362 T. Sangay et al.


FIG. 2 Conditional inference tree displaying significant explanatory variables for the question ‘What determines knowledge that the takin is the national animal?’ 164 of 169 possible respondents answered. Respondent’sknowledge of takin being a protected species was the only significant predictor.


FIG. 4 Conditional inference tree displaying significant explanatory variables for the question ‘What determines knowledge that the takin is protected?’ 164 of 169 possible respondents answered. Two explanatory variables were significant (respondent’s knowledge of the Forest and Nature Conservation Act, FNCA, and respondent’s fondness for takin).


FIG. 3 Conditional inference tree displaying significant explanatory variables for the question ‘What determines knowledge that the takin is Vulnerable?’ 164 of 169 possible respondents answered. One significant explanatory variable (respondent’s locality or ‘Geog’) and the grouping of responses are displayed.


who did not support takin protection still liked the takin ‘a lot’. Of respondents who believed the takin should be protected most knew that it is the national animal and also liked the takin ‘a lot’.


Protection for the takin Demography and locality did not have any significant association with whether respondents


FIG. 5 Conditional inference tree displaying significant explanatory variables for the question ‘Do you like the takin?’ 161 of 169 possible respondents answered. Two explanatory variables were significant (respondent’s attitude towards takin protection, and knowledge of takin as Bhutan’s national animal).


thought the takin should be protected. Following inclusion of secondary explanatory variables, support for takin protection was significantly associated with fondness for the species; 91% of respondents liked the takin ‘a lot’, of which most supported takin conservation (Fig. 6). However, of the few respondents who liked the takin ‘a little’,only 73% supported its protection. Ninety-six percent


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