352 F. Zorondo-Rodríguez et al.


carnivores in these landscapes depends on people’sawareness of the main threats to carnivores described by the scientific community, and their willingness to adopt management prac- tices to reduce carnivore predation of livestock, both of which are fundamental underlying factors for carnivore–human coexistence (e.g. Inskip & Zimmermann, 2009; Campbell & Alvarado, 2011; Amador-Alcala et al., 2013; Soto-Shoender & Main, 2013; Zorondo-Rodríguez et al., 2014; Dorresteijn et al., 2016; Fernández-Gil et al., 2016; Amit & Jacobson, 2017b). We addressed these challenges by assessing (1) peo- ple’s perception of the frequency of occurrence of threats to carnivores, and (2) people’s willingness to conserve native carnivores and to adopt a set of management practices to reduce losses of domestic animals. We used data collected among rural communities of the Nahuelbuta Range, a human-dominated landscape in the coastal region of central-southern Chile.


Study area


The Nahuelbuta Range is one of the most modified ecosys- tems in Chile. Historically this region was covered by con- tinuous forest comprising evergreen trees and Nothofagus species (Echeverria et al., 2006), but now the landscape is amosaic of human-dominated lands comprising a combin- ation of exotic tree plantations of Monterey pine Pinus ra- diata and Eucalyptus spp., agricultural lands, and remnants of native forest at various successional stages (Echeverria et al., 2006). Several factors, including land-use changes in the 19th century, displaced indigenous Mapuche communi- ties towards the highlands, and new settlements comprising mainly creoles (multiracial Latin Americans) and European colonists, were established (Wolodarsky-Franke & Díaz, 2011). Today, rural communities are characterized by scat- tered homes within an agricultural and forestry landscape, and include both Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. Road connectivity is poor, health services and secondary schools are scarce, and most income is derived from wood extraction and the collection of non-timber forest products (Wolodarsky-Franke & Díaz, 2011), a common economic activity in most rural landscapes of southern Chile (Smith-Ramírez et al., 2005). Access to primary schools, electricity and drinking water is limited. These localities are recognized by the Chilean Government as territories of extreme poverty (SUBDERE, 2017). Some rural settle- ments in the region belong to the Indigenous Development Area Puel Nahuelbuta, which was established by the Chilean government in 2004 in recognition of ancestral uses of the territory and the close relationship between Mapuches and local biodiversity (MDS, 2004). Despite its altered condition the Nahuelbuta Range still


hosts a diverse carnivore community comprising species that are commonly perceived as predators of domestic ani- mals in similar landscapes in southern Chile (Silva-


Rodríguez et al., 2009; Zorondo-Rodríguez et al., 2014), in- cluding the chilla Lycalopex griseus and culpeo Lycalopex culpaeus foxes, guiña Leopardus guigna and puma Puma concolor, all of which are categorized as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List, except the guiña, which is categorized as Vulnerable (IUCN, 2018). The region is also home to a small population of the Endangered Darwin’s fox Lycalo- pex fulvipes (Moreira-Arce et al., 2015). The protected areas in theNahuelbuta Range (e.g. Nahuelbuta National Park, 62 km2) do not meet the ecological requirements for maintain- ing viable populations of some of these species (Simonetti & Mella, 1997; Acosta-Jamett et al., 2003), and therefore their survival depends on being able to exist in lands with numer- ous small villages surrounding protected areas.


Methods


During December 2013–January 2014 we conducted a semi- structured questionnaire survey in three localities around Nahuelbuta National Park: Alto los Ríos, Vegas Blancas and Elicura (Fig. 1). Questionnaires were administered dur- ing local neighbourhood council meetings, which included a total of 57 residents from all localities, in 10 five-person groups and one seven-person group. In contrast with indi- vidual interviews, grouping promotes discussion, eliciting contrasting views, encouraging reflection and producing in- depth explanations of the reasoning behind the responses given (Newing et al., 2011). Each group was mediated by a researcher to control for, among other issues, (1)misun- derstanding of the questions, (2) any need for clarifica- tion, (3) recognition of the carnivores being considered, (4) loss of focus, (5) complacency, and (5) individual per- sonalities.We are aware that one of the limitations of this study relates to unmeasured variables that could have in- fluenced our findings. For example, because we captured data by group we were unable to test if attitudes differed among Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals. Prior to the survey the questionnaire was tested on a subsample of 15 individuals to assess whether the questions were understandable. All individuals consented to participate in the survey. We focused on the chilla, culpeo, guiña, puma and


Darwin’s fox, investigating four matters: (1)self-reported threats to carnivores, (2) self-reported predation on domestic animals, (3) willingness to conserve carnivores, and (4)will- ingness to adopt management practices for domestic an- imals. The questions posed were open, to elicit explanations and understanding of people’sreports. The questions used to assess people’s attitudes followed similarly structured questions suggested by Evans & Lepore (1997).


Self-reported threats towards carnivores We asked ‘How often do the following activities occur around the Nahuel-


Oryx, 2020, 54(3), 351–358 © 2019 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605318000832


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