Local knowledge and attitude towards the Vulnerable Bhutan takin Budorcas whitei among residents living within its seasonal range TIGER SANGA Y,RAJ A R A TNAM RAJA N A T H A N,KARL VERNE S and MATTHEW TIGHE
Abstract We assessed local knowledge of and attitudes towards a large, endemic bovid, the Bhutan takin Budorcas whitei, within its seasonal range in Jigme Dorji National Park, Bhutan. Using semi-structured questionnaires, data were collected in March 2015 from interviews with 169 park residents. A conditional inference tree analysis was used to explore associations between demography, locality, and secondary response variables through questions relating to respondents’ knowledge of the takin’s status as a pro- tected species, a Vulnerable species, and as the national animal. Most respondents knew the takin was Bhutan’s na- tional animal, and of those, a significantly high proportion also knew of its protected status. Significantly more respon- dents residing in the species’ summer, rather than winter, range were aware of the takin’s Vulnerable status. Most re- spondents expressed positive feelings towards the takin and supported its protection. This strong positive attitude, in conjunction with awareness-raising efforts, could be valu- able for promoting the takin as a montane flagship species.
Keywords Attitude, awareness, Bhutan, Budorcas whitei, conservation, Jigme Dorji National Park, perception, takin
Supplementary material for this article is available at
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605318000418
Introduction
mammal community comprising lowland Indo-Malayan species such as the tiger Panthera tigris and common leop- ard Panthera pardus, and upland Palaearctic fauna such as
B
TIGER SANGAY* (Corresponding author) Ugyen Wangchuk Institute for Conservation and Environmental Research, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Lamai Goempa, Bumthang, Bhutan. E-mail
tagsangay@gmail.com
RAJARATNAM RAJANATHAN Geography and Planning, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia
KARL VERNES Ecosystem Management, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia
MATTHEW TIGHE Agronomy & Soil Science, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia
*Also at: Ecosystem Management, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia
Received 24 October 2017. Revision requested 10 January 2018. Accepted 27 February 2018. First published online 12 February 2019.
hutan lies within the Eastern Himalayan biodiversity hotspot (Myers et al., 2000) and supports a diverse
the snow leopard Panthera uncia, red panda Ailurus fulgens, and blue sheep Pseudois nayaur. The country is also home to several endemic mammals, including Bhutan’snational animal, the Bhutan takin Budorcas whitei (Leslie, 2011; Sangay et al., 2016), categorized (as Budorcas taxicolor)as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List (Song et al., 2008). More than 80%of Bhutan’s land area is naturally vegetated, with .50% secured in a protected area network (Rajaratnam et al., 2016). Constitutionally mandated to maintain at least 60% of the total land area under native vegetation (RGoB, 2008), Bhutan is an integral conservation landscape in the Eastern Himalayan ecoregion (Olson & Dinerstein, 2002). Bhutan is predominantly Buddhist, with religious tenets
focusing strongly on interdependence between life forms (Brooks, 2010) and valuing the sanctity of life (Rajaratnam et al., 2016). Environmental protection is central to Buddhist philosophy (Zurick, 2006), shaping Bhutanese attitudes towards, and perceptions of, nature. Environmental protection underpins many cultural and religious festivals, reinforcing the value of nature to the Bhutanese people (Pommaret, 2006). More recently, local media has pro- moted a positive attitude towards nature, reinforcing tra- ditional Bhutanese attitudes and perceptions (Rapten, 2001; Lhamo & Oyama, 2015). Bhutan’s rural populace are agropastoralists (Katel & Schmidt-Vogt, 2011) dependent on natural systems for fuelwood, fodder, water and other ecosystem services (Defries et al., 2010). Livestock and crop loss to wildlife can significantly affect the economic costs of living in a forested landscape rich in wildlife (Karanth et al., 2006; Sangay&Vernes, 2008, 2014). Such loss can lead to negative perceptions of nature and intolerance of wildlife (Oli et al., 1994;Mishra, 1997; Sangay&Vernes, 2008, 2014) as demon- strated elsewhere, where wildlife consume crops (Gadd, 2005; de Pinho et al., 2014) and damage property (Rao et al., 2003). Although retaliatory killing of livestock preda- tors and crop pests can be mitigated by compensation to affected farmers (Gadd, 2005; Sangay & Vernes, 2008, 2014; Karanth & Defries, 2010), wildlife conservation can succeed when accompanied by tangible benefits to rural communities (Kumssa &Bekele, 2014;Mamo, 2015). For ex- ample, Bhutan is a popular destination for tourists wanting to explore natural landscapes and the rich biodiversity with- in the country’s protected areas, which are also key to con- serving wildlife (TCB, 2016). Bhutanese rural communities benefit directly through porterage services, home stay lodges
Oryx, 2020, 54(3), 359–365 © 2019 Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605318000418
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
