Understanding people’s responses toward predators in the Indian Himalaya

Abstract

Research on human–wildlife interactions has largely focused on the magnitude of wildlife‐caused damage, and the patterns and correlates of human attitudes and behaviors. We assessed the role of five pathways through which various correlates potentially influence human responses toward wild animals, namely, value orientation, social interactions (i.e. social cohesion and support), dependence on resources such as agriculture and livestock, risk perception and nature of interaction with the wild animal. We specifically evaluated their influence on people’s responses toward two large carnivores, the snow leopard Panthera uncia and the wolf Canis lupus in an agropastoral landscape in the Indian Trans‐Himalaya. We found that the nature of the interaction (location, impact and length of time since an encounter or depredation event), and risk perception (cognitive and affective evaluation of the threat posed by the animal) had a significant influence on attitudes and behaviors toward the snow leopard. For wolves, risk perception and social interactions (the relationship of people with local institutions and inter‐community dynamics) were significant. Our findings underscore the importance of interventions that reduce people’s threat perceptions from carnivores, improve their connection with nature and strengthen the conservation capacity of local institutions especially in the context of wolves.

Full text

Understanding people’s responses toward predators in the
Indian Himalaya
S. Bhatia
1,2,3
, K. Suryawanshi
1,2
, S. M. Redpath
4
& C. Mishra
1,2
1 Nature Conservation Foundation, Mysore, India
2 Snow Leopard Trust, Seattle, WA, USA
3 Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India
4 School of Biological Science, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
Keywords
human–wildlife conflict; human attitudes to
wildlife; value orientation; carnivores;
tolerance; human–wildlife relationships; risk
perception; Himalaya.
Correspondence
Saloni Bhatia, Nature Conservation
Foundation, 1311, “Amritha”, 12th Main,
Vijayanagar 1st Stage, Mysore 570017,
Karnataka, India.
Email: saloni86@gmail.com
Editor: Julie Young
Associate Editor: Silvio Marchini
Received 12 June 2019; accepted 03
September 2020
doi:10.1111/acv.12647
Abstract
Research on human–wildlife interactions has largely focused on the magnitude of
wildlife-caused damage, and the patterns and correlates of human attitudes and
behaviors. We assessed the role of five pathways through which various correlates
potentially influence human responses toward wild animals, namely, value orienta-
tion, social interactions (i.e. social cohesion and support), dependence on resources
such as agriculture and livestock, risk perception and nature of interaction with the
wild animal. We specifically evaluated their influence on people’s responses toward
two large carnivores, the snow leopard Panthera uncia and the wolf Canis lupus
in an agropastoral landscape in the Indian Trans-Himalaya. We found that the nat-
ure of the interaction (location, impact and length of time since an encounter or
depredation event), and risk perception (cognitive and affective evaluation of the
threat posed by the animal) had a significant influence on attitudes and behaviors
toward the snow leopard. For wolves, risk perception and social interactions (the
relationship of people with local institutions and inter-community dynamics) were
significant. Our findings underscore the importance of interventions that reduce
people’s threat perceptions from carnivores, improve their connection with nature
and strengthen the conservation capacity of local institutions especially in the con-
text of wolves.
Introduction
People often live alongside wild animals, experiencing the
impacts of wildlife damage as well as the pleasures and util-
ity they provide. A growing body of research has attempted
to better understand the nature of human–wildlife interac-
tions, their origins and the factors that influence them
(Ingold, 2000; Lescureux & Linnell, 2010; Banerjee et al.,
2013; Din et al., 2017). Studies have shown that tolerance
for wild animals or retribution against them is influenced by
several socio-political, psychological, cultural, economic and
ecological factors (Sekar, 2013; Treves & Bruskotter, 2014;
Knopff, Knopff & St Clair, 2016). For example, evidence
suggests that, in general, age, gender, education, the nature
and magnitude of loss, fear of the animal and the presence
of conservation conflicts are some of the factors that impact
human attitudes and behaviors toward wildlife (Kellert,
1985; Marchini & Macdonald., 2012; Zajac et al., 2012;
Dickman, Marchini & Manfredo, 2013).
To assess the drivers of human tolerance of wildlife, Kan-
sky, Kidd & Knight (2016) recommended a model with two
components –an outer model comprising variables that
account for the tangible and intangible costs and benefits of
living with wildlife based on meaningful experiences and
exposure, and an inner model comprising 11 variables that
affect the perceptions of costs and benefits from wildlife.
Their model implies that (1) the inner variables (e.g. wildlife
value orientations, personal norms, empathy, institutions,
etc.) have a causal relationship with perceived cost and bene-
fits, and (2) thus affect tolerance by affecting perceptions of
costs and benefits. Our study complements their attempt to
unearth causal mechanisms by drawing on multiple dimen-
sions of human–wildlife interactions.
A recent review recorded 55 correlates or ‘proximate’fac-
tors influencing human attitudes and behaviors and five
broader pathways or ‘ultimate’factors through which the
various correlates presumably influence human responses:
value orientation, social interactions, resource dependence,
risk perception and the nature of interaction with the animal
(Bhatia et al., 2019). Value orientation comprises moral and
ethical dimensions such as norms and personal and social
preferences which may be shaped by various factors
Animal Conservation  (2020) – ª2020 The Zoological Society of London 1
Animal Conservation. Print ISSN 1367-9430

including religion, social identity or ethnicity (Kellert, 1985;
Zinn & Pierce, 2002; Manfredo, 2008; Hazzah, Borgerhoff
& Frank, 2009; Dickman, 2012; Marchini & Macdonald,
2012). Social interactions refer to the kind of relationships
that people have with each other within the community and
with conservation agencies. Conservation conflicts tend to
result in intolerance toward wildlife and are often believed
to occur due to wildlife damage, societal inequities, power
asymmetry, as well as a lack of participation and benefit-
sharing in conservation (Knight, 2003; Skogen & Krange,
2003; Mishra et al., 2017; Mutanga, Muboko & Gandiwa,
2017; Pooley et al., 2017).
Resource dependence captures the economic dimensions
of living with wildlife, for example, wealth, income sources,
occupation and dependence on resources that may be con-
sumed or damaged by wild animals, such as livestock or
crops (Marshall, 2011; Humle & Hill, 2016). Risk perception
focuses on the perceived threat from wild animals, and is
often a product of emotions such as fear, anger, dread, awe,
etc. The type of animal, knowledge and experience of animal
behavior, the presence of other potentially dangerous ani-
mals, cognitive biases as well as the media play a role in
influencing perceptions of risk (Slovic, 1987; Gore et al.,
2007; Dorresteijn et al., 2014; Koziarski, Kissui & Kiffner,
2016; Nyhus, 2016; Farhadinia et al., 2017; Trajcßeet al.,
2019). Finally, the nature of interaction with the animal
focuses on aspects like frequency and type of interaction
(e.g. encounter vs. depredation), location of the interaction
(e.g. corral vs. pasture) as well as the economic repercus-
sions of wildlife damage (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1977; Nyhus,
2016; Senthilkumar et al., 2016). Tolerance for wildlife can
vary depending on how the five factors interact with each
other and with human attitudes and behaviors.
In this study, we assessed the relative influence of these
five pathways in order to better examine the interconnected-
ness of the multiple factors influencing human-wildlife inter-
actions. Our focal taxa included the snow leopard Panthera
uncia and the wolf Canis lupus, which are the dominant
large carnivores in the high mountains of South and Central
Asia.
Materials and methods
Study area
Ladakh is a high-altitude mountain range situated in the
Indian State of Jammu & Kashmir. It is located along the
borders of China and Pakistan and is split into two districts
–Kargil and Leh. The former is predominantly inhabited by
Muslims belonging to the Twelver Shi’i sect, whereas the
latter is inhabited mostly by Tibetan Buddhists belonging to
the Mahayana school (Gupta, 2014; Bhatia et al., 2017). The
population density of Ladakh is 4 people/km
2
and most
inhabitants are involved in subsistence agriculture and live-
stock rearing, although the presence of the Indian army and
a recent surge in tourism have provided local people with
alternative employment (Dinnerstein, 2013; Bhatia et al.,
2017).
Our study villages were in the Rong valley (33210
–390N,
78030
–200E) in the eastern part of Leh district inhabited pre-
dominantly by agropastoral communities (Fig. 1). In this
region, as in other parts of Ladakh, people and wild animals
share the landscape leading to frequent interactions. Crop
damage by wild ungulates poses a challenge, and widespread
livestock depredation by the snow leopard and the wolf, at
its extreme, results in retribution or preventive killing (Bhat-
nagar, Stakrey & Jackson, 1999; Maheshwari et al., 2012).
A study by Bhatnagar et al. (1999) from Hemis National
Park, Ladakh, found that respondents attributed 55% of the
depredation events to snow leopards as compared to 31% to
the wolf and small-bodied livestock was preyed upon most
frequently. However, there is often a discrepancy between
actual and perceived losses (Suryawanshi et al., 2014) and
in the absence of robust records or observations, it is hard to
pinpoint the precise extent or pattern of loss. On an average,
however, the average loss per household was nearly USD
300 for all predators combined, with snow leopard attacks
taking place more frequently in the corrals than in the pas-
tures (Bhatnagar et al., 1999). Surplus killing by snow leop-
ards also tended to have a deeper psychological impact on
people.
Apart from strengthening wildlife protection and monitor-
ing, the State and regional wildlife departments provide mon-
etary compensation for livestock depredation in some cases.
Parallelly, the Nature Conservation Foundation, an NGO, is
involved in community-based conflict management programs
including collaborative corral improvement, community-run
livestock insurance and livestock-free wildlife reserves in
some villages (Mishra, Redpath & Suryawanshi, 2016; Mis-
hra et al., 2017).
Organizations like the Snow Leopard Conservancy-India,
Ladakh Ecological Development Group, Sher-e-Kashmir
University and governmental agriculture and animal hus-
bandry departments are involved with income-generation and
capacity-building activities. These include enhancing nature-
based tourism, training women to weave and knit, rural
Figure 1 Map of Rong valley, eastern Ladakh, India.
2Animal Conservation  (2020) – ª2020 The Zoological Society of London
Human responses toward wild carnivores S. Bhatia et al.

developmental activities like strengthening their link to the
markets, subsidizing the cost of agricultural equipment and
seeds with better yields, installation of solar-powered units
for electricity, and livestock vaccination programs to main-
tain stock health and minimize mortality. Several youth
groups and women’s associations also engage in environ-
mental issues like village cleanliness, garbage management,
etc.
People in the local communities traditionally resolved
internal disputes by consulting the democratically elected
goba (village head) but after the introduction of the Jammu
and Kashmir Village Panchayat Regulation Act (1989), a
three-tiered structure of self-governance was created –at the
level of the village (Halqa Panchayats), administrative
blocks (Block Development Councils) and districts (District
Planning and Development Boards). Currently, the traditional
and the modern institutions operate parallelly.
Data collection
Free, prior and informed verbal consent was obtained from
all the participants at the start of the interview. We con-
ducted a pilot survey with 18 households in February 2017.
Based on the pilot, the interview questions were modified,
and in October 2017, we interviewed 172 individuals from
15 Buddhist villages in the valley. The largest village had
70 households and the smallest village had nine households.
We randomly sampled 30% or more of the households in
each village (every third household where possible or alter-
nate households in smaller villages) with mean number of
respondents per village being 11.5 (SD =5.01). We com-
menced our survey by explaining the goals of the study and
seeking permission to conduct the interviews from the vil-
lage head as well as the individual. Each question was posed
in Hindi and if the individuals preferred, was translated to
Ladakhi by an interpreter. Each interview lasted between
30 min to an hour.
We combined the questionnaire with semi-structured inter-
views to allow participants the flexibility to elaborate on cer-
tain responses (Suryawanshi et al., 2014). We created an
index for each of the five pathways, based a set of questions
(Appendices S1 and S2). We gathered data on people’s
responses (dependent variable), which was a combination of
self-reported attitudes, past behavior and behavioral intent
(Suryawanshi et al., 2014; Bhatia et al., 2019). Research on
human–wildlife interactions has focused on either human
attitudes or behavior. However, combining the two can lead
to a better assessment of how people arrive at decisions, as
both these dimensions together tend to produce an outcome
toward wild animals (Bhatia et al., 2019).
Data analysis
The answer to each question was scored on a scale of 1to
1 and in some cases, it ranged from 1 to 0 (Appendix S2).
The potential and the actual scores for each of the five (inde-
pendent) variables varied (Table 1). We checked to see if
the dependent variable (i.e. response which was a continuous
variable that combined attitude +past behavior +behavioral
intent scores) was normally distributed and ruled out
collinearity between the independent variables. We examined
collinearity using Pearson’s test with the command cor
which computes correlation between paired samples, which
in our case, were 5 95=25 pairs. The correlation coeffi-
cient was never >0.29. The variables were normalized to the
mean for the purpose of linear modeling (Suryawanshi et al.,
2014).
Because we had sampled in multiple villages, we created
a mixed-effects model with the five pathways as covariates
with fixed effects, and village as a variable with random
effects (Zuur et al., 2009). Research has found overwhelm-
ing evidence for the role of gender in influencing people’s
response (Ogra, 2008; Gore & Kahler, 2012; Hua et al.,
2016; Koziarski et al, 2016; Reid, 2016). In the model, we
thus added interactions between gender and social interac-
tions, gender and risk perception, gender and nature of inter-
action with the predators (Gillingham & Lee, 1999; Ogra,
2008; Prokop & Fan
covi
cov
a, 2010; Bhatia et al., 2017).
We carried out the mixed-effects analysis using the package
‘lme4’in R version 3.5.0 (R Core Team, 2018). We were
interested in the relative influence of each of the five path-
ways on the responses of local people toward the two carni-
vores. Hence, we fit only the global model and interpreted it
based on the value of the coefficient and confidence inter-
vals. We calculated the marginal r
2
values for the global
model using ‘MuMIN’package (R version 3.5.0, R Core
Team, 2018). Additionally, we used Welch two sample t-test
to check for the difference in responses toward the snow
leopard and wolf.
Results
Socio-demographics
Of the 172 participants or interviewees, 62% were females
and 38% were males. The skew in sampling was because, in
every village, a large proportion of men had migrated to
urban centers for work or were enlisted in the army. The
age of the participants ranged from 18 to 85 years. The
levels of education ranged from 0 to 17 years (equivalent of
a Masters’degree), with 57% having no education at all.
Table 1 Actual and theoretical ranges of each factor and responses
toward predators. SL refers to snow leopards and W refers to
wolves
Factor Theoretical range Actual range
Value orientation 6to6 0to6
Social interaction 7to21 2 to 8.75
Resource dependence 0.25 to 8 2.8 to 7.3
Risk perception 10 to 10 4to8
Nature of interaction 5to4 4.5 to 4 (SL)
3.75 to 4 (W)
Response toward predators 12 to 12 8 to 9 (SL)
10 to 8 (W)
Animal Conservation  (2020) – ª2020 The Zoological Society of London 3
S. Bhatia et al. Human responses toward wild carnivores

Among those with no education, women comprised 73% and
men, 27%. The primary occupation of 86% of the partici-
pants was herding and/or farming. The median economic
value of their agricultural produce for the past year was
$349, whereas the median economic value of livestock hold-
ings was $791 (1 USD =67 INR).
Conservation engagement, ownership and
decision-making
The ongoing conservation and livelihood programs listed by
the interviewees (in the order of frequency) were livestock
vaccination (87%), environmental awareness (63%), capacity
enhancement (55%), corral improvement (47%), wildlife
tourism (27%), livestock insurance (20%), wildlife monitor-
ing and protection (15%), monetary compensation for live-
stock losses (12%) and village reserves (7%). The mean
number of conservation and livelihood interventions in a vil-
lage was 3.3.
We asked the respondents to list both benefits and draw-
backs of conservation programs in their village. The reported
benefits provided by conservation and livelihood agencies
included financial compensation, village cleanliness and gar-
bage management, predator proofing of corrals, income
through the sale of handicrafts and wildlife tourism, skill
enhancement, wildlife monitoring and protection, material
benefits to the village in exchange for their cooperation, live-
stock disease awareness and prevention.
While almost everyone listed at least one benefit, 78% of
the respondents believed that these programs did not have
any disadvantages, and 3% had no opinion about it. The
remaining (19%) explained the drawbacks with statements
like ‘People don’t benefit equally’,‘Discussing depredation
incidents relives hurtful experiences’,‘The activities take too
much time’,‘There are too many tourists in the village’,
‘Organizations don’t deliver as promised’.
More than 85% of the respondents said that they looked
up to the Panchayat (local body of governance) for guidance
in decision-making. Upon enquiring who had the strongest
influence on their opinions about wildlife protection, 67%
said that their opinions were not influenced by anyone, 19%
mentioned religious and spiritual leaders and 11% said that
they were a result of interacting with the conservation com-
munity (i.e. wildlife departments and NGOs).
Acceptability of the killing of predators
The average economic loss per household due to snow leop-
ards and wolves was USD 821 and USD 165, respectively.
We asked if the killing of predators was acceptable. 88% of
the respondents said it was unacceptable, whereas 10%
thought it was acceptable and about 2% had no opinion.
When asked to articulate the reasons why it was acceptable
or unacceptable to kill a snow leopard or wolf that attacked
livestock, 56% offered religious or moral arguments against
the killing of carnivores (e.g. ‘It is a sin’;‘They are living
beings’;‘They need to survive, too’). Sixty-one per cent of
those who found killing acceptable offered economic
arguments in support of killing/retaliation (e.g. ‘They cause
losses’;‘Livestock is our source of subsistence’). The differ-
ence in responses toward the snow leopard (mean =1.81,
CI =0.47) and the wolf (mean =1.74, CI =0.49) was not
statistically significant (t=0.20, P-value =0.8).
Role of the five pathways
Our data did not capture the entire theoretical range of each
of the five pathways –the extreme positive and negative val-
ues were absent. (Table 1). Except for value orientation, all
other variables were roughly normally distributed (Support-
ing Information).
For snow leopards, value orientation, social interactions
and resource dependence did not have a significant associa-
tion with human responses. However, risk perception (b
coef =0.32, CI =0.23) and the nature of interaction (b
coef =0.41, CI =0.25) had a significant positive association
with responses (R
2
=0.20; see Table 2). Thus, an individ-
ual’s response toward the snow leopard was positive if they
experienced non-confrontational interactions and perceived
lower risk from the predator. For example, individuals who
were not afraid to chance upon a snow leopard were more
likely to exhibit positive attitudes and behaviors.
For wolves, value orientation, resource dependence and
nature of interaction with the predator did not have a signifi-
cant association with human responses. However, social
interactions (bcoef =0.31, CI =0.27) and risk perception
(bcoef =0.32, CI =0.23) had a significant positive associa-
tion with responses (R
2
=0.15; see Table 2). Thus, an indi-
vidual’s response toward the predator was positive with
positive social interactions and lower risk perception. For
example, individuals who were less afraid of the wolf and
those that had a greater engagement with conservation
Table 2 Mixed-effect model output. The parameters highlighted
with an asterisk were statistically significant. For snow leopards,
risk perception and the nature of interaction with the predator had
a positive relationship with human response. For wolves, social
interaction and risk perception had a positive relationship with
human response
Factor
Response
toward snow
leopard
Response
toward wolf
Estimate CI Estimate CI
Value orientation 0.18 0.32 0.18 0.34
Social interaction 0.23 0.25 0.31*0.27*
Resource dependence 0.21 0.63 0.23 0.67
Risk perception 0.32*0.24*0.32*0.23*
Nature of interaction with
predator
0.41*0.26*0.13 0.31
Sex(M) 1.13 1.78 0.62 1.80
Sex (M):Social interaction 0.07 0.42 0.01 0.47
Sex (M):Risk perception 0.11 0.40 0.06 0.36
Sex (M):Nature of interaction
with predator
0.24 0.44 0.03 0.48
4Animal Conservation  (2020) – ª2020 The Zoological Society of London
Human responses toward wild carnivores S. Bhatia et al.

tended to have more positive attitudes and behaviors toward
the animal. Our data revealed no evidence of the association
between gender and responses.
Discussion
This study was carried out in agropastoral Buddhist villages
with similar economic and cultural contexts. We set out to
understand the role of the five pathways in influencing peo-
ple’s relationships with two wild carnivores –the snow leop-
ard and the wolf –in Ladakh. Our findings suggest that in
our sampled population, risk perception had a significant
influence on attitudes and behaviors toward the two preda-
tors. People who perceived greater benefits from the preda-
tors; experienced lower fear; had a knowledge about animal
behavior or thought they exercised some control over depre-
dation, tended to have more positive responses. Positive
responses implied that they derived aesthetic pleasure from
watching wildlife (including the two predators), preferred
greater predator numbers, found retaliatory killing unaccept-
able, and were willing to or had engaged with conservation
irrespective of the negative impacts.
Previous studies have suggested that perceptions of risk
may exceed the actual risk posed by an animal (Riley &
Decker, 2000; Dickman, 2010). Perceptions could be influ-
enced by animal behavior, emotions and local beliefs, for
example, the snow leopard is feared because it can cause
surplus killing of livestock in corrals (Namgail, Fox & Bhat-
nagar, 2007; Jackson et al., 2010). During our informal
interactions, many individuals also told us about the wide-
spread belief locally that the snow leopard is addicted to the
blood of sheep and goats. According to them, the animal
enters the corral, attacks the livestock, and sucks on their
blood by puncturing the neck. They believed that after the
killing, the snow leopard moves unsteadily as the animal is
intoxicated by all the blood it consumes. The wolf, on the
other hand, maybe perceived to be dangerous because of its
greater visibility, tendency to howl and roam in packs, thus
triggering fear (Kellert et al., 1996).
Beyond risk perception, there was a key difference in the
pathways that influenced responses toward the two preda-
tors. For the snow leopard, the nature of interaction with
the predator was significant and for wolves, social interac-
tions were significant. Individuals who experienced less
damage and non-confrontational encounters away from the
villages tended to have positive responses toward the snow
leopard. On the other hand, individuals with an awareness
of wildlife laws and the presence of institutions to help buf-
fer negative wildlife impacts, and those with a strong social
network, tended to have positive responses toward the wolf
(Bitanyi et al., 2012; Mutanga et al., 2017; Pooley et al.,
2017).
Perhaps, the reason why the nature of interaction was sig-
nificant for snow leopards and not for wolves could be
because the snow leopard is elusive by nature, and people
encounter wolves more frequently than they do snow leop-
ards. The snow leopard is responsible for livestock depreda-
tion and can often be viewed as a pest or an irritant
(Bhatnagar et al., 1999). However, its possible resemblance
to a local protective deity could serve as an inspiration to
the community (Bhatia, 2019), which might temper attitudes
and behaviors toward the animal.
The social context seemed to matter for wolves but not
for snow leopards. Dickman (2010) similarly noted that per-
ceptions of risk as well as human–human conflicts were
important factors affecting tolerance for wild animals, includ-
ing the wolf. The wolf is a persecuted animal across its dis-
tribution throughout Asia, Europe and North America and is
traditionally associated with negative symbolism, fear and
hatred (Knight, 2003; Hunt, 2008; LeGrys, 2009). State-
sponsored bounties to exterminate them are common across
it range (Kaczensky et al., 2008). In comparison to the snow
leopard, which is a flagship species for the high-altitude
regions, the wolf receives much less conservation attention.
Given that risk perception and the nature of interaction
had a significant influence on human responses toward snow
leopards, interventions that alter the context of interaction
with the carnivore (e.g. predator proofing of corrals, better
herding practices, livestock insurance and responsible wild-
life tourism) would be essential (Mishra & Suryawanshi,
2014; Jamwal, Takpa & Parsons, 2019). Preventive measures
(e.g. improved corral and herding) can help people feel in
control of the situation and avoid livestock depredation,
thereby alleviating perceptions of risk. Remedial measures
(e.g. community-run compensation, supplementary sources of
income through tourism), on the other hand, can help absorb
at least some of the financial costs of living with wildlife in
these landscapes (Mishra et al., 2003).
Similarly, to enhance the acceptability of wolves, practi-
tioners could focus on addressing the psychological impacts
of human–wolf interactions with the help of technical inter-
ventions whilst working to improve the social support sys-
tems within the community, and between communities and
local conservation agencies. Practitioners could also focus on
being empathetic and responsive to the needs of local com-
munities, for example with the help of nature appreciation
workshops, public engagement and information dissemination
(Mishra et al., 2017).
Suryawanshi et al (2014) highlighted the scale-dependence
of various factors that affect attitudes toward predators. In
their study, factors that were significant at the individual
level included gender, education and age of the respondent
(for wolves and snow leopards), number of income sources
in the family (wolves), agricultural production and large-bod-
ied livestock holdings (snow leopards). However, at the vil-
lage-level, the significant factors were the number of
smaller-bodied herded livestock killed by wolves and mean
agricultural production (wolves) and village size and large
livestock holdings (snow leopards). While the economics of
loss had a significant influence, their study laid emphasis on
the role of using multipronged and multidimensional
approaches that are sensitive to social as well as ecological
dimensions (Suryawanshi et al., 2014; Robinson et al.,
2019). In our study, resource dependence did not have a sta-
tistically significant influence on people’s attitudes and
behaviors. This implies that human responses toward
Animal Conservation  (2020) – ª2020 The Zoological Society of London 5
S. Bhatia et al. Human responses toward wild carnivores

carnivores were determined not just by whether one owns
livestock and loses them to predators but also by the socio-
cultural context, the type of experience and its psychological
impact. Our study, therefore, reiterates the importance of
acknowledging the many facets of human–wildlife interac-
tions that transcend pure economics and delve into the lesser
known pathways of tolerance that remain inadequately
explored in human dimensions literature.
References
Banerjee, K., Jhala, Y.V., Chauhan, K.S. & Dave, C.V.
(2013). Living with lions: the economics of coexistence in
the Gir forests, India. PLoS One 8, e49457.
Bhatia, S. (2019). Understanding people-wildlife relationships
in the high Himalaya. PhD dissertation, Manipal University.
Bhatia, S., Redpath, S.M., Suryawanshi, K. & Mishra, C.
(2017). The relationship between religion and attitudes
toward large carnivores in northern India? Hum. Dimens.
Wildl. 22,30–42.
Bhatia, S., Redpath, S.M., Suryawanshi, K., & Mishra, C.
(2019). Beyond conflict: exploring the spectrum of human-
wildlife interactions and their underlying pathways. Oryx.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060531800159X.
Bhatnagar, Y.V., Stakrey, R.W. & Jackson, R. (1999). A
survey of depredation and related wildlife-human conflicts
in the Hemis National Park, Ladakh (India). Washington:
International Snow Leopard Trust.
Bitanyi, S., Nesje, M., Kusiluka, L.J., Chenyambuga, S.W. &
Kaltenborn, B.P. (2012). Awareness and perceptions of local
people about wildlife hunting in western Serengeti
communities. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 5, 208–224.
Dickman, A.J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: the importance
of considering social factors for effectively resolving
human–wildlife conflict. Anim. Conserv. 13, 458–466.
Dickman, A.J. (2012). From cheetahs to chimpanzees: a
comparative review of the drivers of human-carnivore
conflict and human-primate conflict. Folia Primatol. 83,
377–387.
Dickman, A., Marchini, S. & Manfredo, M. (2013). The
human dimension in addressing conflict with large
carnivores. In Key topics in conservation biology 2, 110–
126. Macdonald, D.W. & Willis, K. (Eds). Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
Din, J., Ali, H., Ali, A., Younus, M., Mehmood, T., Norma-
Rashid, Y. & Nawaz, M.A. (2017). Pastoralist-predator
interaction at the roof of the world: conflict dynamics and
implications for conservation. Ecol. Soc. 22, 32.
Dinnerstein, N. (2013). Songs, cultural representation and
hybridity in Ladakh. Himalaya 32,73–84.
Dorresteijn, I., Hanspach, J., Kecsk
es, A., Latkov
a, H., Mezey,
Z., Sug
ar, S., von Wehrden, H. & Fischer, J. (2014).
Human-carnivore coexistence in a traditional rural
landscape. Lands. Ecol. 29, 1145–1155.
Farhadinia, M.S., Johnson, P.J., Hunter, L.T. & Macdonald,
D.W. (2017). Wolves can suppress goodwill for leopards:
patterns of human-predator coexistence in northeastern Iran.
Biol. Cons. 213, 210–217.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention,
and behavior: an introduction to theory and research.
Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Gillingham, S. & Lee, P.C. (1999). The impact of wildlife-
related benefits on the conservation attitudes of local people
around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environ.
Conserv. 26, 218–228.
Gore, M.L. & Kahler, J.S. (2012). Gendered risk perceptions
associated with human-wildlife conflict: implications for
participatory conservation. PLoS One 7, e32901.
Gore, M.L., Knuth, B.A., Curtis, P.D. & Shanahan, J.E.
(2007). Factors influencing risk perception associated with
human–black bear conflict. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 122,
133–136.
Gupta, R. (2014). Experiments with Khomeini’s Revolution in
Kargil: contemporary Shi ‘a networks between India and
West Asia. Mod. Asian Stud. 48, 370–398.
Hazzah, L., Borgerhoff, M.M. & Frank, L. (2009). Lions and
warriors: social factors underlying declining African lion
populations and the effect of incentive-based management in
Kenya. Biol. Conserv. 142, 2428–2437.
Hua, X., Yan, J., Li, H., He, W. & Li, X. (2016). Wildlife
damage and cultivated land abandonment: findings from the
mountainous areas of Chongqing, China. Crop Prot. 84,
141–149.
Humle, T. & Hill, C. (2016). People–primate interactions:
implications for primate conservation. In Introduction to
primate conservation: 219–240. Wich, S.A. & Marshall,
A.J. (Eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hunt, D. (2008). The face of the wolf is blessed, or is it?
Diverging perceptions of the wolf. Folklore 119, 319–334.
Ingold, T. (Ed.). (2000). From trust to domination: an
alternative history of human-animal relations. In The
perception of the environment: essays on livelihood,
dwelling and skill,61–76. London: Routledge.
Jackson, R.M., Mishra, C., McCarthy, T.M. & Ale, S.B.
(2010). Snow leopards: conflict and conservation. In The
biology and conservation of wild felids: 417–430.
Macdonald, D.W. & Loveridge, A.J. (Eds). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Jamwal, P.S., Takpa, J. & Parsons, M.H. (2019). Factors
contributing to a striking shift in human–wildlife dynamics
in Hemis National Park, India: 22 years of reported snow
leopard depredation. Oryx 53,58–62.
Kaczensky, P., Enkhsaikhan, N., Ganbaatar, O. & Walzer, C.
(2008). The Great Gobi B Strictly Protected Area in
Mongolia-refuge or sink for wolves Canis lupus in the
Gobi. Wildlife Biol. 14, 444–457.
Kansky, R., Kidd, M. & Knight, A.T. (2016). A wildlife
tolerance model and case study for understanding human
wildlife conflicts. Biol. Conserv. 201, 137–145.
Kellert, S.R. (1985). Public perceptions of predators, particularly
the wolf and coyote. Biol. Conserv. 31, 167–189.
6Animal Conservation  (2020) – ª2020 The Zoological Society of London
Human responses toward wild carnivores S. Bhatia et al.

Kellert, S.R., Black, M., Rush, C.R. & Bath, A.J. (1996).
Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North
America. Conserv. Biol. 10, 977–990.
Knight, J. (2003). Waiting for wolves in Japan: an
anthropological study of people-wildlife relations. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Knopff, A., Knopff, K. & St Clair, C.C. (2016). Tolerance for
cougars diminished by high perception of risk. Ecol. Soc.
21, 33.
Koziarski, A., Kissui, B. & Kiffner, C. (2016). Patterns and
correlates of perceived conflict between humans and
large carnivores in Northern Tanzania. Biol. Conserv. 199,
41–50.
LeGrys, S. (2009). Grey to green: the wolf as culture and
profit in Mongolia and the importance of its survival.
Independent Report. Available at https://digitalcollections.
sit.edu/isp_collection/800
Lescureux, N. & Linnell, J.D. (2010). Knowledge and
perceptions of Macedonian hunters and herders: the
influence of species specific ecology of bears, wolves, and
lynx. Hum. Ecol. 38, 389–399.
Maheshwari, A., Takpa, J., Angchok, T., Rauf, A. & Ali, M.
(2012). Living with large carnivores: mitigating large
carnivore-human conflicts in Kargil, Ladakh, India. Final
report, Rufford Small Grants.
Manfredo, M.J. (2008). Who cares about wildlife? Social
Science concepts for exploring human-wildlife relationships
and conservation issues. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Marchini, S. & Macdonald, D.W. (2012). Predicting ranchers’
intention to kill jaguars: case studies in Amazonia and
Pantanal. Biol. Conserv. 147, 213–221.
Marshall, N.A. (2011). Assessing resource dependency on the
rangelands as a measure of climate sensitivity. Soc. Nat.
Resour. 24, 105–1115.
Mishra, C., Allen, P., McCarthy, T.O.M., Madhusudan, M.D.,
Bayarjargal, A. & Prins, H.H. (2003). The role of incentive
programs in conserving the snow leopard. Conserv. Biol.
17, 1512–1520.
Mishra, C., Redpath, S.R. & Suryawanshi, K.S. (2016).
Livestock predation by snow leopards: conflicts and the
search for solutions. In Snow leopards: biodiversity of the
world: conservation from genes to landscapes:59–67.
McCarthy, T. & Mallon, D. (Eds). Amsterdam: Elsevier
Academic Press.
Mishra, C.M. & Suryawanshi, K.S. (2014). Managing conflicts
over livestock depredation by large carnivores. In Human-
wildlife conflict in the mountains of SAARC region –
compilation of successful management strategies and
practices:27–47. Thimphu: SAARC Forestry Centre Office.
Mishra, C., Young, J.C., Fiechter, M., Rutherford, B. &
Redpath, S.M. (2017). Building partnerships with
communities for biodiversity conservation: lessons from
Asian mountains. J. App. Ecol. 54, 1583–1591.
Mutanga, C.N., Muboko, N. & Gandiwa, E. (2017). Protected
area staff and local community viewpoints: a qualitative
assessment of conservation relationships in Zimbabwe. PLoS
One 12, e0184779.
Namgail, T., Fox, J.L. & Bhatnagar, Y.V. (2007). Carnivore-
caused livestock mortality in Trans-Himalaya. Environ.
Manage. 39, 490–496.
Nyhus, P.J. (2016). Human–wildlife conflict and coexistence.
Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 143–171.
Ogra, M.V. (2008). Human–wildlife conflict and gender in
protected area borderlands: a case study of costs,
perceptions, and vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand
(Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum 39, 1408–1422.
Pooley, S., Barua, M., Beinart, W., Dickman, A., Holmes, G.,
Lorimer, J., Loveridge, A.J., Macdonald, D.W., Marvin, G.,
Redpath, S., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Zimmermann, A. &
Milner-Gulland, E.J. (2017). An interdisciplinary review of
current and future approaches to improving human–predator
relations. Conserv. Biol. 313, 513–523.
Prokop, P. & Fan
covi
cov
a, J. (2010). Perceived body
condition is associated with fear of a large carnivore
predator in humans. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 47, 417–425.
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for
statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for
Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
Reid, J.L. (2016). Knowledge and experience predict
indiscriminate bat-killing intentions among Costa Rican
men. Biotropica 48, 394–404.
Riley, S.J. & Decker, D.J. (2000). Risk perception as a factor
in wildlife stakeholder acceptance capacity for cougars in
Montana. Hum. Dimens. Wildl. 5,50–62.
Robinson, K.F., Fuller, A.K., Stedman, R.C., Siemer, W.F. &
Decker, D.J. (2019). Integration of social and ecological
sciences for natural resource decision making: challenges
and opportunities. Environ. Manage. 63, 565–573.
Sekar, N. (2013). Tolerance for the charismatic marauders:
culture in wildlife conservation. Econ. Pol. Weekly 48,10–13.
Senthilkumar, K., Mathialagan, P., Manivannan, C.,
Jayathangaraj, M.G. & Gomathinayagam, S. (2016). A
study on the tolerance level of farmers toward human-
wildlife conflict in the forest buffer zones of Tamil Nadu.
Vet. World 97, 747–752.
Skogen, K. & Krange, O. (2003). A wolf at the gate: the anti-
carnivore alliance and the symbolic construction of
community. Sociol. Rural. 43, 309–325.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science 236, 280–285.
Suryawanshi, K.R., Bhatia, S., Bhatnagar, Y.V., Redpath, S.
& Mishra, C. (2014). Multiscale factors affecting human
attitudes toward snow leopards and wolves. Conserv. Biol.
28, 1657–1666.
Trajcße, A., Ivanov, G., Kecßi, E., Maji
c, A., Melovski, D.,
Mersini, K., Mustafa, S., Skrbin
sek, T., Stojanov, A.,
Todorovska, A. & von Arx, M. (2019). All carnivores are
not equal in the rural people’s view. Should we develop
conservation plans for functional guilds or individual
species in the face of conflicts? Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 19,
e00677.
Animal Conservation  (2020) – ª2020 The Zoological Society of London 7
S. Bhatia et al. Human responses toward wild carnivores

Treves, A. & Bruskotter, J. (2014). Tolerance for predatory
wildlife. Science 344, 476–477.
Zajac, R.M., Bruskotter, J.T., Wilson, R.S. & Prange, S.
(2012). Learning to live with black bears: a psychological
model of acceptance. J. Wildl. Mgmt. 76, 1331–1340.
Zinn, H.C. & Pierce, C.L. (2002). Values, gender, and
concern about potentially dangerous wildlife. Environ.
Behav. 34, 239–256.
Zuur, A., Leno, E.N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A.A. & Smith,
G.M. (Eds). (2009). Mixed effect models and extensions in
ecology in R: statistics for biology and health. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Supporting information
Additional supporting information may be found online in
the Supporting Information section at the end of the article.
Appendix S1. A description of the five pathways influenc-
ing human attitudes and behaviors.
Appendix S2. Statements to assess the five pathways and
responses as well as corresponding scores for each answer.
Appendix S3. Distribution of the five ultimate factors and
the response scores.
8Animal Conservation  (2020) – ª2020 The Zoological Society of London
Human responses toward wild carnivores S. Bhatia et al.