Evaluation of human attitudes and factors conducive to promoting human-lion coexistence in the Greater Gir landscape, India
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
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/S0030605319000760590 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/S0030605319000760Promoting 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/S0030605319000760592 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/S0030605319000760Promoting 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/S0030605319000760594 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/S0030605319000760Promoting 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/S0030605319000760596 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/S0030605319000760Promoting 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/S0030605319000760598 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/S0030605319000760You can also read
