Species assemblage rather than forest proximity shapes the cost of human–wildlife conflict in the Garhwal Himalaya, India

Human–wildlife conflict in the Indian Himalayan Region is usually explained by proximity to forest, yet the ecological composition of the conflict assemblage may matter more for the costs households actually bear. In March-May 2026, we surveyed 48 households across eight forest-fringe villages in Tehri Garhwal and Pauri Garhwal districts, Uttarakhand, India, recording conflict type, species involved, seasonality, economic loss, mitigation practice and government support. Every household reported wildlife-related loss. Wild boar, Indian crested porcupine, Himalayan black bear, rhesus macaque and leopard formed the conflict assemblage, but its composition differed sharply between the two adjacent districts: leopard conflict was reported by every household in Pauri Garhwal and by 29.2% of households in Tehri Garhwal (Fisher’s exact test, p < 0.001), while rhesus macaque reports ran the other way. Total reported loss was US$75,179, of which Pauri Garhwal bore US$70,895 against US$4284 in Tehri Garhwal, although Pauri Garhwal villages lie on average more than twice as far from forest (0.83 versus 0.31 km). Where a large carnivore dominated the assemblage, livestock depredation and medical costs dominated the loss profile and guard-dog use was higher (41.7% versus 12.5%, p = 0.049); where crop raiders dominated, losses were flatter and lower. Conflict peaked in summer but was also reported in winter, and only 31.3% of households had received any government support. Forest proximity did not order the economic outcome; the species assemblage did. We recommend that mitigation be zoned by conflict-species assemblage at sub-district scale rather than allocated uniformly by distance to forest.