Human Perceptions Mirror Realities of Carnivore Attack Risk for Livestock: Implications for Mitigating Human-Carnivore Conflict

• Published in: PloS one Vol. 11; no. 9; p. e0162685
• Main Authors: Miller, Jennifer R. B., Jhala, Yadvendradev V., Schmitz, Oswald J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Public Library of Science 12.09.2016; Public Library of Science (PLoS)
• Subjects: Alignment; Animals; Biology and Life Sciences; Carnivora; Carnivores; Consent; Conservation; Ecology and Environmental Sciences; Environmental conditions; Environmental policy; Environmental studies; Humans; Hunting; India; Land use; Livestock; Mitigation; Perceptions; Predatory Behavior; Risk; Risk perception; Spatial analysis; Spatial discrimination; Studies; Surveys; Threats; Tigers; Wildlife conservation
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162685

Human-carnivore conflict is challenging to quantify because it is shaped by both the realities and people's perceptions of carnivore threats. Whether perceptions align with realities can have implications for conflict mitigation: misalignments can lead to heightened and indiscriminant persecution of carnivores whereas alignments can offer deeper insights into human-carnivore interactions. We applied a landscape-scale spatial analysis of livestock killed by tigers and leopards in India to model and map observed attack risk, and surveyed owners of livestock killed by tigers and leopards for their rankings of threats across habitats to map perceived attack risk. Observed tiger risk to livestock was greatest near dense forests and at moderate distances from human activity while leopard risk was greatest near open vegetation. People accurately perceived spatial differences between tiger and leopard hunting patterns, expected greater threat in areas with high values of observed risk for both carnivores. Owners' perception of threats largely did not depend on environmental conditions surrounding their village (spatial location, dominant land-use or observed carnivore risk). Surveys revealed that owners who previously lost livestock to carnivores used more livestock protection methods than those who had no prior losses, and that owners who had recently lost livestock for the first time expressed greater interest in changing their protection methods than those who experienced prior losses. Our findings suggest that in systems where realities and perceptions of carnivore risk align, conservation programs and policies can optimize conservation outcomes by (1) improving the effectiveness of livestock protection methods and (2) working with owners who have recently lost livestock and are most willing to invest effort in adapting protection strategies to mitigate human-carnivore conflict.