Biological Conservation 174 (2014) 120–126
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Biological Conservation
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon
Managing success: Asiatic lion conservation, interface problems
and peoples’ perceptions in the Gir Protected Area
Venkataraman Meena a,⇑, David W. Macdonald b, Robert A. Montgomery b,c
a
701, Lodha Complex, Thane, Maharashtra, India
Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU), Zoology, University of Oxford, The Recanati-Kaplan Centre, Tubney House, Abingdon Road, Tubney, Abingdon OX13 5QL, UK
c
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 480 Wilson Road, 13 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824, United States
b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 21 February 2014
Received in revised form 26 March 2014
Accepted 31 March 2014
Keywords:
Asiatic lion
Conflict mitigation
Human dimensions
Human–lion conflict
Greater Gir Landscape
Livestock depredation
a b s t r a c t
The last population of free-ranging Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica) has been steadily increasing in
response to successful conservation initiatives spanning five decades. With the increasing population
size, lions have expanded their range and move throughout the Greater Gir Landscape in Western India.
Of concern to conservation and management is human-lion interaction outside the Gir Protected Area
(GPA). The landscape surrounding the GPA includes agro-pastoral villages with large human communities and vast numbers of livestock. We assessed spatiotemporal patterns of lion depredation of livestock,
via analysis of the Gujarat State Forest Department monetary compensation records, and human perceptions of forested habitat, lion conservation and wildlife damage mitigation, via interview surveys. We
discovered that the number and severity of livestock depredations has increased over time despite a
stable lion population in the GPA. Our spatial regression model identified that over a 10-year period, lion
depredation tended to increase (b = 0.10, P < .0001) in villages near GPA, though the spatial configuration of depredations was patchy. We discuss that these hot spots of depredation are associated with
movement paths of dispersing lions out of GPA. From the interview surveys we found that human
livelihood dependency on forest was minimal, while economic losses associated with crop-raiding wild
herbivores and livestock-depredation by lions were higher. Currently, the agro-pastoral economy,
land-use and cultural tolerance appear conducive to lion survival in the GPA region. However, for lion
conservation to continue to succeed in the Greater Gir Landscape, conflict mitigation and the continued
promotion of positive public perceptions of lion is imperative.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Large carnivores typically have extensive ranges, live at low
densities often in isolated or fragmented populations and are sensitive to stochastic changes causing perturbation in demography
and genetics (Macdonald and Sillero-Zubiri, 2002). Carnivore population viability is further threatened by agonistic interaction with
humans in the borderlands surrounding protected areas (Loveridge
et al., 2010; Woodroffe and Ginsberg, 1998). Concerns for human
safety and livestock depredations render large carnivores vulnerable to retaliatory killing (Ogada et al., 2003; Sillero-Zubiri and
Laurenson, 2001; Woodroffe and Frank, 2005). Thus, human-carnivore conflict along the borders of protected areas is a serious problem for both wildlife conservation and human livelihood
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9638259475.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V. Meena), david.macdonald
@zoo.ox.ac.uk (D.W. Macdonald), [email protected] (R.A. Montgomery).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.03.025
0006-3207/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
(Woodroffe and Ginsberg, 1998; Macdonald et al., 2010). The magnitude of this threat depends on the availability of wild prey for
carnivores, the land-use practices outside protected areas, human
perception of carnivores and the extent of damage to human
resource and safety (Chardonnet et al., 2010; Macdonald and
Sillero-Zubiri, 2002). Resolving human-carnivore conflict is a
global concern and is particularly relevant for endangered and isolated carnivore species (Shivik, 2006; Treves et al., 2006, 2009;
Macdonald et al., 2013).
These problems afflict the only remaining population of freeranging Asiatic lion (Panthera leo persica) inhabiting the Greater
Gir Landscape (GGL) in the Gujarat State, India (Fig. 1). Conservation efforts spanning nearly five decades have resulted in a revival
of this population (Meena, 2010; Singh, 1997) shifting the Asiatic
lion’s conservation status from Critically Endangered to Endangered (Breitenmoser et al., 2008). With this expanding lion population, there is an increased potential for human–lion interaction as
lions disperse and use habitat in an agro-pastoral landscape matrix
V. Meena et al. / Biological Conservation 174 (2014) 120–126
121
Fig. 1. Location of the Greater Gir Landscape in the Saurashtra peninsula, Gujarat, India. Panel (a) depicts the Gir Protected Area extending across Amreli and Junagadh
districts, Panel (b) shows the Coastal Forests, and Panel (c) displays the eastern habitat in the Bhavanagar district.
(Meena, 2010; Singh, 1997). Habitats in which lions have recently
expanded their range are interspersed amongst densely populated
human villages (Meena, 2010). People living in these villages regularly encounter lions, magnifying concerns about human safety and
economic loss via livestock depredations, both of which have grave
implications for the survival of lions in this ecosystem (Meena,
2012).
Here we examine the spatial distribution of lion depredations of
livestock in the region surrounding the Gir Protected Area (GPA)
which has a high density of agro-pastoral villages. We used spatial
pattern analysis to assess whether lion depredation of livestock
was significantly clustered in environmental space. Further, we
conducted interviews to evaluate local attitudes towards wildlife
habitat, lion conservation, wildlife damage assessment and mitigation measures. This analysis is designed to depict the problems
faced by people living alongside Asiatic lions, and their attitudes
towards them so as to offer insights for mitigation and further conservation measures.
2. Methods
2.1. Study area
We conducted this study in 5 talukas (sub-districts) bordering
the Gir Wildlife Sanctuary and National Park (referred to as the
GPA hereafter). This system is characterized by semi-arid climate
and tropical dry deciduous forests and is situated in the southern
part of the Kathiawar or Saurashtra peninsula, in the state of
Gujarat in western India (20° 570 and 21° 200 N latitude and 70°
270 to 71° 130 E longitude; Fig. 1a). The present range of the Asiatic
lion includes 4 distinct lion sub-populations in GGL in vastly varying habitats: (i) the source lion population in GPA (Fig. 1a), (ii) the
northern population in Girnar Wildlife Sanctuary (Fig. 1a) (iii) the
coastal population occurring as disjunct populations along the Arabian Sea. The two discontinuous and distinct sub-populations in
Kodinar and Rajula-Jafrabad taluka respectively were linked
through different dispersal corridors with the source population
(Fig. 1b) and iv) the eastern population extending into the Bhavanagar district (Fig. 1c). There is a total of 410 lions in the GGL with 71%
(n = 290) inhabiting the GPA and 29% (n = 120) beyond (Fig. 1;
Kumar and Meena, 2011). The management of these lions falls
under the jurisdiction of five administrative units within the Gujarat Forest Department and the population dynamics of these lions
are assessed at 5-year intervals. As part of preemptive human–lion
conflict mitigation outside the boundary of the Gir Wildlife Sanctuary and National Park, lions that are injured or are a threat to
human safety are trapped and either relocated to the closest natural
habitat or retained in captivity. Approximately 60 lions are captured and relocated in this manner each year in the GGL (Kumar
and Meena, 2011; Meena, 2008; Pathak et al., 2002).
The GPA extends across three highly populated districts (Amreli, Junagadh and Gir-Somnath) where farm-based agriculture and
animal husbandry are mainstays of the economy. Additional economic activities include mineral-based cement industry, fish processing, agriculture-based industries such as sugar and edible oils.
Other large carnivores in the GPA are leopard (Panthera pardus)
and striped hyaena (Hyaena hyaena). Wild prey of the lions in this
122
V. Meena et al. / Biological Conservation 174 (2014) 120–126
region includes chital (Axis axis), sambar (Rusa unicolor), nilgai
(Boselaphus tragocamelus), chousingha (Tetracerus quadricornis),
chinkara (Gazella bennetti), wild pig (Sus scrofa), porcupine (Hystrix
indica), common langur (Semnopithecus entellus), rufous tailed hare
(Lepus nigricollis ruficaudata) and peafowl (Pavo cristatus). Nilgai
and wild pig are commonly found outside the GPA.
The perceptions of humans regarding the risks associated with
lion presence in the GPA have not been broadly assessed. However,
we do not expect these perceptions to be uniformly negative. We
anticipate variation because humans are subject to economic loss
not only from carnivores (via depredation and attack), but also
from crop-raiding wild herbivores that are preyed by lions. Cropraiding wild herbivores cause an average of 34% crop loss in the
GPA region annually (Meena, 2012). Thus, we expect that human
perceptions of lion in the GPA region will be variable as carnivore
presence should be expected to at least modulate crop-raiding via
direct and indirect predation effects (Schmitz et al., 2000; Sih et al.,
1985). The presence of lions is known to affect the behavior of their
wild prey elsewhere (Valeix et al., 2009).
2.2. Spatial patterns of livestock depredation
Livestock owners in villages suffering losses due to lion depredation are entitled to claim compensation from the Gujarat State
Forest Department. Compensation for livestock loss due to predation is based on the type, age and productivity of livestock, and
generally amounts to about 15% of value of the animal lost. Monetary values vary between Rs. 1100–8000 (20–145 USD) for buffalo,
1100–6000 (20–109 USD) for cows and between 425 and 7500 (8–
137 USD) for camels, goats, sheep and horses (Kumar and Meena,
2011).
We obtained records, at the village level, of such claims from
2001 to 2010. To determine if spatial patterns in lion depredations
were related to the proximity to the Gir Wildlife Sanctuary and
National Park we modeled the effect of this distance (in km) on
the sum of lion depredations recorded between 2001 and 2010
at the village extent. We fit this model as a spatial regression
(e.g., Ver Hoef et al., 2001; Montgomery et al., 2007) using the
equation:
Y i ¼ x0i b þ zi
where Yi is the sum of lion depredations recorded at the ith village
centroid, x0i represents the vector of observed values (distance to the
Gir Wildlife Sanctuary and National Park) at the ith village centroid,
b is the vector of the regression parameter, and Zi is the spatially
autocorrelated random error term. We fit the spatial autocorrelation component, based on the distance between village centroids,
using an exponential covariance model and allowed for directional
spatial dependence, or anisotropy (Cressie, 1993). When conducting
our regression diagnostics we determined that a log transformation
[log(sum + 1)] of the response variable resulted in a good approximation of a normal distribution.
To assess whether the spatial configuration of lion depredations
in the GPA region exhibited significant clustering, we calculated
Getis–Ord general Gi statistic to map hot spots of lion depredation
(Bump et al., 2009; Fortin and Dale, 2006; Getis and Ord, 1992).
The Getis–Ord general Gi statistic describes the degree of spatial
autocorrelation and can depict whether significant clustering is
apparent for observations near the maximum (positive z-scores)
or minimum ends (negative z-score) of the data distribution
(Getis and Ord, 1992). Z-scores greater than 1.96 and less than
1.96 depict significant (a < 0.05) hot spots (areas where lions
tend to depredate livestock) and cold spots (areas where lions do
not tend to depredate livestock), respectively.
2.3. Human perceptions of lion conservation
We obtained spatially-explicit human population census and
demographic data. We conducted interview surveys in 20% of
households in each village in the GPA region. These surveys
assessed general demography of the respondents including name,
age, gender, community, occupation, and both land and livestock-holdings. We designed interview questions to examine
respondents’ use of forested habitats in the GPA region and attitudes towards lions, wildlife damage assessment and mitigation
efforts by the Forest Department. Specifically, we asked respondents to describe their perception of damages associated with lion
depredations, their experience with crop-raiding wild herbivores
and the response from the Gujarat State Forest Department.
Interaction, satisfaction with and attitudes towards the Gujarat
State Forest Department were assessed based on respondents’ (i)
willingness to report or exchange information with the department
about injured or dead wild animals in village, (ii) satisfaction with,
and opinion of, the system of monetary compensation for livestock
loss to depredation offered by the Forest Department, and the (iii)
nature of interaction with Forest Department (Cordial or Negative).
Negative interactions were categorized separately, with respect to
fears of intimidation by the forest officials or conflict related to forest resource-use. Overall attitude towards the forest was assessed
based on three questions. The first two questions were structured
questions while the third question was unstructured and categorized post hoc. These questions assessed whether (i) the forest is
useful or a source of economic loss (ii) the presence of lions acts
as a deterrent for crop-raiding wild herbivores (iii) removal or
translocation of lions from the village vicinity is supported.
3. Results
3.1. Spatial patterns of livestock depredation
Across the GPA region, lion depredation of livestock and the
number of villages reporting depredation increased over time
(Fig. 2). Thus, not only did the frequency of lion depredations
increase, but the spatial configuration of lion depredations also
expanded. The total number of lion depredations of livestock at
the village level between 2001 and 2010 was significantly
(b = 0.10, P < .0001) related to the distance to the Gir Wildlife
Sanctuary and National Park. Villages nearer to the border tended
to experience greater numbers of lion depredations than villages
farther away from the Gir Wildlife Sanctuary and National Park
(Fig. 3). However, the spatial configuration of lion depredation at
the village level was patchy (Fig. 4). We noted two clusters of villages that exhibited significant (Z-score P 1.96) spatial patterning
of high numbers of lion depredations (Fig. 3). These hot spots were
1600
Total number of lion depredations
1400
Total number of villages reporting
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Fig. 2. The total number of lion depredations of livestock and the total number of
villages reporting attacks per year within the Gir Protected Area, 2001–2010.
V. Meena et al. / Biological Conservation 174 (2014) 120–126
Fig. 3. Spatial regression trend explaining total lion depredation of livestock in the
Gir Protected Area between 2001 and 2010 as a function of the distance from
villages to Gir Wildlife Sanctuary and National Park. The individual village data, the
regression trend, and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the estimate are presented.
located in the southwest (19 villages) and eastern (17 villages) portions of the GPA region. Additionally, there were two clusters of
villages which exhibited significant (Z-score 6 1.96) spatial patterning of low numbers of lion depredations (Fig. 3). These cold
spots were located in the north (19 villages) and northwest (4 villages) portions of the GPA region. During this same time period the
population of lion in the GPA region remained relatively stable. The
estimated size for the lion population in the GPA during the first
part of our study (2001–2005) was approximately 290 while it
was 300 during the latter part of our study (2006–2010). However,
the populations of lion outside of the GPA have grown. The lion
populations in the Girnar Wildlife Sanctuary (Fig. 1a), the Coastal
Forest (Fig. 1b) and Bhavnagar (Fig. 1c) all doubled across the
two time periods assessed. The Girnar population increased from
17 to 38, the Coastal Forest population increased from 12 to 21
and the Bhavnagar population from 14 to 33 lions.
3.2. Human perceptions of lion conservation
3.2.1. Respondent demographics and relationship with the forest
We interviewed a total of 2315 individuals belonging to separate households in 84 villages between June 2010 and February
2011. The vast majority (96%) of respondents belonged to families
that had been resident in their village for several generations.
123
Respondents were almost exclusively men because women were
not forthcoming in their response and were generally unfamiliar
with forest-related issues. Overall, respondents tended to be
engaged in agriculture (77%), wage-labour (12% – mostly in crop
fields), animal husbandry (6%), local business enterprises and other
livelihoods (4%), or government service including employment in
the Forest Department (1%). All adult age groups (18–30, 31–50,
>50 years old) were sampled but >50% of respondents were aged
31–50 years. Most of the respondents (81%) were landowners, of
which 28% had small land-holdings (0.4–4.4 ha), 30% had smallmedium land-holdings (4.5–8.4 ha), 23% had medium-large landholdings (8.5–16.4 ha) and 19% had large land-holdings
(>16.5 ha). On these lands, groundnut (Arachis hypogaea), wheat
(Triticum spp.), cotton (Gossypium spp.), mango (Mangifera indica),
Bajra or pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum), jowar (Sorghum spp.),
sugarcane (Saccharum spp.), Tuvar or pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan)
and oilseeds were the major crops. Cattle, buffalo, goat and sheep
were the livestock commonly reared for milk in these villages. In
a predominantly vegetarian state, there was a market only for goat
meat. However, camel, donkey and horse were also kept and used
as pack animals whereas oxen were used as draught animals.
Respondents acknowledged that they required the forest for
grazing and fodder only during the monsoon (June–October). Less
than 1% of respondents depended on forest resources for their livelihood. Since regulated collection is permitted, villagers collect
fuelwood for household consumption during certain months of
the year. Nilgai and wild pig were identified as the most common
crop-raiding wild herbivores. These species were perceived to
cause enormous crop loss through feeding and trampling. Porcupine, chinkara, Indian peafowl, sambar and chital were also identified as crop raiders. Villagers guarded crops at night, warding
raiders off by creating noise and commotion (fencing was not
affordable for all). Attempts to mitigate depredation by lions
included maintaining vigils while grazing livestock during the
day, and construction of corrals and boundary walls to prevent lion
attack by night.
3.2.2. Perception of the Forest Department
The vast majority (95%) of respondents claimed to have cordial
relations with the Forest Department. The minority 5% claimed to
be in conflict with the Forest Department and mistrusted or feared
them. In support of the good relations, 98% of respondents stated
that when encountering an injured/dead/trapped wild animal they
would immediately contact the Forest Department and ensure that
action was taken. The other 2% expressed nervousness of getting
Fig. 4. The map resulting from the Getis–Ord general Gi hot spot analysis depicting spatial clustering of lion depredations of livestock in the Gir Protected Area, 2001–2010.
The bright red depicts significant (Z P 1.96) spatial clustering of lion depredation hot spots, while the blue displays significant (Z 6 1.96) cold spots.
124
V. Meena et al. / Biological Conservation 174 (2014) 120–126
entangled in wildlife offence cases, and the associated stringent
laws. The primary source of dissatisfaction with the Forest Department involved the livestock depredation compensation program.
Livestock compensation was claimed by 205 (9%) of all interview
respondents. Among this group, 66% stated that they were dissatisfied with the scheme. This dissatisfaction was due to inadequate
compensation (60%), delays in processing of that compensation
(15%), frustration over bureaucratic procedures (10%) and uncooperative staff (15%).
3.2.3. Perception of lions
Almost all of the respondents (98%) perceived the forest as
being useful and only 2% considered that proximity to forest was
associated with economic losses, including depredation. Forty percent of the respondents that self-identified as farmers believed that
the presence of carnivores, such as lion, in the system deterred
wild animals and free-ranging domestic stock from crop-raiding.
Among the 944 respondents who held an opinion on the practice
of translocation of lions away from the vicinity of villages, 31%
were humanistic (relating to anthropomorphic associations such
as affection for lions and regional pride), 23% ecologistic (maintaining existing balance and harmony), 20% were negativistic (fear and
mistrust towards lions), 14% utilitarian (usefulness or relevance to
peoples’ lives), 10% scientistic (concerning safety and wisdom of
disturbing lions from their current habitat) and 2% moralistic (reasoning from a moral standpoint; following the classification of
Kellert, 1985).
4. Discussion
To understand lion conservation issues in the GPA region, we
used a combination of spatial pattern analysis of livestock depredation records and interview surveys to assess local perceptions
of conservation issues, wildlife damage and mitigation.
4.1. Spatial patterns of livestock depredation
Despite stable population dynamics in the GPA, the total number of livestock depredations by lions has greatly increased
between 2001 and 2010 (Fig. 2). We detected an interesting spatial
pattern in the configuration of depredation incidents in the GPA
region. We found that the total number of lion depredations significantly (P < .0001) increased for villages that were located closer to
the Gir Wildlife Sanctuary and National Park (Fig. 3). However,
proximity was not the only factor as the distribution of lion depredations was patchy (Fig. 4). We detected significant hot spots of
lion depredation in the southwest and east and significant cold
spots in the north of the GPA region (Fig. 4). These results suggest
that the hot spots of depredation are associated with dispersal corridors of lion in the southwest probably on the way to the Coastal
Forest and in the eastern route to eastern population extending
into the Bhavnagar taluka including habitat patches in Mitiyala
Wildlife Sanctuary, Palitana, Savarkundla and Hipavadli regions
(Fig. 1). The hot spot located in the southwest of the GPA region
is consistent with our observations of lions using corridors as there
are patches of protected forests and reserved vidis (grasslands) in
this region, and these patches facilitate lion movement all the
way to the coastal habitats. Historically, these were prime lion
habitats and as recently as 60 years ago they were heavily forested;
in those days lions coexisted with several Maldhari nesses or settlements. Since then, farming has been encouraged and has flourished
in this area. The shift to sugarcane and mango cultivation in place
of groundnut in recent years has created refuge areas and corridors
for movement of lions (Vijayan and Pati, 2001).
The observed hot spot of lion depredation in the eastern region
of GPA is likely connected to the growth of the eastern lion population in Bhavanagar district in recent years. From 2001 to 2010,
this population of lion doubled in size from 14 to 33 individuals.
Interestingly, areas in the northern region of GPA were associated
with cold spots of lion depredation of livestock (Fig. 4, Meena,
2012). This observation fits with our understanding of lion movement ecology in this region. Although a tenuous link exists
between the GPA and the Girnar Wildlife Sanctuary supported by
occasional records of dispersing sub-adults and nomads, there is
little movement of wild animals between the two forest areas
which are separated by high density human habitations, roads
and highways (B.J. Pathak pers. comm., Meena, 2010, 2012).
Thus, spatial pattern analysis of lion depredations of livestock
can provide insight into the distribution of lions and the corridors
that they use. However, further investigation will be necessary to
determine whether these observed spatial patterns of lion depredation primarily result from lion dispersal or are a product of current unforeseen characteristics of these agro-pastoral landscapes
and socio-cultural contexts. Such spatial predictions indicating
hot spots of livestock depredation can be used to identify focal
areas of conflict mitigation through increased vigilance and
improved husbandry practices.
4.2. Human perceptions of the protected area
Despite our observation of lion depredations being significantly
correlated with the proximity of villages to GPA, the respondents in
our interview survey tended not to perceive this distance as a negative influence. The GPA provides important ecosystem services to
the local communities by way of improvement in water quality/
availability, reduction in salinity ingress and carbon sequestration
(Pandya et al., 2002). Seven perennial and many other ephemeral
rivers and streams, reservoirs and check-dams supply water to
the villages throughout the year. The vast majority (98%) of respondents recognized the advantages of proximity to the forest in terms
of a healthy environment, seasonal rains and direct benefits to
agriculture and crop yield. Just 2% of the interview respondents felt
that the distance to forested habitat (associated with the Gir Wildlife Sanctuary and National Park) was a source of economic losses,
including crop-raiding and livestock depredation. Nilgai and wild
pig are the primary crop-raiders as they are capable of surviving
in patches of forests, open lands and in habitats where cover is
provided by agriculture crops. This result fits with existing information which finds that patterns of crop-raiding do not seem to
be well described by proximity to protected area (Karanth et al.,
2013). Interestingly elsewhere, park borders can be the most problematic areas for human–lion conflict (Loveridge et al., 2010). In
the GPA region, resource extraction and dependence on the forest
for livelihood was minimal because the economy is so heavily
dependent on agriculture and livestock grazing. While the traditional rights of the resident pastoralist Maldhari community, which
rely on pastoral subsistence, are recognized by year-round grazing
rights in and around the Gir Wildlife Sanctuary and National Park,
the fodder requirements of members of other communities in villages are largely met in village fallow lands and crop fields. They
require fodder from the forest only during the monsoon but do
not have clear-cut rights or access to the forests. In spite of this,
by using forested edge habitats and utilizing harvested grass provided by the forest department, the direct grazing benefits to livestock owners are valued at approximately Rs. 967 crores annually
(17 million USD) of which 85% of the benefit is derived by livestock
owners in the bordering villages (Pandya et al., 2002). Annual
losses to carnivores approximate only 4% of the value of livestock
holdings, even for Maldharis residing within the Gir Wildlife Sanctuary and National Park (Meena et al., 2011). Loss of livestock
V. Meena et al. / Biological Conservation 174 (2014) 120–126
would be felt more by the 6% of people surveyed who exclusively
practiced animal husbandry as their livelihood. Respondents’ have
thus gauged losses in the context of compensation and market
value of the livestock killed rather than setting them against the
value of the services provided by the forest.
Overall, our study revealed a very positive relationship between
the GPA and local people, in contrast to previous findings of hostility at a time, following a drought, when human–lion conflict had
escalated (see Saberwal et al., 1994). Nonetheless, carnivores do
pose a threat to farmers who tend their crops at night which means
that the balance of tolerance is frail. Conservation policies, extent
of local peoples’ dependence on forest resources, rights and access
to these resources, threats to human life, magnitude of losses and
the compensation offered by the forest management authorities
thus define the perceptions of conservation held by people living
in close proximity to forests (Bagchi and Mishra, 2006;
Romanach et al., 2007; Shibia, 2010; Treves et al., 2009). All these
factors require careful consideration as relationship between local
people and protected areas is crucial for successful conservation of
large mammals (Karanth and Nepal, 2012; Macdonald et al., 2013).
Our results further contribute to this knowledge, suggesting that
people’s relationships with protected areas are complex and
multi-faceted.
4.3. Human perceptions of the Forest Department
Our study shows that a positive relationship and easy communication exists between local people and the Gujarat Forest Department. This is important because vigilance against poaching
requires good relations between local people and land managers.
Following a poaching incident in 2007 which resulted in seven lion
deaths (Times of India, Dasgupta, 7th April, 2007), stringent conservation measures have been enforced, including better networking with villages around GPA through the appointment of one
youth as Van Mitra (Friend of the forest) in each village to report
illegal conservation activities, health and movement of wild animals in the village vicinity. Grazing is the primary pressure exerted
on the forest and because of this service this is also the reason for
tolerance shown for livestock loss due to carnivores. Resolving the
crop raiding menace is as important as reducing livestock losses
and will determine the tolerance levels of local people in the
future. The current solution to conflict involves relocation of problem causing carnivores and financial compensation for livestock
losses. Our interview surveys generally revealed dissatisfaction
with the amount and also the efficiency of the compensation
scheme. Thus, while local people where critical of certain schemes,
they had a positive attitude towards both the forest and the
management.
4.4. Human perceptions of lion conservation
Only 20% of the respondents had negative feelings towards
lions, and favoured their removal from the vicinity. Cultural acceptance of lions, regional pride and understanding of lions’ role in the
ecosystem formed the basis of the responses of the majority of the
people in our study, though these views may not necessarily be
representative of human attitudes in other regions. Education campaigns could further improve tolerance by improving local knowledge, allaying fears and also decreasing risk of carnivore attacks by
promoting anticipatory and proactive precautionary measures (see
Lagendijk and Gusset, 2008).
The villagers in our assessment face human–wildlife conflict
that included direct threats to human safety and also economic
loss due to crop and livestock loss. Almost half of all respondents
held the opinion that the presence of lions reduced problems
caused by crop-raiding wild herbivores. This result is consistent
125
with other studies of human–wildlife interaction in India which
finds that human perception is more negative towards crop-raiders
than carnivores (Karanth et al., 2013). From the point of view of
management and conservation, however, human tolerance of carnivores should not lead to complacency as these perceptions are
dynamic and can vary with the severity of human-carnivore
interaction.
5. Conclusion
Through this study, we pinpoint the focal areas of conservation
intervention and the specific aspects of human-protected area
management to highlight the cultural and social acceptance of
lions that could benefit lion conservation. Throughout their range,
lions are threatened by habitat loss, reduction in wild prey, retributive killing and sport hunting to the extent that they are now
increasingly restricted to protected areas (Bauer and Van Der
Merwe, 2004; Loveridge et al., 2007; Macdonald et al., 2010) and
rarely tolerated in a cultural context whereby carnivores are considered an integral part of the natural heritage (Lagendijk and
Gusset, 2008). Conservation models integrated with economic
incentives and revenue generation for local people are being
increasingly implemented to protect the species (Loveridge et al.,
2007). The Asiatic lion survives in a landscape where people have
a history of cultural coexistence over generations, high tolerance,
have no share in revenue generated through ecotourism and
despite losses consider lions as part of their natural heritage. Maintaining this positive attitude and designing better models of
human safety, husbandry practices and economic incentives is
important for lion conservation in the GPA region and in the
broader GGL.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Rufford Grants Foundation for Nature Conservation (RSGs), UK. DWM gratefully acknowledges the
support of the Recanati-Kaplan Foundation, and the Robertson
Foundation. We are deeply indebted to officials of the Gujarat Forest Department – Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife Division),
Junagadh Circle and Deputy Conservators of Forests of Junagadh,
Bhavnagar, Wildlife, West and East Divisions of Gir for providing
data and supporting the study in many ways. We would like to
acknowledge all those who assisted in data collection, translation
and compilation. Thanks to Mr. Qamar Qureshi, Wildlife Institute
of India for giving permission to use base-maps and census of India
data. MV thanks Dr. R. Sukumar for granting Visitorship at CES, IISc
and providing a working environment. We thank Dr. Georgette
Lagendjik for constructive edits and two anonymous reviewers
for comments to a previous version of this manuscript.
References
Bagchi, S., Mishra, C., 2006. Living with large carnivores: predation on livestock by
the snow leopard (Uncia uncia). J. Zool. London 268, 217–224.
Bauer, H., Van Der Merwe, S., 2004. Inventory of free-ranging lions Panthera leo in
Africa. Oryx 38, 26–31.
Breitenmoser, U., Mallon, D.P., Ahmad Khan, J., Driscoll, C., 2008. Panthera leo ssp.
persica. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2.
<http://www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 06 June 2012.
Bump, J.K., Tischler, K.B., Schrank, A.J., Peterson, R.O., Vucetich, J.A., 2009. Large
herbivores and aquatic–terrestrial links in southern boreal forests. J. Anim. Ecol.
78, 338–345.
Chardonnet, P., Soto, B., Fritz, H., Crosmary, W., Drouet-Hoguet, N., Mesochina, P.,
Pellerin, M., Mallon, D., Bakker, L., Boulet, H., Lamarque, F., 2010. Managing the
conflicts between people and lion. Review and insights from the literature and
field experience Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome,
Wildlife Management Working Paper 13.
Cressie, N.A., 1993. Statistics for Spatial Data, revised edn. Wiley, New York, NY,
USA.
126
V. Meena et al. / Biological Conservation 174 (2014) 120–126
Fortin, D., Dale, M.R.T., 2006. Spatial Analysis: A Guide for Ecologists. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Getis, A., Ord, J.K., 1992. The analysis of spatial association by use of distance
statistics. Geograph. Anal. 24, 189–206.
Karanth, K., Nepal, S.K., 2012. Local residents perception of benefits and losses from
Protected Areas in India and Nepal. Environ. Manage. 49, 372–386.
Karanth, K.K., Naughton-Treves, L., DeFries, R., Gopalaswamy, A.M., 2013. Living
with wildlife and mitigating conflicts around three Indian Protected Areas.
Environ. Manage. 52, 1320–1332.
Kellert, S.R., 1985. Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote.
Biol. Conserv. 31, 167–189.
Kumar, S., Meena, R.L., 2011. Conservation of lions. Environment XI, 4–20.
Lagendijk, D.D.G., Gusset, M., 2008. Human–carnivore coexistence on communal
land bordering the Greater Kruger Area, South Africa. Environ. Manage. 42, 971–
976.
Loveridge, A.J., Searle, A.W., Murindagomo, F., Macdonald, D.W., 2007. The impact of
sport hunting on the population dynamics of an African lion population in a
protected area. Biol. Conserv. 134, 548–558.
Loveridge, A.J., Hemson, G., Davidson, Z., Macdonald, D.W., 2010. African lions on
the edge: reserve boundaries as ‘attractive sinks’. In: Macdonald, D.W.,
Loveridge, A.J. (Eds.), The Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 283–304.
Macdonald, D.W., Sillero-Zubiri, C., 2002. Large carnivores and conflict: lion
conservation in context. In Lion Conservation Research. Loveridge, A.J., Lynam,
T., Macdonald, D.W., Workshop 2: Modelling Conflict, Wildlife Conservation
Research Unit, Oxford, UK, pp. 1–8.
Macdonald, D.W., Loveridge, A.J., Rabinowitz, A., 2010. Felid futures: crossing
disciplines, borders, and generations. In: Macdonald, D.W., Loveridge, A.J. (Eds.),
Biology and Conservation of Wild Felids. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.
599–649.
Macdonald, D.W., Boitani, L., Dinerstein, E., Fritz, H., Wrangham, R., 2013.
Conserving large mammals. In: Macdonald, D.W., Katherine J.W. (Eds.), Key
Topics in Conservation Biology 2, John Wiley sons, pp. 277–312.
Meena, V., 2008. Reproductive strategy and behaviour of male Asiatic lions.
Dissertation, Forest Research Institute University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand,
India, 179 pp.
Meena, V., 2010. ‘‘Site’’ing the right reasons: critical evaluation of conservation
planning for the Asiatic lion. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 56, 209–213.
Meena, V., 2012. Managing success: Asiatic lion conservation, interface issues and
attitudes of local communities in Greater Gir landscape. Report submitted to
Rufford Grants Foundation for Nature Conservation (RSGs), UK.
Meena, V., Jhala, Y.V., Chellam, R., Pathak, B., 2011. Implications of diet composition
of Asiatic lions for their conservation. J. Zool. London 284, 60–67.
Montgomery, R.A., Ver Hoef, J.M., Boveng, P.L., 2007. Spatial modeling of haul-out
site use by harbor seals in Cook Inlet, Alaska. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 341, 257–264.
Ogada, M.O., Woodroffe, R., Oguge, N.O., Frank, L.G., 2003. Limiting depredation by
African carnivores: the role of livestock husbandry. Conserv. Biol. 17, 1521–
1530.
Pandya, H. R., Shiyani, R.L., Dhruj, I.U., 2002. Quantification of environmental and
economic benefits of conserving Gir ecosystem. Report submitted to Wildlife
Circle, Junagadh.
Pathak, B.J., Pati, B.P., Kumar, R., Kumar, A., Raval, P.P., Patel, V.S., Rana, V.J., 2002.
Biodiversity conservation plan for Gir. Supplementary Manage. Plan., 407 pp.
Romanach, S.S., Lindsay, A., Woodroffe, R., 2007. Determinants of attitudes towards
predators in central Kenya and suggestions for increasing tolerance in livestock
dominated landscape. Oryx 4, 185–195.
Saberwal, V.K., Gibbs, J.P., Chellam, R., Johnsingh, A.J.T., 1994. Lion-human conflict in
Gir Forest, India. Conserv. Biol. 82, 501–507.
Schmitz, O.J., Hambäck, P.A., Beckerman, A.P., 2000. Trophic cascades in terrestrial
systems: a review of the effects of carnivore removals on plants. Am. Nat. 155,
141–153.
Shibia, M.G., 2010. Determinants of attitudes and perceptions on resource use and
management of Marsabit National Reserve, Kenya. J. Human Ecol. 30, 55–62.
Shivik, J.A., 2006. Tools for the edge: what’s new for conserving carnivores?
Bioscience 56, 253–259.
Sih, A., Crowley, P., McPeek, M., Petranka, J., Strohmeier, K., 1985. Predation,
competition, and prey communities: a review of field experiments. Annu. Rev.
Ecol. Syst., 269–311.
Sillero-Zubiri, C., Laurenson, M.K., 2001. Interactions between carnivores and local
communities: conflict or co-existence? In: Gittleman, J.L., Funk, S.M.,
Macdonald, D., Wayne, R.K. (Eds.), Carnivore conservation. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 282–312.
Singh, H.S., 1997. Population dynamics, group structure and natural dispersal of the
Asiatic lion Panthera leo persica. J. Bombay Nat. History Soc. 941, 65–70.
Treves, A., Wallace, R.B., Naughton-Treves, L., Morales, A., 2006. Co-managing
human–wildlife conflicts: a review. Human Dimens. Wildlife 11, 1–14.
Treves, A., Wallace, R.B., White, S., 2009. Participatory planning of interventions to
mitigate human wildlife conflicts. Conserv. Biol. 23 (6), 1577–1587.
Valeix, M., Loveridge, A.J., Chamaille-Jammes, S., Davidson, Z., Murindagomo, F.,
Fritz, H., Macdonald, D.W., 2009. Behavioral adjustments of African herbivores
to predation risk by lions: spatiotemporal variations influence habitat use.
Ecology 90, 23–30.
Ver Hoef, J.M., Cressie, N., Fisher, R.N., Case, T.J., 2001. Uncertainty and spatial linear
models for ecological data. In: Hunsaker, M.F.G.C.T., M.A. Friedl, Case, T.J. (Eds.),
Spatial Uncertainty in Ecology. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 214–237.
Vijayan, S., Pati, B.P., 2001. Impact of changing cropping pattern on man-animal
conflicts around Gir P.A. with specific reference to Talala taluka. Ind. For. 12710,
1121–1133.
Woodroffe, R., Frank, L.G., 2005. Lethal control of African lions (Panthera leo): local
and regional population impacts. Anim. Conserv. 8, 91–98.
Woodroffe, R., Ginsberg, J.R., 1998. Edge effects and the extinction of populations
inside protected areas. Science 280, 2126–2128.