360 T. Sangay et al.


and sale of handicrafts. Understanding and shifting people’s attitudes towards wildlife by advocating their positive contribution to livelihoods can enhance regional wildlife conservation (Mir et al., 2015). The Bhutan takin is the national animal of Bhutan, yet is


poorly studied. It migrates seasonally between high altitude alpine meadows in summer and lower subtropical broadleaf forests during winter, coming into contact with agropastor- alists engaged in activities such as collecting fuelwood and other forest products. There are, however, no reports of crop losses to takin throughout its range or any other negative interactions with people. Our study investigates knowledge, perception, and attitudes towards the Bhutan takin among the residents of Jigme Dorji National Park, a stronghold for the species. By addressing the human dimen- sion of wildlife conservation, our study contributes towards a comprehensive conservation plan for the takin’s long-term survival.


Study area


Our study was conducted in the 4,316 km2 Jigme Dorji National Park in north-west Bhutan (Fig. 1). Habitat types and elevations range from subtropicalwarm broadleaf forest (1,000–2,300 m), evergreen oak forest (1,800–2,600 m), cool broadleaf forest (2,000–2,900 m), mixed conifer forest (2,700–3,200 m), fir forest (3,300–3,800 m), juniper/rhodo- dendron forest (3,700–4,200 m) and alpine scrub (4,000– 4,600 m) to snow covered rocky peaks up to 7,300min the north (FRMD, 2016). In addition to its rich biodiversity (Thinley & Tharchen, 2015), the Park protects the catch- ments of four major rivers: Pa Chu, Wang Chu, Mo Chu and Pho Chu.


Methods


Interviews There is a resident population of c. 5,200 people in Jigme Dorji National Park, distributed across in 13 Geogs (sub- districts) within the five Dzongkhags (districts) of Gasa, Punakha, Wangdiphodrang, Thimphu and Paro (Thinley & Tharchen, 2015; Fig. 1). Our study focused on three Geogs (Laya, Khatey and Khamey) in the Gasa Dzongkhag that overlap with the distribution of the Bhutan takin. Laya’s residents are nomadic yak herders in the high alpine meadows encompassing the takin’s summer habitat. Khatey and Khamey encompass the takin’s winter habitat, where residents are primarily agropastoralists. During our study the population of the three Geogs was 2,505 people in 428 households (Thinley & Tharchen, 2015). Semi- structured face-to-face interviews with 169 respondents (Supplementary Material 1) were conducted in March


2015. In addition to obtaining demographic information, interviews also investigated knowledge and perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the takin.


Data analysis


We analysed response data using R 3.4.0 (R Development Core Team, 2017) focusing on conditional inference tree analysis using the cTREE function in package party (Hothorn et al., 2006). We analysed the responses to five questions: (1) Do you know that the takin is Bhutan’s national animal? (2) Do you know that the takin is a Vulnerable species? (3) Are you aware that the takin is a pro- tected species? (4) Do you like the takin (a lot, a little, don’t care, not at all)? (5) Do you think the takin should be protected? Responses (dependent variables) to each of the five ques-


tionswere assessed for association with primary explanatory variables of locality (village and Geog) and demography (gender and age). With the exception of question 3, neither locality nor demography were identified as significant pre- dictors. In these instances, the analyses were re-run using the respondent answers to the other four questions as poten- tial predictor variables (e.g. was respondent’s knowledge of takin as a Vulnerable species associated with knowledge of takin as Bhutan’s national animal?). This was done to deter- mine significant associations between respondent’s knowl- edge and attitude towards the takin. We used the adjusted Bonferroni test (Hothorn et al.,


2006) as the primary indicator of association strength, with P,0.05 indicating significance. A conditional infer- ence tree analysis compares an assigned dependent variable with explanatory variables in an iterative fashion to identify the explanatory variable with the most power (at P,0.05), and a binary split of the data occurs within that variable to maximize explained variation. The process is then repeated for all subgroups by iterating across all potential explanatory variables. The end result is a hierarchical explanatory tree of pattern explained by variables and subgroups of variables (Hothorn et al., 2006). Results are represented graphically to show the hierarchical significance of variables and the final groups of response values following binary splits.


Results


Respondents comprised farmers, yak herders and school children, of which 91 (54%) were Laya residents and 78 (46%) were Khatey and Khamey residents. Most re- spondents were 25–50 years of age (69%, n = 117). Youths (,25 years of age) comprised 17%(n = 28)ofre- spondents, and older adults (.50 years of age) comprised 14%(n = 24). Most respondents were subsistence farmers (83%, n = 130).


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