Attitudes towards the Sri Lankan leopard 533
TABLE 3 Predictor variables included in generalized linear models to identify determinants of cattle owner attitudes (n = 61) towards leopards in Palatupana and Maskeliya, with associated degrees of freedom, Akaike information criterion corrected for small sample size (AICc), and difference in AICc from the best-performing model (ΔAICc). Models included are those with ΔAICc#2.
Model
Palatupana Importance of conservation + knowledge of leopard ecology + awareness of leopard-related tourism + socio-demographics
Importance of conservation + monthly expenditure + knowledge of leopard ecology + awareness of leopard-related tourism + socio-demographics
Importance of conservation + knowledge of leopard ecology + awareness of leopard-related tourism Importance of conservation + monthly expenditure + socio-demographics
Importance of conservation + monthly expenditure + knowledge of leopard ecology + awareness of leopard-related tourism
Maskeliya Government involvement
Government involvement + knowledge of leopard ecology Government involvement + knowledge of leopard ecology + worry Government involvement + sightings
Government involvement + importance of conservation + knowledge of leopard ecology In Maskeliya, the top-ranked model (Table 3) suggested
that a desire for increased government involvement in im- proving cattle rearing was associated with more positive at- titudes towards leopards (0.31; 95%CI 0.16, 0.46;P,0.001). The adjusted proportion of deviance accounted for by the top model was 21%.
Discussion
Determinants of attitudes towards leopards Palatupana and Maskeliya differ in terms of histories, socio- demographics, depredation experienced, and cattle hus- bandry and characteristics. Concomitantly, our findings in- dicate that determinants of attitudes towards leopards also differed between the two communities. Attitudes towards leopards in Palatupana weremore negative amongst respon- dents who thought that leopard presence in protected area buffer zones would increase encounters between leopards and cattle. Many respondents claimed that leopards prefer dairy calves over wild prey, stating that domesticated cattle do not react to leopards with the same anti-predator re- sponse that deer, boar and langurs exhibit (Geffroy et al., 2020). This awareness of reduced anti-predator responses in cattle may have made those respondents feel more anx- ious about their calves and the security of their livelihoods, even with abundant wild prey in the area. Similarly, cattle owners with greater awareness of the
economic value of leopards held less favourable attitudes to- wards them. In Palatupana, leopard sightings within Yala National Park are a main tourist attraction, and those who are affected by negative interactions with leopards expressed frustration that they received no compensation and few
df
6 7 5
5 6
3 4 5 4 5
AICc
236.6 236.7 237.0
237.8 238.0
214.7 215.1 216.4 216.5 216.6
ΔAICc
0.00 0.14 0.39
1.26 1.43
0.00 0.39 1.76 1.85 1.90
benefits from the tourism industry. The income from tour- ism benefits primarily the local hotels and the government, and an increased awareness of these benefits combined with a lack of involvement in the tourism industry may cause resentment amongst cattle owners and lead to hostilities. Therefore, developing tourism programmes that include cattle owners (e.g. ecotourism, safari camps, hotels sourcing milk from local producers) could be an important step to- wards improving their attitudes towards leopards (Lindsey et al., 2005; Hemson et al., 2009). Respondents who supported wildlife conservation in
general also had more favourable attitudes towards leopards. Similarly, as socio-demographic metrics increased (age, number of dependants and number of years spent rearing cattle), attitudes towards leopards were more favourable. Increased age, and thus a longer presence in the local land- scape, may result in respondents being more tolerant of depredation incidents, a pattern that has been suggested previously (Mkonyi et al., 2017). In contrast to the distrust felt towards the government
in Palatupana, respondents in Maskeliya expressed greater hope that the government would lend assistance in resolving potential conflict concerning leopards. This difference is probably because Palatupana cattle owners have experi- enced poorer government relations over longer periods than those in Maskeliya, who are entirely dependent on tea plantation companies for their livelihoods. This depen- dence may be the reason for the cattle owners’ desire for greater assistance from the government. As cattle in Maskeliya are raised on lands owned by plantation compa- nies, any government programme to assist cattle owners (e.g. by providing secure enclosures for cattle) would require permission from the respective plantation company be- fore being implemented.
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
