- Lack of data hinders effective policymaking on zoonoses.
- Community engagement is crucial for culturally appropriate zoonotic disease prevention.

## Abstract

Infectious diseases of zoonotic origin are a serious threat to human health and livelihoods globally. Habitat encroachment and deforestation bring humans and animals into contact, increase potential for disease spread, and foster human–animal conflict. Our aim, using thematic analysis, was to qualitatively examine the zoonotic disease landscape in Nepal from public, policymaker, and healthcare practitioner perspectives, and to describe key human–animal interactions. Community participants at six sites were interviewed or took part in focus groups (n = 73); 20 healthcare practitioner and policymaker representatives were interviewed. Lack of data complicates understanding of the zoonotic disease landscape in Nepal and limits evidence-informed policymaking. Some participants were aware of the potential significance of Nipah virus in Nepal, but insufficient data precluded planning for potential outbreaks. Drivers of some zoonoses, such as leptospirosis, may be difficult to address as they are related to traditional practices, such as consumption of rodents or barefoot paddy planting. Community participants identified rodents as frequently responsible for human–animal conflict in both rural and urban areas. Most participant photographs included evidence of rodent damage or mitigation against rodents. Habitat encroachment and deforestation have increased wild animal sightings and may increase contact between these and domestic animals, and humans. Although community participants reported no longer killing and eating wild animals, some health/policy participants questioned whether communities adhere to relevant regulations. This underlines the importance of involving communities in culturally appropriate policy development and implementation. To strengthen policymaking around zoonotic disease prevention and human–animal conflict, with the aim of reducing spread of zoonoses, we recommend public engagement between affected communities, healthcare practitioners, and policymakers to agree priorities (e.g. rodent damage and potential mitigation); and further research on effects of anthropogenic environmental changes in conjunction with members of communities most likely to be affected by increased contact with wild animals.