530 A. Uduman et al.


demographics and cattle farming history. The first site, Palatupana, is in the south-eastern coastal region of Hambantota District, near Yala National Park, with one of the highest leopard densities globally (Kittle et al., 2017). Palatupana is adjacent to the south-western boundary of the Park and is characterized by thorny scrub forest. Yala National Park is the most visited national park in Sri Lanka, generating c. LKR 670 million (c. USD 3.68 million) in annual revenue (SLTDA, 2017). An electric fence sepa- rates the Park from the surrounding area, but wildlife in- cluding elephants Elephas maximus, Sri Lankan axis deer Axis axis ceylonensis, wild boar Sus scrofa and primates such as the tufted grey langur Semnopithecus priam move between the Park and adjacent areas despite this fence. Luxury hotels in the area advertise the frequent wildlife presence around their properties to attract tourists. The pri- mary occupation of the local community is cattle rearing, with cattle grazing in areas inhabited by wildlife, including leopards, some of which may be transient and dispersing individuals. Incidents of cattle depredation by leopards are occasionally reported by cattle owners and recorded by the Sri Lankan Department of Wildlife Conservation. The second site, Maskeliya, is within the Central Highlands of Sri Lanka, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in the island’s central wet zone. This region is dominated by large-scale tea plantations whose owners are increasingly permitting estate workers to rear cattle. It has a high hu- man population density and is characterized by a landscape mosaic of tea cultivation, degraded secondary forest, less- disturbed forest patches and human settlements. Leopards inhabit forest patches at higher altitudes and use tea estates as movement corridors (Kittle et al., 2012). This study site included eight tea estates located immediately north of Peak Wilderness Sanctuary (Fig. 1), the region’s largest pro- tected area. Most cattle owners are workers on the tea estates and rear cattle for secondary income. Cattle in this area are of a more productive breed and are not grazed in wildlife areas, but kept in enclosures. The Wilderness and Wildlife Conservation Trust has worked in the landscape for .4 years and confirmed that at the time of the study, no depre- dation incidents had been reported in Maskeliya.


Methods


Data collection During May–August 2018, we (AU and research assistants) conducted 113 surveys (61 in Palatupana and 52 in Maskeliya; Supplementary Material 1) that included closed-ended, including Likert scale type (Likert, 1932), and open-ended questions. We endeavoured to survey at least 50 cattle owners at each site. The survey covered themes related to human–leopard interactions, including socio-demographic


parameters, cattle demographics, husbandry and mitigation techniques, livestock depredation, importance of conserva- tion, awareness of leopard ecology and economic benefits, and attitudes towards leopards. Surveys were conducted without leading or directional questions about conflicts involving leopards, to avoid bias (Treves et al., 2006). We define an attitude as a tendency to respond more or less fa- vourably to a psychological object that represents an aspect of an individual’s world (e.g. an issue, behaviour or action; Fishbein&Ajzen, 2010).Wecharacterized attitudes towards leopards using a composite score based on eight attitude statements. Statements were ranked on a 5-point Likert scale, with a balanced number of positive and negative state- ments (Dunlap et al., 2000). Our target population for the surveys were cattle owners


who penned and/or grazed their cattle in areas where leo- pards were present. In Palatupana, we conducted purposeful sampling (Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2011) to ensure we cap- tured a broad range of husbandry practices and cattle rear- ing experiences. Some respondents had participated in a corporate social responsibility programme operated by a nearby hotel, which provided steel enclosures to protect cat- tle. In Maskeliya, we contacted eight tea estates located near Peak Wilderness Sanctuary that were part of a more ex- tensive study conducted by the Wilderness and Wildlife Conservation Trust, and gained permission from each estate superintendent to survey cattle owners. We obtained in- formed consent orally from all respondents before conduct- ing surveys and interviews. We pre-tested 8–10 surveys at each study site to ensure respondents had a clear understanding of the questions, and modified questions as needed. Pre-test surveys were ex- cluded from subsequent analysis. We administered surveys in Sinhala in Palatupana and Tamil in Maskeliya. During the survey,we used photographs of wildlife species to ensure they were not misidentified by respondents.Wereceived as- sistance from communitymembers familiar with the cattle- rearing community. In Palatupana, this was a safari guide who had lived and worked in the surveyed landscape for several decades and was knowledgeable about cattle rear- ing practices and the wider physical environment. In Maskeliya, each estate had a dedicated worker to assist us in recruiting respondents. To provide additional context and nuance to the surveys,


we conducted semi-structured interviews with a subset of 51 (32 in Palatupana and 19 in Maskeliya) of the initial 113 re- spondents, each lasting c. 15–20 minutes. Based on a litera- ture review of human–wildlife conflict and communities, and existing knowledge of the region, we developed an inter- view protocol designed to explore themes of conflict mitiga- tion, husbandry techniques, and barriers to cattle rearing in these landscapes. Following an iterative approach character- istic of qualitative analysis and inquiry (Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2011), we chose interview questions to help identify


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