Attitudes towards the Sri Lankan leopard Panthera pardus kotiya in two rural communities


AIS HA UDUMAN,S H ANNON HAGERMAN,EDWARD KROC,ANJ ALI WAT S O N ANDREW KITTLE and A. COL E B URTO N


Abstract Livestock depredation by wild carnivores threat- ens carnivore populations and livestock-dependent human communities globally. Understanding local attitudes to- wards carnivores can inform strategies to improve coexis- tence. In Sri Lanka, the dairy industry is expanding, creating a need for proactive conflict mitigation. Live- stock depredation by the Endangered Sri Lankan leopard Panthera pardus kotiya occurs, but little is known about these incidents or the attitudes of those whose livelihoods may be threatened by this. We surveyed people in two rural communities, Palatupana and Maskeliya, that differed in the scale of livestock ownership, livestock management practices and socio-ecological factors, to characterize atti- tudes towards leopards and understand their determinants. In Palatupana, an area with extensive cattle rearing, depre- dation incidents were frequent, and attitudes towards leo- pards were positively related to respondents’ age, number of dependants, years spent rearing livestock and a greater overall support for wildlife conservation. Attitudes were negatively related to respondents’ knowledge of leopard ecology and awareness of leopard-related tourism, from which cattle owners do not benefit. In Maskeliya, where cat- tle rearing is secondary to other agricultural work, depre- dation did not occur. Here, attitudes were positively related to a desire for increased government assistance with cattle rearing. The inability to develop land for cattle husbandry was a common barrier experienced in both communities. Considering local attitudes can inform strategies to improve human–carnivore coexistence. Approaches that could im- prove attitudes towards leopards include involvement of cattle owners in tourism programmes, exploring potential alternative land ownership schemes, and improving infra- structure and access to veterinary care.


Keywords Attitudes, conflict, depredation, leopard, live- stock, Panthera pardus, Sri Lanka, survey


AISHA UDUMAN (Corresponding author, SHANNON HAGERMAN ( orcid.org/0000-0002-5199-563X,


aisha.uduman@gmail.com) Department of Forest Resources Management, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6 T 1Z4, Canada


( orcid.org/0000-0001-6576-6144) and A. COLE BURTON (


orcid.org/0000-0002-1830-6126), EDWARD KROC orcid.org/0000-


0002-8799-3847) University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada ANJALI WATSON (


Received 16 July 2020. Revision requested 13 October 2020. Accepted 5 February 2021. First published online 6 December 2021.


orcid.org/0000-0001-5434-7227)and ANDREW KITTLE


( orcid.org/0000-0002-7334-4766) TheWilderness andWildlife Conservation Trust, Colombo, Sri Lanka


Supplementary material for this article is available at doi.org/10.1017/S0030605321000247


Introduction N


egative interactions between carnivores and people, often referred to as human–carnivore conflict, are a


leading cause of carnivore decline globally (Ripple et al., 2014; Fisher, 2016). Such conflict may arise when the activ- ities of carnivores affect the livelihoods or safety of commu- nities, which can result in persecution of carnivores (Inskip & Zimmermann, 2009). It is exacerbated when local people perceive that wildlife protection is prioritized over their own needs, or when authorities lack the ability to manage con- flict appropriately (Madden, 2004). To minimize human–carnivore conflict, the conserva-


tion of large carnivores has in the past primarily depended on the creation of protected areas (Packer et al., 2013). However, large predators range over vast areas and often use adjacent unprotected landscapes, which are typically shared with people (Carter & Linnell, 2016). Such shared landscapes now represent a substantial proportion of the remaining ranges of most large carnivore species (Di Minin et al., 2016), underscoring the need for research on the inter- face between human and wildlife communities. Livestock- rearing communities are affected by depredation, particularly within and around protected areas (Ripple et al., 2014). This can result in financial hardship, reduced emotional well- being, and increased time spent guarding livestock that could have otherwise been spent improving livelihoods (Rostro-García et al., 2016). Previous studies on human–wildlife interactions have recognized the complexity of social-ecological systems and highlighted the need for an interdisciplinary approach inte- grating ecological, economic and social contexts (Dickman, 2010; Redpath et al., 2013). Examining the attitudes of com- munities living near wildlife areas is important for inform- ing effective conflict mitigation. A better understanding of the factors that influence community attitudes towards carnivores, particularly those that negatively affect attitudes towards wildlife, is needed to achieve human–carnivore coexistence and reduce negative outcomes for both people and carnivores. Broad strategies to improve human–wildlife coexistence include community-based natural resource management


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, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Oryx, 2022, 56(4), 528–536 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605321000247


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164