Evaluation of human attitudes and factors conducive to promoting human-lion coexistence in the Greater Gir landscape, India

Page created by Roger Moran
 
CONTINUE READING
Evaluation of human attitudes and factors conducive to promoting human-lion coexistence in the Greater Gir landscape, India
Evaluation of human attitudes and factors conducive
               to promoting human–lion coexistence in the Greater
               Gir landscape, India
                                          MEENA VENKATARAMAN, PAUL J. JOHNSON, ALEXANDRA ZIMMERMANN
                                                       R O B E R T A . M O N T G O M E R Y and D A V I D W . M A C D O N A L D

               Abstract Coexistence of people and large carnivores depends                                    Supplementary material for this article is available at
               on a complex combination of factors that vary geographically.                                  doi.org/./S
               Both the number and range of the Asiatic lion Panthera leo
               leo in the Greater Gir landscape, India, has increased since
               the s. The challenge has been managing the success of
               conservation, with a particular focus on the spillover popula-
                                                                                                              Introduction
               tion ranging extensively in human-dominated landscapes.
               To understand the factors conducive to lion survival in this
               landscape, we undertook an interview-based survey. Overall,
               people expressed positive, tolerant attitudes towards lions.
                                                                                                              C     onservation of threatened species is less daunting with-
                                                                                                                    in protected areas, where wildlife laws are easier to
                                                                                                              enforce compared to efforts required to safeguard dispers-
               There was a distinct contrast between people’s liking for                                      ing wild animals ranging outside protected areas in human-
               lions (.% of respondents) compared to leopards (.%)                                      dominated landscapes (Woodroffe & Ginsberg, ). Re-
               in spite of greater depredation of livestock by lions (.%)                                  solving conflict involving carnivores that range beyond
               than by leopards (.%). Younger people and respondents                                       the boundaries of protected areas is a particular challenge
               having greater awareness regarding lions expressed posi-                                       (Treves, ). A variety of strategies have been implemen-
               tive attitudes. Although community discussions on lions had                                    ted to conserve carnivores by improving local livelihoods
               a positive effect, there was no evidence that land-holding,                                    (van Eeden et al., ).
               management interventions, personal encounters with lions,                                          Highlighting benefits associated with the presence of a
               or association of lions with religion affected attitudes. Re-                                  species, rather than perceived negative effects, can improve
               spondents who had experienced livestock depredation ten-                                       people’s tolerance of carnivores (Bruskotter & Wilson, ).
               ded to express negative attitudes. Respondents with positive                                   Research on human–wildlife conflict has typically focused
               attitudes towards lions favoured non-interventionist strate-                                   on quantifying the severity of conflict in terms of its eco-
               gies for managing lions in the village areas. We advocate                                      nomic impact (Redpath et al., ). However, negative
               consideration of varied factors influencing tolerance of wild-                                 impacts of human–wildlife conflict may account only for
               life in conservation planning. We emphasize that site-specific                                 tangible socio-economic costs and overlook other less vis-
               human–wildlife conflict issues such as crop-foraging by wild                                   ible costs relating to the health and well-being of local
               ungulates and variation in attitudes towards different species                                 communities (Barua et al., ). Similarly, benefits are
               should also be considered. Specifically, improved livestock                                    often ill-defined or based on superficial measures that over-
               management, motivation of local youth and their participa-                                     look ecosystem services, and ecological and economic bene-
               tion in awareness campaigns could all further strengthen                                       fits associated with the focal species and habitat (Meena
               the prevalent positive attitudes towards lions.                                                et al., ).
               Keywords Asiatic lion, carnivore, cultural coexistence,                                            The coexistence of people and wildlife, particularly spe-
               Greater Gir landscape, human–wildlife conflict, local                                          cies of the order Carnivora, requires tolerance even in the
               attitudes, Panthera leo leo, tolerance                                                         absence of material loss, as perceived risk of losses can
                                                                                                              threaten carnivore survival (Vucetich & Macdonald, ).
                                                                                                              The perception of human–wildlife conflict often involves
               MEENA VENKATARAMAN* (Corresponding author), PAUL J. JOHNSON, ALEXANDRA                         more than material effects and can originate from attitudes
               ZIMMERMANN, ROBERT A. MONTGOMERY† and DAVID W. MACDONALD Department                            and values that are embedded in culture and history
               of Zoology, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford, The
               Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Tubney House, Tubney, Abingdon, OX13 5QL, UK                           (Redpath et al., ). Religious and cultural aspects may
               E-mail meena.venktraman@gmail.com                                                              be as important as economic and ecological attributes
               *Also at: Carnivore Conservation & Research, Thane, Maharashtra, India                         (Kellert, ).
               †Also at: Research on the Ecology of Carnivores and their Prey Laboratory,                         Tolerance towards wild animals exhibits considerable
               Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East
               Lansing, Michigan, USA                                                                         geographical variation as a result, at least in part, of
               Received  December . Revision requested  February .                                human cultural differences (Dickman et al., ). Con-
               Accepted  June . First published online  February .                                servation strategies vetted and validated in one system

               This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use,
Downloaded from     https://www.cambridge.org/core.
                distribution,                          IP address:
                              and reproduction in any medium,      46.4.80.155,
                                                              provided           on work
                                                                       the original 13 Nov  2021 at 18:18:23,
                                                                                         is properly cited.   subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319000760
                Oryx, 2021, 55(4), 589–598 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000760
590         V. Meena et al.

                may not be applicable without nuanced customization in                                  area have been associated with attacks on both livestock
                another location. The capacity of people to tolerate carni-                             and people (Meena et al., ), raising concerns for both
                vore-related risks or conflict is important for sustaining                              human well-being and lion survival in the face of reprisals
                threatened species at a local scale (Carter et al., ). This                         and accident-related mortality (Meena, ). This situation
                has important implications for policies aimed at conflict                               requires an improved understanding of the basis of human–
                mitigation and long-term conservation planning (Treves,                                 lion coexistence in this landscape. Here we attempt to high-
                ). This inter-disciplinary complexity (summarized by                                light the factors that are contributing to carnivore survival
                Macdonald, ), means that it can be difficult to under-                              in a human-dominated landscape outside a protected area
                stand what drives tolerance at a local scale. Therefore un-                             where tolerance towards the species is well established
                derstanding the complexity of human tolerance towards                                   (Meena et al., ).
                carnivores, and coping mechanisms, are important for de-                                   Attitudes are affective as well as interpretive cognitive
                fining management policies (Treves, ).                                              processes derived from perceptions and beliefs. We explore
                    The nature of human–carnivore interactions, rates of                                a combination of the variables that predict self-reported
                change in conflict frequency, management responses to                                   tolerant attitudes of local people toward lions, and high-
                mitigate conflict, proactive awareness campaigns, individual                            light factors that should be integrated into conservation
                perceptions, and beliefs and strategies to cope with conflict                           interventions. We categorize human–wildlife conflict variables
                can all influence tolerance (Dickman et al., ; Carter                               into six components: socio-demography, conflict experience,
                et al., ). Conservation management may be designed                                  management intervention, knowledge, awareness, and reli-
                by drawing upon a combination of these factors (Hazzah                                  gious association with lions. We specifically ask, what are
                et al., ). An understanding of what constitutes tolerance                           the factors that are conducive to the survival of lions in the
                and how intolerance will be manifested is required to be able                           Greater Gir landscape in spite of the risks they pose, and
                to integrate these myriad factors in carnivore conservation                             does a similar tolerant attitude extend to leopards?
                planning.
                    Tolerance can be interpreted in three ways: passive ac-
                ceptance of a species can be an indication of tolerance                                 Study area
                (Bruskotter & Fulton, ), tolerance can be a responsive
                                                                                                        The range of the Asiatic lion in the Greater Gir land-
                behaviour influenced in part by attitude (Gebresenbet et al.,
                                                                                                        scape extends across Amreli, Junagadh, Gir Somnath and
                ), or tolerance can be the expression of attitudes and
                                                                                                        Bhavanagar districts in the state of Gujarat in western
                behavioural intention (Bruskotter et al., ). On the
                                                                                                        India. We conducted the survey in Dhari Taluka sub-
                other hand, evidence of intolerant behaviour towards real
                                                                                                        district, adjacent to the north-eastern boundary of the Gir
                and perceived threats from carnivores could be expressed
                                                                                                        Protected Area in Amreli district. This region is an impor-
                as illegal retaliatory killing (Treves & Bruskotter, ).
                                                                                                        tant lion movement corridor (Meena et al., ). Millet,
                    Most studies have predicted tolerance based on the para-
                                                                                                        cotton, groundnuts, wheat, pulses and vegetables are com-
                meters of real or perceived conflict. For people sharing the
                                                                                                        monly cultivated in this agropastoral landscape. A popula-
                Greater Gir landscape with Asiatic lions Panthera leo leo, the
                                                                                                        tion of c.  lions lives in the Gir Wildlife Sanctuary and
                costs (livestock depredation and occasional attacks on peo-
                                                                                                        National Park within , km of forest, and c.  lions
                ple) appear to be greater than the potential benefits (liveli-
                                                                                                        occur in three subpopulations outside the protected area
                hood and subsistence through forest resource extraction;
                                                                                                        (Singh, ). The Greater Gir landscape also supports a
                Meena et al., ). Nevertheless, people are able to appre-
                                                                                                        population of c.  leopards (Singh, ). The widespread
                ciate the ecosystem benefits they derive from the Gir
                                                                                                        nilgai Boselaphus tragocamelus and wild pig Sus scrofa in
                Protected Area (Meena, ; Banerjee et al., ). This is
                                                                                                        this landscape are the main wild prey for dispersing carni-
                further strengthened by a sense of pride in living alongside
                                                                                                        vores (Singh, ). The Gujarat Forest Department is re-
                lions (Meena, ). In this landscape the lion is not perse-
                                                                                                        sponsible for conservation of the Asiatic lion, which is
                cuted, but rather is highly regarded and valued (Meena et al.,
                                                                                                        listed in Schedule I of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, .
                ). Assuming tolerance to be the expression of attitudes
                and stated behaviour intention, we model the drivers of tol-
                erant attitudes using the Asiatic lion in the Greater Gir land-                         Methods
                scape of India as a case study (Bruskotter et al., ).
                    The persistence of the Asiatic lion and its sympatry with                           Interview surveys
                the leopard Panthera pardus provides a contrast for exam-
                ining the role of human tolerance for carnivore conservation                            We surveyed  households in  villages in Dhari Taluka
                approaches. The lion population is currently estimated to                               during July –January . We used a structured ques-
                be . , having grown by % during – (Singh,                                  tionnaire survey consisting of both open-ended and fixed
                ). However, the lions dispersing from the protected                                 response questions on a binary or five-point Likert scale

                            Oryx, 2021, 55(4), 589–598 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000760
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 13 Nov 2021 at 18:18:23, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319000760
Promoting human–lion coexistence                  591

              (Supplementary Material ). We chose the number of inter-                               awareness (social and conflict trends) and religious asso-
              viewees to sample across caste, class, age and gender, with                             ciation with lions (Supplementary Table ). Respondents’
              respondents recruited by opportunistically approaching                                  association of lions with religion was solicited via an
              households whilst walking through a village. Circa % of                               open-ended question and later categorized as: worship (as
              the total households in a village were previously found to                              a form of god), positive association (religious sentiment or
              be representative of all strata within a village (Meena,                                faith), popular belief (aware of prevalent religious associ-
              ; Meena et al., ). Interviews were carried out by                               ation but respondent does not relate or subscribe to it),
              MV and a project assistant, in Gujarati. Each interview                                 negative association (as an evil incarnation), other associ-
              lasted for at least  minutes. The interview included ques-                            ation (as wild animal, jewel of the forest, national animal,
              tions framed to determine the context of human–wildlife                                 or king of the jungle), and no association (not aware of, or
              conflict issues, opinions about lions and leopards, and infor-                          no opinion).
              mation on the six major factors hypothesized to influence
              tolerant attitudes. Informed consent was obtained verbally                              Data analysis
              from every participant before the interview, and participants
              were made aware of their rights to participate voluntarily or                           To contextualize human–wildlife conflict, the ranked chal-
              decline. All interviewees were informed of the purpose of                               lenges were expressed as the frequency with which they were
              the study and were assured their responses would be anon-                               given a particular rank. If in the respondent’s opinion any of
              ymized. We made clear that responses to all questions would                             the issues were not relevant (e.g. a shop owner who had no
              remain confidential and would not be used for any other                                 issues related to agriculture or a respondent who had no
              purpose. There were no questions that could be judged as                                livestock) or if the respondent did not consider any one of
              sensitive (e.g. queries concerning illegal activity).                                   the issues a problem (irrespective of having a negative ef-
                  We collected information on the major concerns and pri-                             fect), the issue was noted as ‘not rated’. Opinions about
              orities of residents in the context of other aspects of their                           lions and leopards were expressed as percentage of response
              agropastoral lifestyle. Respondents were asked to rank five                             in each category. We used χ contingency tables to explore
              challenges they faced in agriculture (onset of seasonal mon-                            the relationship between categorical variables.
              soon leading to variations in crop yield, fluctuating annual                                Emotions and attitudes were strongly correlated such
              market value for crops) and as a result of proximity to forest                          that models using either as responses gave similar conclu-
              (threat to human life because of carnivore presence, livestock                          sions. We therefore chose stated attitudes as the principal
              depredation, crop loss to wild ungulates), from  (most prob-                           response variable. We modeled the association between re-
              lematic) to  (least problematic).                                                      ported attitudes toward lions and the predictor variables
                  We posed three questions related to opinions on lions                               using an ordinal response regression model. We built cumu-
              and leopards: () attitude (like, dislike, or indifferent), () sa-                     lative mixed-effect models using the clmm function from
              lient emotion on encounter or sighting (negative: fear; posi-                           the package ordinal (Christensen, ) in R .. (R Core
              tive: sense of pride, happiness, sense of security, or mixed                            Team, ), and we computed the maximum likelihood es-
              emotions), () preferred management in village areas (no                                timates of parameters via adaptive Gauss–Hermite quadra-
              carnivores desired: no lions or leopards should be present                              ture approximation (Christensen, ). We included village
              in the village area; natural population: unregulated and                                identity as a random factor to account for the clustering of
              free-ranging; regulated population: maintenance of limited                              respondents in villages. We firstly ran a model using only
              numbers; larger population: desired larger carnivore popu-                              socio-demographic factors, to take advantage of the com-
              lations; or larger population elsewhere but not in the village                          plete sample. We then fitted a model including other predic-
              area). We also assessed attitude as behaviour intent and                                tors for respondents who reported livestock ownership.
              asked how lions and leopards moving outside the forest                                      Two interaction terms were included on the basis of a
              and into village areas should be managed: allow to move un-                             priori hypotheses about the effect of age on attitude: that
              restrained, capture and relocation, or capture and retention                            the effect of age could depend on whether or not a respon-
              in captivity.                                                                           dent had experienced livestock loss and had knowledge of
                                                                                                      lions. We used the Anova.glm function of the R package
              Factors influencing opinion                                                             RVAideMemoire (Herve, ) to carry out likelihood ratio
                                                                                                      tests (permitting single tests for categorical variables with
              We developed a set of predictor variables indicating re-                                multiple levels), reporting the χ values. Effects sizes for
              spondents’ attitudes toward lions. There were six categories                            these models were visualized with the R package effects
              of covariates related to socio-demographic parameters,                                  (Fox & Hong, ).
              conflict experience (livestock depredation or close encount-                                To explore links between attitudes and behavioural in-
              er with lions and leopards), Gujarat Forest Department                                  tent, we fitted a model with the ordinal attitude scale as a
              management intervention and effectiveness, knowledge,                                   predictor. Whether or not a respondent opted for ‘allowed

              Oryx, 2021, 55(4), 589–598 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000760
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 13 Nov 2021 at 18:18:23, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319000760
592         V. Meena et al.

                to move unrestrained’ in response to how lions and leopards
                moving outside the forest and into village areas should be
                managed was treated as a binary response. The ‘captured
                and relocated’ and ‘captured and retained in captivity’ op-
                tions were combined. For this we fitted mixed models, treat-
                ing village as a random predictor, using the R package lme
                (Bates et al., ). Graphical methods were used to check
                the validity of linear trends in the response with ordinal
                predictors (Johnson, ).

                Results

                Contextualizing human–wildlife conflict

                Issues related to livestock loss to depredation and threat to                           FIG. 1 Contextualizing human–wildlife conflict for people in
                human life from carnivores as a result of lion movement in                              Dhari Taluka, part of the Greater Gir landscape of western
                village areas were not rated as significant concerns by  and                          India, based on a questionnaire survey administered during July
                % of respondents, respectively, irrespective of whether or                            –January . The respondents ranked five issues related
                not they owned livestock or of their experience of conflict                             to agrarian livelihoods and proximity to forest, from  (most
                (Fig. ). With respect to concerns and priorities, crop loss                            problematic) to  (least problematic). A rank of  indicates an
                                                                                                        issue was not rated, either because it did not apply to an
                to wild ungulates was ranked st by c. % of respondents,
                                                                                                        individual (e.g. livestock loss to depredation is not applicable to
                and th by , %. Fluctuating market rates for crops and                                 somebody who does not own livestock) or when not rated as a
                onset of seasonal monsoon and crop yield were not rated                                 problem by an individual despite having an effect. Rankings of
                by  and % of respondents, respectively.                                             the five issues are expressed as the per cent frequency with which
                                                                                                        each issue was assigned a particular rank by all respondents.

                Assessment of opinion
                                                                                                        (animal husbandry, business and other salaried jobs). Over
                Attitude, salient emotion and preferred management re-                                  % of the respondents were farmers with medium to
                garding lions and leopards are summarized in Table .                                   large land holdings. Most were Hindus (%) and others
                Responses related to attitude and salient emotion towards                               were Muslims. The ethnic composition of Hindus was
                lions were linked. Of those respondents who reported a dis-                             diverse, with  communities, dominanted numerically by
                like of lions, .% reported an emotion of fear and .%                               Patel (%), Darbar (%) and Maldhari (%; including
                reported pride. Amongst those who liked lions, .% re-                                the subsects Ahir, Rabari and Bharwads).
                ported fear, .% pride, and .% security (χ = .,                                     Livestock was kept by .% of the  households, large-
                P , ., using the subset reporting like or dislike and                               ly for household consumption, with only % of livestock
                emotions fear or pride; n = , omitting the indifferent cat-                          owners rearing livestock for commercial purposes. Of the
                egory). For leopards, reported attitudes and emotions were                              , livestock kept by the  households, cattle (.%)
                also linked; almost all respondents reporting dislike of leo-                           were the dominant species, along with buffaloes (.%),
                pards reported fear to be their principal emotion (.%). Of                           goats (.%), sheep (.%) and horses (.%). Goats and
                those who reported liking leopards, .% reported fear and                             sheep were reared mostly for commercial purposes. A mean
                .% pride (χ = ., P , ., using the subset report-                            of . ± SD . cattle and buffalo combined were kept per
                ing like or dislike and emotions fear or pride, n = ).                               household.
                Respondents who were indifferent (n = ) were intermedi-                                   Forty-four per cent of the livestock owners had expe-
                ate: .% reported fear and .% pride.                                               rienced livestock depredation in the previous  years,
                                                                                                        .% to lions and .% to leopards, and .% had lost live-
                Factors influencing opinion                                                             stock to both predators. Of the  depredation incidents
                                                                                                        only .% of livestock owners claimed monetary compen-
                Respondents were – years of age, of whom % were                                   sation for losses, of which  claims were completed or re-
                –, % – and % . . The majority of interviews                               imbursed (Table ). In the previous  years there were 
                (%) were with men as most women reported confining                                    cases of injury to people by carnivores, of which nine were
                their activities to the vicinity of the household; % were                             severe, but respondents reported  encounters with car-
                farmers, % practiced both agriculture and other liveli-                               nivores. In response to questions on social awareness, con-
                hood activities, and % were engaged in other livelihoods                              flict perceptions and knowledge, people agreed overall that

                            Oryx, 2021, 55(4), 589–598 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000760
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 13 Nov 2021 at 18:18:23, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319000760
Promoting human–lion coexistence                  593

              TABLE 1 Per cent responses to three questions examining opinions regarding lions Panthera leo leo and leopards Panthera pardus, based on
              a questionnaire survey with  people in Dhari Taluka, India, during July –January .

              Question category
              Attitude                  Like                   Dislike                  Indifferent
              Lion                      79.6                   18.9                     1.5
              Leopard                   27.7                   69.9                     2.4
              Salient emotion           Fear                   Pride                    Happiness                  Security                      Mixed
              Lion                      53.6                   24.9                     17.5                       2.0                           2.0
              Leopard                   82.4                   8.4                      8.8                        0.1                           0.3
              Preferred                 No carnivores          Natural                  Limited numbers            Larger populations            Larger populations          No
                management              desired                (unregulated)            (regulated)                near villages                 elsewhere                   opinion
              Lion                      2.8                    48.4                     11.7                       22.5                          14.6                        0
              Leopard                   23.7                   42.7                     9.6                        7.9                           14.3                        1.8

              carnivores and conflict had increased in the previous                                 leopards, and that there were differences among communi-
              years, but the majority of people did not have specific                                 ties in their attitudes towards leopards (Supplementary
              knowledge of lion status and population estimates. There                                Table , Supplementary Fig.  a–c).
              was no strong religious association with lions.
                                                                                                      Attitude as behavioural intent
              Modeling predictors of attitudes toward lions
                                                                                                      For lions, .% of respondents stated a preference for no
              Based on individual responses, the model indicated factors                              intervention for lions detected near human settlements,
              that predicted positive or negative attitude toward lions                               .% preferred capture and relocation, and .% capture
              (Table ). The full output of mixed ordinal models is pre-                              and retention in captivity. This pattern varied significantly
              sented in Supplementary Table . Attitude to lions was                                  with attitude (χ = ., P , ., omitting the indifferent
              more negative amongst older age groups (Supplementary                                   category). Of the people who liked lions, % prefered no
              Fig. a), among women, and among livestock owners who                                   intervention, % capture and relocation, and % capture
              had a large number of livestock (Supplementary Fig. b)                                 and retention in captivity. For the people who disliked
              or had experienced depredation losses (Supplementary                                    lions, the responses were ., . and .%, respectively.
              Fig. c). There was evidence for variation in attitude towards                          For those who were indifferent the responses were , 
              lions among communities (Supplementary Fig. d). People                                 and %, respectively. The probability that a respondent fa-
              who perceived that human–wildlife conflict was increas-                                 vored no intervention increased with more positive attitudes
              ing were more negative about lions (Supplementary Fig. e).                             to lions (logistic mixed model, PE = ., SE = ., z = −.,
              Attitudes were not influenced by area of land owned or reli-                            P , .; Supplementary Fig. a).
              gious association with lions (Supplementary Table ).                                       For leopards, .% of respondents stated a preference
                  A significant interaction between the age and knowledge                             for no intervention if the animals were detected near
              terms (Table ) was explained by the age effect being less                              human settlements. This pattern varied significantly with
              marked amongst the respondents who had no knowledge;                                    attitude (contingency test, χ = ., P , ., omitting the
              the effect of knowledge was most clear in the youngest age                              indifferent category). Of the people who liked leopards,
              class (Supplementary Fig. f). All respondents in the young-                            .% stated their preference for no intervention; .%
              est age class who responded correctly to the knowledge                                  opted for capture and relocation, and .% preferred capture
              question said they liked lions (Supplementary Fig. f). Re-                             and retention in captivity. For the people who disliked leo-
              spondents who were positive about cooperation between                                   pards, the responses were ., . and .%, respectively.
              local people and the Gujarat Forest Department had a                                    For those who were indifferent the responses were .,
              more positive attitude towards lions (Supplementary Fig. g)                             and %, respectively. The probability that a respon-
              as were respondents who said they often had discussions                                 dent favored no intervention for leopards increased with
              concerning lions and other forest-related topics among                                  more positive attitudes (logistic mixed model, PE = .,
              themselves (Supplementary Fig. h). The link between atti-                              SE = ., z = −., P , ., Supplementary Fig. b).
              tude and awareness of the rescue and relocation efforts of                              That the probability increases more steeply for lions (Sup-
              the Gujarat Forest Department was weak. Models predicting                               plementary Fig. a) than for leopards is demonstrated by
              attitude to leopards using demographic variables, conflict ex-                          the interaction term in a logistic mixed model including
              perience, social awareness, and management interventions                                species and attitude as predictors (species × attitude inter-
              indicated that older respondents and those with more                                    action: χ = ., P = ., mixed model with village and
              livestock tended to hold more negative attitudes towards                                respondent as random effects).

              Oryx, 2021, 55(4), 589–598 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000760
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 13 Nov 2021 at 18:18:23, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319000760
594         V. Meena et al.

                TABLE 2 Per cent responses to factors influencing local attitudes toward lions, based on a questionnaire survey of  people in Dhari
                Taluka, India, during July –January . The sample sizes for questions that were applicable for only a subset of the population
                are indicated in parentheses.

                Survey question, by category                                   Response (%)
                Conflict experience                                            Lion               Leopard
                Have you experienced livestock depredation,                    82.6               17.4
                  & if so by which species? (n = 346)
                Have you had close encounters with lions or                    66.0               34.0
                  leopards? (n = 450)
                Management intervention
                Monetary compensation for losses (n = 89)                      Poor               Fair              Good              Excellent
                How would you rate compensation amount                         70.0               12.0              9.0               9.0
                  against value of depredated livestock?
                How would you rate efficiency of processing                    33.3               23.8              23.8              19.1
                  of claims?
                Would you make the effort to communicate                       Yes                No                Unsure
                  information related to forest/wildlife in your               82.0               11.0              7.0
                  village/farm?
                Should local people support the efforts of the                 Strongly           Agree             No opinion        Strongly              Disagree
                  Gujarat Forest Department in forest                          agree                                                  disagree
                  conservation?                                                33.7               48.2              10.2              5.5                   2.4
                Social awareness                                               I witnessed        I heard           Not aware         No incident           Do not know
                Are you aware of depredation incidents in                      64.2               18.0              2.0               11.0                  4.8
                  the village in the previous year?
                Are you aware of the Gujarat Forest                            83.6               12.1              4.3
                  Department’s animal rescue operations?
                How often to you discuss subjects related                      Never              Sometimes         Often
                  to forests & lions with friends &                            25.5               52.3              22.2
                  community members?
                Conflict awareness (trends for past 10 years)                  Strongly           Agree             No opinion        Strongly              Disagree
                                                                               agree                                                  disagree
                There has been an increase in conflict                         61.5               21.6              9.1               7.5                   0.3
                  (depredation & attacks)
                Conflict increase is a result of increased                     27.8               29.0              22.7              15.4                  5.1
                  carnivore population
                Conflict increase is a result of increased                     13.1               25.5              23.1              34.1                  4.2
                  human–livestock numbers
                Conflict is perceived to have increased as a                   5.9                18.4              38.6              33.9                  3.2
                  result of media reporting
                Lion population trend in previous 10 years                     Increased          Decreased         Remained          Do not know
                                                                                                                    same
                                                                               88.0               3.0               1.0               8.0
                Knowledge about lions                                          Aware              Partially         Unaware
                                                                                                  aware
                Global lion status & latest lion census estimate               13.0               36.0              51.0
                Religious association with lions                               Positive           Popular           Negative          Other                 No                    No
                                                                               association        belief            association       association           association           opinion
                                                                               37.0               7.0               2.0               6.0                   46.0                  2.0

                Discussion
                                                                                                         by lions was greater than by leopards). Fear was reported to
                Cultural bias toward species                                                             be the dominant emotion much less frequently for lions
                                                                                                         (%), than for leopards (%), and pride was more com-
                Our findings suggest lions are considered an integral part of                            monly reported for lions (%) than for leopards (%).
                the Greater Gir landscape. More people had positive atti-                                People’s perception of a particular species is not necessarily
                tudes towards lions (%) than towards leopards (%).                                   related to the nature of their interactions with it (Farhadinia
                Negative attitudes towards leopards were unrelated to the                                et al., ). Although certain problematic species are toler-
                degree of livestock loss to the species (livestock depredation                           ated and accepted, for other species there is less tolerance

                            Oryx, 2021, 55(4), 589–598 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000760
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 13 Nov 2021 at 18:18:23, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319000760
Promoting human–lion coexistence                  595

              TABLE 3 Summary of model outputs for relationship between socio-demographic factors, conflict experience, Gujarat Forest Department
              management, knowledge, social awareness and religion with self-reported attitude towards lions based on a questionnaire survey of 
              people in Dhari Taluka during July –January .

              Variable                                                                  Effect of predictor on attitude to lions                              Ordinal regression
              Socio-demographic parameters
              Age                                                                       More negative in older age groups1,2                                  χ2[1] = 12.7, P , 0.001
              Gender                                                                    More positive amongst men1                                            χ2[1] = 3.5, P = 0.06
              Livestock keeping                                                         More negative with greater livestock holding1                         χ2[1] = 3.2, P = 0.07
              Land-holding status                                                       None1                                                                 χ2[1] = 0.1, P = 0.73
              Community                                                                 Varied between communities1,2                                         χ2[9] = 29.0, P , 0.001
              Conflict experience
              Livestock depredation by lions                                            More negative with greater livestock loss1,2                          χ2[1] = 4.7, P = 0.02
              Direct encounter with carnivores                                          None1                                                                 χ2[1] = 0.6, P = 0.43
              Livestock depredation by leopards                                         None                                                                  χ2[1] = 0.7, P = 0.40
              Gujarat Forest Department management
              People’s participation in Forest Department’s                             More positive amongst those responding ‘Yes,                          χ2[1] = 35.0, P , 0.001
                conservation goals                                                      people must cooperate in conservation efforts’ than
                                                                                        amongst those responding ‘No, people must not
                                                                                        cooperate in conservation efforts’1,2
              Knowledge
              Global status of lions                                                    None1                                                                 χ2[1] = 2.0, P = 0.15
              Conflict has increased in the previous 10 years                           More negative amongst those who agreed1,2                             χ2[1] = 3.8, P = 0.05
              Knowledge of 2015 lion census estimate                                    More positive amongst those who were aware1                           χ2[1] = 15.7, P , 0.001
              Interaction: knowledge & respondent age                                   Knowledge effect more marked among younger                            χ2[1] = 7.7, P = 0.006
                                                                                        age category
              Social awareness
              Participation in social discussions on lions & forest                     More positive amongst those who participated1,2                       χ2[1] = 5.9, P = 0.01
                topics
              Awareness about wild animal rescue and relocation                         No evidence1                                                          χ2[1] = 1.8, P = 0.15
                by Gujarat Forest Department
              Religion
              Religious association with lions                                          No association with attitude1                                         χ2[4] = 6.3, P = 0.18
              
               Ordinal model outputs for prediction of lion attitude (Supplementary Table ).
              
               Supplementary Fig. .

              irrespective of the extent of conflict (Kaltenbon et al., ;                         species almost on a daily basis may be different from the per-
              Saraswat et al., , Farhadinia et al., ). Attitudes to-                          ception of the species in general terms. In our study, women,
              wards the snow leopard Panthera uncia in the Trans-                                     and communities such as Devipujars residing on the periph-
              Himalaya of India were more positive than towards the                                   ery of villages and therefore more vulnerable to carni-
              wolf Canis lupus and this relationship was not correlated                               vore attacks, expressed negative attitudes towards lions and
              with the amount of economic damage attributed to the spe-                               leopards. Livestock owners who experienced livestock loss
              cies (Suryawanshi et al., ). Cultural bias for charismatic                          expressed more negative attitudes toward lions. Farmers
              species can thus dominate the effect of other predictors                                rated monetary losses resulting from crop damage by wild
              and it is therefore important in conservation planning to                               ungulate species more problematic than any potential
              incorporate such variability in attitudes toward sympatric                              threat to their personal safety posed by carnivores (Fig. ).
              species (Suryawanshi et al., ).                                                     Thus, monetary cost caused farmers to perceive species
                                                                                                      causing damage differently from those that posed a threat
              Factors influencing attitudes towards lions                                             (Goodale et al., ). Overall respondents acknowledged
                                                                                                      the enhanced crop productivity from the ecosystem services
              When a carnivore species is found to be living in close prox-                           received as a consequence of their proximity to Gir pro-
              imity to human habitations and threatens human safety its                               tected areas, and also the role of the lion as an apex predator
              acceptability declines (Kleiven et al., ). Furthermore,                             (Meena, ).
              when a given species causes economic loss its acceptability                                We found that attitudes were linked to behavioural in-
              declines to the extent that it becomes vulnerable to direct                             tention: respondents with positive attitudes toward lions
              persecution (Kleiven et al., ). An opinion driven by                                were more likely to favour no intervention rather than cap-
              fear of encountering a potentially dangerous carnivore                                  ture and release for lions moving through village areas.

              Oryx, 2021, 55(4), 589–598 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000760
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 13 Nov 2021 at 18:18:23, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319000760
596         V. Meena et al.

                Respondents were of the opinion that it was as much the                                 entire process of verification, registration and approval of a
                lion’s home as it was theirs. This is in contrast to people opt-                        claim has to be efficient. For example, in Bhadra Tiger Reserve,
                ing for ‘not on my land’ in spite of expressing consideration                           southern India, people were less critical of the fact that the
                for carnivore conservation in other scenarios (Zimmerman                                compensation scheme underestimated their livestock losses
                et al., ). Positive attitudes towards lions were similar                            to large carnivores than they were of the bureaucratic proce-
                to those recorded towards predators in other studies and                                dures involved (Madhusudan, ). In our study area, re-
                were not necessarily related to benefits or social status                               spondents were appreciative of the commitment shown by
                (Zimmerman et al., ). Younger respondents expressed                                 the staff in processing their claims but were critical of the
                more positive attitudes and were also better informed about                             value compensated, indicating the efficacy of any mone-
                the movements of lions, the threatened status of the species                            tary compensation scheme has to be frequently re-evaluated
                and human–wildlife conflict issues. The opinion of elders in                            (Table ).
                the community was expected to be rooted in cultural beliefs                                 Translocation as a conservation tool for dealing with
                and traditions: older respondents showed a distinct indiffer-                           problem carnivores has been criticized as it results in escal-
                ence to lions and were particularly negative towards them                               ation of conflict at release sites and is ineffective in conflict
                if they had suffered livestock loss. The land ownership sta-                            mitigation (Athreya et al., ). In Gir, the rescue of dis-
                tus of respondents was also not important as a predictor                                tressed wild animals (trapped, or fallen into open wells), re-
                of attitude. Frequent community discussions indicated an                                location of problem animals perceived as a threat to human
                interest in lions and forest-related topics, and such indivi-                           safety, and treatment of injured or disease stricken animals
                duals had a positive attitude toward lions (Table ). As                                is undertaken by the Gujarat Forest Department. In most in-
                age, awareness and social discussions significantly influ-                              stances the managers are under pressure to act swiftly in the
                enced positive attitudes, conservation awareness campaigns                              best interests of both people and wildlife, to pre-empt ag-
                could further strengthen this goodwill towards lions.                                   gressive retaliation by people. They can achieve two things
                                                                                                        through these efforts. Firstly, they can ensure the safety of
                Human–wildlife conflict management                                                      animals by capturing them. Secondly, when villagers gather
                                                                                                        to witness challenging capture operations undertaken by
                Overall, interventions by the Gujarat Forest Department in                              Gujarat Forest Department staff there is an opportunity
                mitigating conflict via financial compensation and prompt                               for the staff to interact closely with local people, build trust-
                response to carnivore-related problems were not a predictor                             ing relationships and facilitate exchange of information with
                of people’s attitudes toward lions, at least for the observed                           regards to the status of wild animals moving unrestrained in
                level of conflict. This also indicates that the negative atti-                          village areas (Table ; Meena et al., ). Although local
                tudes arising from depredation loss is directed towards                                 people widely appreciated these efforts, such interventions
                lions rather than towards the Gujarat Forest Department.                                were not a strong predictor of attitudes toward lions.
                Therefore, improved management efforts should focus on
                reducing losses through better livestock protection mea-                                Cultural tolerance
                sures. Such engagement could also help allay the underlying
                sense of fear expressed even by the majority of people who                              Religious affiliations, cultural norms, beliefs and reverence
                liked lions. Crop protection measures should be a key issue                             toward certain species can determine the nature of peo-
                to be addressed to secure local support for conservation.                               ple’s interactions with wildlife, interpretation of problems
                Individuals who expressed disinclination to involve them-                               arising from such interactions and their manner of deal-
                selves in the conservation efforts of the Gujarat Forest De-                            ing with human–wildlife conflict (Hazzah et al., ;
                partment had a negative attitude towards lions (Table ,                                Bhatia et al., ; Gebresenbet et al., ). A positive cul-
                Supplementary Fig. g). Whether this is a result of interper-                           tural affinity with animals and their natural environment
                sonal relationships with field staff needs to be examined and,                          works largely in favour of wildlife conservation in India
                if so, rectified.                                                                       (Khoshoo, ; Krishna, ). However, we found no
                    Monetary compensation does not necessarily resolve                                  evidence that religious association with Hindu deities or
                conflict related to attacks on people or livestock but, by al-                          reverence toward lions determined either attitudes towards
                leviating the losses incurred, such a scheme is likely to pro-                          lions or the manner of dealing with conflict issues (Table ).
                mote tolerance amongst people inhabiting human–wildlife                                 Rather, in this landscape there is a history of coexistence of
                interface areas (Madhusudan, ). The efficacy of com-                                people with lions. Almost all (%) respondents’ families
                pensation for depredation losses, property damage and                                   had been resident in the area for several generations and
                human injury in human–wildlife conflict mitigation has                                  for % livestock rearing is a traditional practice. Commu-
                been debated (Mishra et al., ; Bulte & Rondeau, ;                               nities such as the Darbars consider their fearless affinity
                Dickman et al., ; Ravenelle & Nyhus, ). For compen-                             for lions as being related to their own regal heritage.
                sation to be considered as an effective conservation tool, the                          Sentiments of this nature lead to a sense of pride, and

                            Oryx, 2021, 55(4), 589–598 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000760
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 13 Nov 2021 at 18:18:23, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319000760
Promoting human–lion coexistence                     597

              identification with lions. Pastoral communities such as the                             caused by wild animals is a great challenge but something
              Maldharis have been settled in this region for c.  years                             that must be achieved to conserve both the lions and leopards
              and have a history of coexistence with lions. With this                                 coexisting with people in the Greater Gir landscape.
              comes an acceptance of events such as depredation as being
              inevitable. Responses by interviewees such as ‘Lions do not eat                         Acknowledgements We thank the Gujarat Forest Department for
                                                                                                      their support, the people of the study area for their time and participa-
              grass’ or ‘Lions will have to hunt and kill for survival’ reflected                     tion in the survey, P. Noronha and A.B. Naik for their involvement in
              these sentiments (Meena, ). Lions sometimes even enter                              data collection and compilation, and H. Bauer for his comments on the
              people’s houses and kill livestock. The loss notwithstanding,                           text. This project was funded by donations to WildCRU.
              carcasses of killed livestock are moved to the village perimeter
              or an open area, where the lion(s) can feed undisturbed.                                Author contributions Study design: MV, AZ; fieldwork: MV; data
                                                                                                      analysis: MV, PJ; writing: all authors.
              People were also of the opinion that dynamic factors such
              as crop yields and profits from farming tend to be beneficial                           Conflicts of interest None.
              in one year and unfavourable in another. This philosophical
              acceptance of circumstances was reflected in the fact that only                         Ethical standards This research abided by the Oryx guidelines on
               and % of the respondents who were predominantly farm-                               ethical standards and had the necessary approvals and permits from
                                                                                                      the Gujarat Forest Department, India. The study complies with the
              ers rated seasonal monsoon and fluctuating market rates,
                                                                                                      criteria of the British Sociological Association Statement of Ethical
              respectively, as their primary problem (Fig. ).                                        Practice. The research did not involve experimentation with animals
                  Cultural acceptance of predation, and people’s regard for                           or collection of specimens.
              both lions and for their own livestock, are equally important
              drivers of this tolerant coexistence (Kolipaka et al., ).
                                                                                                      References
              For example, only % of people claimed compensation
              for depredation losses to which they were entitled. Others                              A T H R E Y A , V., O D D E N , M., L I N N E L L , J.D. & K A R A N T H , K.U. ()
              claimed to have a sentimental aversion to claiming such                                    Translocation as a tool for mitigating conflict with leopards in
              compensation. In one of the villages, the money obtained                                   human dominated landscapes of India. Conservation Biology,
                                                                                                         , –.
              as compensation for depredation losses is donated to the
                                                                                                      B A N E R J E E , K., J H A L A , Y.V., C H A U H A N , K.S. & D AV E , C.V. ()
              local gaushala (cattle shelter). Setting unproductive live-                                Living with lions: the economics of coexistence in the Gir Forests,
              stock free to graze in the common village grounds instead                                  India. PLOS ONE, , e.
              of selling them off for monetary gains is another culturally                            B A R U A , M., B H A G WA T , S.A. & J A D H AV , S. () The hidden
              grounded practice that is based on compassion for all life                                 dimensions of human–wildlife conflict: health impacts, opportunity
                                                                                                         and transaction costs. Biological Conservation, , –.
              forms. Actions such as these are prevalent in most parts of
                                                                                                      B AT E S , D., M A E C H L E R , M., B O L K E R , B. & W A L K E R , S. () Fitting
              India (Kolipaka et al., ). Therefore, if we consider a com-                            linear mixed-effects models using lme. Journal of Statistical
              munity’s overall cultural ethos towards nature rather than                                 Software, , –.
              focus on people’s attitudes towards a particular species                                B H AT I A , S., R E D P AT H , S.M., S U R YAWA N S H I , K. & M I S H R A , C. ()
              and the species’ positive and negative influence on the indi-                              The relationship between religion and attitudes toward large
              vidual, the persistence of wildlife and their coexistence with                             carnivores in northern India. Human Dimensions of Wildlife,
                                                                                                         , –.
              people in India can be better understood.                                               B R U S KO T T E R , J.T. & F U LT O N , D.C. () Will hunters steward
                  As a result of historical coexistence and absence of delib-                            wolves? A comment on Treves and Martin. Society & Natural
              erate persecution, lions have also developed a tolerant atti-                              Resources, , –.
              tude towards people (Rangarajan, ). Thus, applying a                                B R U S KO T T E R , J.T. & W I L S O N , R.S. () Determining where the wild
              similar reasoning, the survival of lions has been attributed                               things will be: using psychological theory to find tolerance for large
                                                                                                         carnivores. Conservation Letters, , –.
              to their lack of fear and acceptance of people (Rangarajan,                             B R U S KO T T E R , J.T., S I N G H , A., F U LT O N , D.C. & S L A G L E , K. ()
              ). Understanding these nuances in a culture of co-                                     Assessing tolerance for wildlife: clarifying relations between concepts
              existence with wildlife is key for human–wildlife conflict                                 and measures. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, , –.
              management.                                                                             B U LT E , E.H. & R O N D E A U , D. () Why compensating wildlife
                  By identifying the factors contributing to human–lion                                  damages may be bad for conservation. The Journal of Wildlife
                                                                                                         Management, , –.
              coexistence at the interface of the Gir protected areas and
                                                                                                      C A R T E R , N.H., R I L E Y , S.J. & L I U , J. () Utility of a psychological
              human settlements, we emphasize the breadth of factors that                                framework for carnivore conservation. Oryx, , –.
              must be taken into account, and integrated, during con-                                 C H R I S T E N S E N , R.H.B. () ordinal—Regression Models for Ordinal
              servation planning. Upholding factors promoting positive at-                               Data. R package version .–. cran.r-project.org/package=
              titudes is as important as addressing factors creating negative                            ordinal [accessed December ].
                                                                                                      D I C K M A N , A.J., M AC D O N A L D , E.A. & M AC D O N A L D , D.W. () A
              attitudes. Our survey emphasizes the importance of conserva-
                                                                                                         review of financial instruments to pay for predator conservation and
              tion awareness programmes to mobilize the interest of local                                encourage human–carnivore coexistence. Proceedings of the
              youth and uphold people’s high regard for lions. Balancing                                 National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
              cultural tolerance mechanisms and reducing economic losses                                 , –.

              Oryx, 2021, 55(4), 589–598 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000760
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 13 Nov 2021 at 18:18:23, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319000760
598         V. Meena et al.

                D I C K M A N , A.J., M A R C H I N I , S. & M A N F R E D O , M. () The                          Bhadra Tiger Reserve, South India. Environmental Management,
                    importance of the human dimension in addressing conflict with                                     , –.
                    large carnivores. In Key Topics in Conservation Biology (eds D.W.                             M E E N A , V. () Managing Success: Asiatic Lion Conservation,
                    Macdonald & K.J. Willis), pp. –. Oxford University Press,                                   Interface Issues and Attitudes of Local Communities in Greater Gir
                    Oxford, UK.                                                                                       Landscape. Report submitted to the Royal Scottish Geographical
                F A R H A D I N I A , M.S., J O H N S O N , P.J., H U N T E R , L.T. & M A C D O N A L D ,            Society, Perth, UK.
                    D.W. () Wolves can suppress goodwill for leopards: patterns                               M E E N A , V., M AC D O N A L D , D.W., M O N T G O M E R Y , R.A. ()
                    of human–predator coexistence in northeastern Iran. Biological                                    Managing success: Asiatic lion conservation, interface problems
                    Conservation, , –.                                                                       and peoples’ perceptions in the Gir Protected Area. Biological
                F O X , J. & H O N G , J. () Effect displays in R for multinomial and                             Conservation, , –.
                    proportional-odds logit models: extensions to the effects package.                            M I S H R A , C., A L L E N , P., M C C A R T H Y , T.O.M., M A D H U S U D A N , M.D.,
                    Journal of Statistical Software, , –.                                                        B AY A R J A R G A L , A. & P R I N S , H.H. () The role of incentive
                G E B R E S E N B E T , F., B E R A K I , B., Y I R G A , G., S I L L E R O -Z U B I R I , C. &       programs in conserving the snow leopard. Conservation Biology,
                    B A U E R , H. () A culture of tolerance: large carnivore coexistence                         , –.
                    in the Kafa Highlands, Ethiopia. Oryx, , –.                                           R C O R E T E A M () R: a Language and Environment for Statistical
                G O O D A L E , K., P A R S O N S , G. & S H E R R E N , K. () The nature of the                  Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,
                    nuisance—damage or threat—determines how perceived monetary                                       Austria. r-project.org [accessed December ].
                    costs and cultural benefits influence farmer tolerance of wildlife.                           R A N G A R A J A N , M. () Animals with rich histories: the case of the
                    Diversity, , –.                                                                            lions of Gir Forest, Gujarat, India. History and Theory, , –.
                H A Z Z A H , L., M U L D E R , M.B. & F R A N K , L. () Lions and warriors:                  R AV E N E L L E , J. & N Y H U S , P.J. () Global patterns and trends in
                    social factors underlying declining African lion populations and the                              human–wildlife conflict compensation. Conservation Biology,
                    effect of incentive-based management in Kenya. Biological                                         , –.
                    Conservation, , –.                                                                 R E D P AT H , S.M., Y O U N G , J., E V E LY , A., A D A M S , W.M., S U T H E R L A N D ,
                H E R V É , M. () RVAideMemoire: Testing and Plotting Procedures for                              W.J., W H I T E H O U S E , A. et al. () Understanding and managing
                    Biostatistics. R package version .--. CRAN.R-project.org/                                    conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, , –.
                    package=RVAideMemoire [accessed December ].                                               S A R A S WAT , R., S I N H A , A. & R A D H A K R I S H N A , S. () A god becomes
                J O H N S O N , P.E. () Working with Ordinal Predictors. Prepared for                             a pest? Human–rhesus macaque interactions in Himachal Pradesh,
                    the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.                                  northern India. European Journal of Wildlife Research, , –.
                    pj.freefaculty.org/papers/midwest/midwest.pdf [accessed                                   S I N G H , H.S. () Dispersion of the Asiatic lion Panthera leo persica
                     December ].                                                                                 and its survival in human-dominated landscape outside the Gir
                K A LT E N B O R N , B.P., B J E R K E , T., N Y A H O N G O , J.W. & W I L L I A M S , D.R.          forest, Gujarat, India. Current Science, , –.
                    () Animal preferences and acceptability of wildlife                                       S U R Y AWA N S H I , K.R., B H AT I A , S., B H AT N A G A R , Y.V., R E D P A T H , S. &
                    management actions around Serengeti National Park, Tanzania.                                      M I S H R A , C. () Multiscale factors affecting human attitudes
                    Biodiversity and Conservation, , –.                                                     toward snow leopards and wolves. Conservation Biology, , –.
                K E L L E R T , S.R. () Social and perceptual factors in endangered                           T R E V E S , A. () The human dimensions of conflicts with wildlife
                    species management. Journal of Wildlife Management, , –.                                  around protected areas. In Wildlife and Society: the Science of
                K H O S H O O , T.N. () Conservation of India’s endangered mega                                   Human Dimensions, (eds M.J. Manfredo, J.J. Vaske, P.J. Brown,
                    animals: tiger and lion. Current Science, , –.                                            D.J. Decker & E.A. Duke), pp. –. Islands Press, Washington,
                K L E I V E N , J., B J E R K E , T. & K A LT E N B O R N , B.P. () Factors                       DC, USA.
                    influencing the social acceptability of large carnivore behaviours.                           T R E V E S , A. & B R U S KO T T E R , J. () Tolerance for predatory wildlife.
                    Biodiversity & Conservation, , –.                                                       Science, , –.
                K O L I P A K A , S.S., P E R S O O N , G.A., D E I O N G H , H.H. & S R I VA S T AVA , D.P.      VA N E E D E N , L.M., C R O W T H E R , M.S., D I C K M A N , C.R., M A C D O N A L D ,
                    () The influence of people’s practices and beliefs on                                         D.W., R I P P L E , W.J., R I T C H I E , E.G. et al. () Managing conflict
                    conservation: a case study on human–carnivore relationships from                                  between large carnivores and livestock. Conservation Biology,
                    the multiple use buffer zone of the Panna Tiger Reserve, India.                                   , –.
                    Journal of Human Ecology, , –.                                                        V U C E T I C H , J.A. & M AC D O N A L D , D.W. () Some Essentials on
                K R I S H N A , N. () Sacred Animals of India. Penguin Books,                                     Co-existing with Carnivores. Open Access Government,  August
                    New Delhi, India.                                                                                 . openaccessgovernment.org/essentials-coexisting-carnivores/
                M AC D O N A L D , D.W. () Mammal conservation—old problems,                                       [accessed  September ].
                    new perspectives, transdisciplinarity and the coming age of                                   W O O D R O F F E , R. & G I N S B E R G , J.R. () Edge effects and the extinction
                    conservation geopolitics. Annual Review of Environment and                                        of populations inside protected areas. Science, , –.
                    Resources, , .–..                                                                      Z I M M E R M A N N , A., W A L P O L E , M.J. & L E A D E R -W I L L I A M S , N. ()
                M A D H U S U D A N , M.D. () Living amidst large wildlife: livestock and                         Cattle ranchers’ attitudes to conflicts with jaguar Panthera onca in
                    crop depredation by large mammals in the interior villages of                                     the Pantanal of Brazil. Oryx, , –.

                             Oryx, 2021, 55(4), 589–598 © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605319000760
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 13 Nov 2021 at 18:18:23, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319000760
You can also read