Living with leopards 205


TABLE 1 Socio-demographic profile of respondents (n = 102) in- volved in the survey in Kishtwar National Park, Jammu and Kashmir, India (Fig. 1), including their principal occupation and activity period (i.e. the number of years during which respondents regularly accessed the National Park).


Variable


Gender Male


Female


Age ,18 years 18–25 years 26–45 years 46–65 years .65 years


n %


98 96 4 4


0 0 1 1 39 38 53 52 9 9


Principal occupation Forest/wildlife protection/other government service 10 10 Farmer/smallholder Shepherd Other


33 32 53 52 6 6


Activity period ,10 years 10–20 years 21–30 years .30 years


Religious affiliation Hindu


Muslim


2 2 32 31 25 25 43 42


21 21 81 79


Nanth (4) valleys (Fig. 2). The majority of these incidents occurred during the day, in forests and pastures far from settlements. Livestock holdings comprised a mean of 273 ± SD 200 animals, and this figure was higher amongst the respondents who reported predation (mean 307 ± SD 33) than those who reported no predation (mean 96 ± SD 17). This difference was statistically significant (rank biserial


coefficient =−0.65; Table 2). Respondents in the surveyed area incurred a total financial loss of USD 5,693 because of


TABLE 2 Statistical significance of the relationship between the size of respondents’ livestock holdings and whether or not they had ex- perienced livestock depredation during 2017–2019. Statistical sig- nificance was tested using a Mann–Whitney U test after the samples had been checked for normality using a Shapiro–Wilk test.


Shapiro–Wilk test for normality Predation


No predation


Mann–Whitney U test Predation – no predation


0.91 0.64


450


Statistic (W) P-value ,0.001


,0.001 ,0.001


livestock depredation by leopards during 2017–2019. Mean loss per household was USD 132 over this period. In general, the respondents had a negative attitude


towards leopards. Only 13 people had a favourable opinion of leopards, and they weremostly forest and wildlife officials or affiliated with the government. Most of the respondents expressed a negative attitude (slight dislike = 34, strong dislike = 31); people in this group had a mean livestock holding of 217 ± SD 209 animals and had experienced at least one instance of livestock depredation by leopards (Fig. 3). The 24 respondents who showed a neutral (in- different) attitude towards leopards had a mean livestock holding of 161 ± SD 165 animals and mostly had experi- enced minimal or no livestock predation by leopards. Age, activity period and livestock holdings significantly


influenced respondent attitudes (P,0.001) towards com- mon leopards (Table 3). Age increased the likelihood of a positive response by 0.18 ± SD 0.04; however, a longer ac- tivity period decreased the likelihood of having a positive re-


sponse by −0.21 ± SD 0.04. The goodness of fit (McFadden R2)for the model was 10%. All 68 respondents who owned livestock believed that


livestock depredation by common leopards could be reduced or compensated in some way. The majority of the respondents (58%) thought that financial compensation


FIG. 2 Number of livestock depredation incidents by common leopards Panthera pardus that were reported during 2017–2019 by survey respondents in the various valleys in Kishtwar National Park, Jammu and Kashmir, India.


FIG. 3 Per cent of respondents involved in the survey in Kishtwar National Park, Jammu and Kashmir, India, showing different attitudes towards the common leopard on a five-point Likert scale. The error bars represent the standard errors.


Oryx, 2024, 58(2), 202–209 © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605323001278


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