206 M. A. Kichloo et al.


TABLE 3 Key variables influencing the attitudes of people towards the common leopard in Kishtwar National Park, Jammu and Kashmir, India, using logistic regression. We used P-values to determine significance, with highly significant values marked with an asterisk (*).


Variable Age


Gender


Activity duration Livestock holdings Region


Estimate ± SE 0.18 ± 0.04


0.82 ± 0.77


−0.21 ± 0.04 0.003 ± 0.00


−0.62 ± 0.40


z-value 4.55


1.06


−5.05 2.73


−1.52


P-value 0.000*


0.288


0.000* 0.006* 0.127


would be themost effective strategy for dealing with wildlife depredation, followed by avoidance of high-risk areas (31%; high-risk areas were based on respondents’ perceptions of where leopard attacks on livestock may occur) and improving animal husbandry practices (29%). The selective removal of problematic leopard individuals and eradication of all leopards were the least favoured approaches to predation control. The rating of improved husbandry practices and financial compensation for live- stock losses showed weak but significant positive correla- tions with the size of livestock holdings, implying that larger livestock holdings increased demand for both com- pensation and improved husbandry practices. Eradication of wild animals showed a significant inverse correlation with the size of livestock holdings (i.e. as livestock holdings increased, the ranking of eradication decreased; Table 4).


Discussion


People’s perception of conflict with predators is likely to be influenced by the physical and behavioural characteris- tics of the carnivore, by cultural and historical associations (Kellert et al., 1996; Kleiven et al., 2004; Suryawanshi et al., 2013; Pahuja&Sharma, 2021) and people’s attitudes towards the species in question (Suryawanshi et al., 2014). The


TABLE 4 Spearman correlation between predation control practices and total livestock holdings of respondents involved in the survey in Kishtwar National Park, Jammu and Kashmir, India. For each predation control practice, we provide the correlation coefficient and corresponding P-value.


Predation control practice


Animal husbandry improvements


Avoidance of high-risk areas


Compensation for damages caused


Selective removal of problem animals


Correlation coefficient


0.34 0.14


0.35 −0.09 Eradication of predator species −0.34


P-value 0.01


0.25 0.00


0.45 0.01


existence of leopards near human settlements has frequently resulted in negative human–leopard interactions (Karanth et al., 2018), leading to the creation of a negative narrative about these interactions (Ankit et al., 2021). Livestock depredation is one of the leading causes of economic losses in the affected communities, resulting in negative per- ceptions of predators (Bagchi & Mishra, 2006; Chen et al., 2016; Farrington & Tsering, 2019). We aimed to un- derstand the persistence of this human–carnivore conflict and the attitudes of people towards common leopards in Kishtwar National Park in India. Although no human deaths have been reported in the Park, the leopard is perceived as the most infamous predator in the Kashmir region (Bombieri et al., 2023). In Kishtwar National Park, leopards dominate the low-lying, broad-leaved forests, treelines and sub-alpine pastures that are used by livestock during different seasons (Ahmed, 2021). Livestock be- longing to local people and nomadic communities are mostly left unattended in the upper reaches of the National Park, serving as easy prey for wild predators. Our findings indicate that leopards caused damage to these communities through livestock depredation, with households that reported predation having larger livestock holdings (mean: 307 ± SD 33) than those reporting no predation (mean: 96 ± SD 17). The high economic losses suffered by low-income households result in more negative attitudes towards the predator (Bagchi & Mishra, 2006; Suryawanshi et al., 2014; Bhatia et al., 2017). However, age seemed to improve the attitudes of people towards the common leopard, indicating that older people were more tolerant of this predator. The long-term success of a protected area depends upon


the support of local communities, whose contribution to wildlife conservation is driven by their attitudes towards wildlife (Gusset et al., 2009; Krishnakumar et al., 2020). Our study indicates that financial compensation for livestock losses is a fundamental component in improving human– wildlife coexistence, as was reported by 58% of the respon- dents, followed by avoidance of high-risk areas (31%) and improving animal husbandry practices (29%). This is in contrast to previous findings (Oli et al., 1994)showing that the majority of respondents (60%) thought that total erad- ication of problematic animals was the only solution worth considering. Of the many recommendations that have been proposed


previously (Pettigrew et al., 2012; Clark & Rutherford, 2014; Jackson, 2015; Karanth et al., 2018), financial compensation has been identified as one of the most effective approaches to address human–carnivore conflict (Jackson et al., 2010; Dickman et al., 2011;Suryawanshi et al., 2013;Chen et al., 2016). Proponents of compensation contend that it in- creases tolerance for wildlife, decreases retaliatory killings and strengthens community support for conservation (Agarwala et al., 2010; Pettigrew et al., 2012; Rosen et al.,


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