Attitudes towards the Sri Lankan leopard 529


FIG. 1 Sri Lanka (a), with study sites in Maskeliya (b) and Palatupana (c), where we conducted surveys and interviews with cattle owners.


(Fabricius, 2004) and integrated conservation and develop- ment projects (Alpert, 1996), both of which aim to provide tangible benefits of conservation to local communities. Other human–carnivore coexistence strategies include com- pensation schemes (Dickman et al., 2011) and community- based livestock insurance programmes (Mishra et al., 2003). The effectiveness of these strategies depends on local con- texts, attitudes and institutional capacities. Key determinants of attitudes vary depending on polit-


ical, social, economic, cultural and geographical factors (Madden, 2004). However, previous studies point to com- mon variables underlying conflict, such as previous live- stock losses, livestock demographics, husbandry methods, socio-demographic and socio-economic factors, knowledge of wildlife behaviour, and prior experience with raising live- stock and encountering carnivores (Zimmermann et al., 2005; Kansky & Knight, 2014; Thorn et al., 2015; Störmer et al., 2019). Consideration of these variables is essential to ensure carnivoremanagement policies are locally appropriate andminimizenegative social impacts.Ultimately, approaches intended to facilitate coexistence need to consider social as well as ecological aspects, especially in tropical contexts, where trade-offs often occur between economic development and biodiversity conservation (Laurance et al., 2012). Sri Lanka is a global biodiversity hotspot with high rates


of endemism. The country relies economically on its bio- diversity for tourism, but this diversity is threatened by a high human population density, with themajority of people living in rural areas (Bawa et al., 2007). The Sri Lankan leo- pard Panthera pardus kotiya is an endemic subspecies of leopard that is increasingly threatened by habitat loss result- ing from the expansion of cattle (dairy) farming (Vernooij


et al., 2015). This leopard subspecies is currently categorized as Vulnerable (Kittle & Watson, 2020) on the IUCN Red List; at the time of our study it was categorized as Endangered (Stein et al., 2020) and was presented as such. The Sri Lankan leopard is the island’s apex predator and


a potential keystone species (Kittle et al., 2018). It holds high economic value, given that wildlife park visits are the third highest source of public sector tourism revenue (SLTDA, 2017). Maintaining viable leopard populations is thus im- portant because of the species’ ecological and economic role, as well as its intrinsic value. When leopards prey on livestock, even if losses are few in absolute numbers, they can represent a significant challenge for economically vul- nerable rural communities whose livelihoods depend on livestock farming (Dickman, 2010). Sustained economic hardship may lead to the retaliatory killing of leopards, which does occur in Sri Lanka, usually by poisoning depre- dated livestock carcasses (Fernando, 2016; Uduman, 2020). However, quantitative data on livestock depredation and its impact on people and leopard populations are lacking. Using quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews,


we examine attitudes towards leopards, and identify their determinants, in two rural communities with different approaches to cattle rearing. Based on these insights, we identify potential strategies, grounded in the local context, that could address factors underlying negative attitudes to- wards leopards, to improve human–leopard coexistence.


Study area


We selected two study sites where cattle are reared in land- scapes inhabited by leopards (Fig. 1), but that differ in socio-


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