532 A. Uduman et al.
TABLE 2 Predictor variables included in regression models with their explanations and examples of survey questions used to infer variable data. The range of response values are given across both study sites. Survey section refers to the complete survey (SupplementaryMaterial 1).
Variable name
Reported depredation Socio-demographics
Cost
Knowledge of leopard ecology
General awareness of leopard tourism
Explanation & survey questions used to infer variable data1
EFA variable comprised of respondent age, number of dependants & time spent rearing cattle Monthly expenditure (LKR) on cattle
EFA variable comprised of respondents’ awareness of leopard-related tourism in Yala National Park & its economic value
Importance of conservation EFA variable comprised of respondents’ views on the conser- vation of Sri Lanka’s mammals, birds, reptiles & amphibians
Leopard sightings &/or signs Change in leopard sightings or signs over the last 3 years Worry
Government involvement 1EFA, exploratory factor analysis.
compared to the top-ranked model (the one with the lowest AICc) as plausible (Burnham & Anderson, 2002).
Results
Attitudes towards leopards Respondents in Palatupana had more negative attitudes to- wards leopards compared to those in Maskeliya (Table 1), most clearly evident by their level of agreement to attitude statements that pertained to cattle depredation and leopard populations. For example, 66%(40 of 61) of respondents in Palatupana indicated they would be happier if there were fewer leopards in the areas where they raised their cattle, compared to 12%(6 of 52) in Maskeliya (χ2 = 13.95, P,0.001). Similarly, 72%(44/61) of respondents in Palatupana strongly agreed they may have to kill leopards if these depredate their cattle, compared to 15%(8/52)in Maskeliya (χ2 = 13.15,P,0.001). Respondents in Palatupana strongly agreed that the na-
ture and wildlife of Sri Lanka are a national treasure and should be conserved (69%, 42 of 61), and that leopards should be respected for the economic value they bring to the country through wildlife tourism (51%, 31 of 61). This contrasted significantly with attitudes in Maskeliya (χ2 = 33.05,P,0.001 and χ2 = 27.78,P,0.001, respectively), where most respondents (c. 80%) gave neutral responses to these statements. The statement suggesting that respondents could tolerate the killing of a few of their cattle by leopards because the felids are wild animals trying to survive received a broad range of responses (indistinguishable from a
uniform distribution across the five categories: χ2 = 5.91, P= 0.206) from respondents in Palatupana, whereas the majority (77%, 40 of 52) of those in Maskeliya strongly disagreed. These differences in response distributions were highly significant (Fisher’sexact test:P,0.001). Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 provide full details of re- sponses to attitude statements in both communities.
Determinants of attitudes towards leopards
We found that determinants of attitudes towards leopards differed between the two study sites. There was no reported livestock depredation in Maskeliya, whereas 93% of respon- dents in Palatupana reported depredation. Variables includ- ed in the top model for Palatupana included respondents’ knowledge of leopard ecology, awareness of leopard tourism, opinions on the importance of conservation, and socio- demographics (Table 3). Parameter estimates were similar across models close to the top model (ΔAICc#2). Re- spondents who thought that the presence of leopards in the buffer zones of protected areas would increase encounters between leopards and cattle had more negative attitudes
(−3.41; 95%CI −5.77, −0.95;P = 0.008). Similarly, respon- dents who were more aware of leopard tourism had more
negative attitudes (−0.38; 95%CI −0.65, −0.11;P = 0.009). Respondents who thought that wildlife conservation in gen- eral was important had more positive attitudes (0.15; 95%CI 0.10, 0.21;P,0.001), as did those with high scores in the
socio-demographics metric (0.04; 95%CI −0.01, 0.10; P=0.09). The adjusted proportion of deviance accounted for by the top model was 46%. Models with ΔAICc#2 (compared to the top model) are presented in Table 3.
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
Concerns of respondents about their own safety or that of their cattle after seeing a leopard
Desire for increased government involvement to facilitate an improvement in cattle rearing (e.g. vaccines or land leases)
Range
Variable type
Survey section
Proportion of cattle reported to have been killed by leopards 0.0–0.5 Continuous 4 1.1–10.0 Continuous 1
10,000– 100,000
EFA variable comprised of respondents’ knowledge of leopard endangerment, general movement & prey species
Continuous 3
1.5–10.0 Continuous 6 1.0–10.0 Continuous 6
1.0–10.0 Continuous 5 1–7
0–1 0–1
Continuous 4 Categorical 4
Categorical 4
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
