Journal of Threatened Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 September 2026 | 18(9): 29559–29570

 

ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print) 

https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9770.18.9.29559-29570

#9770 | Received 22 March 2026 | Final received 18 August 2026 | Finally accepted 02 September 2026

 

 

Knowledge and attitude towards wild carnivores among university students: a study from Kargil Trans-Himalaya, India

 

Iftikar Ali 1   & Robert John Young 2       

 

1 High Altitude Environment and Education Alliance Ladakh, Kargil, Union Territory of Ladakh 194103, India.

2 Ecosystem and Environment Research Centre, University of Salford, Manchester, M5 4WT, United Kingdom. 

1 iftida7@gmail.com (corresponding author), 2 r.j.young@salford.ac.uk

 

 

Editor: Anonymity requested.            Date of publication: 26 September 2026 (online & print)

 

Citation: Ali, I. & R.J. Young (2026). Knowledge and attitude towards wild carnivores among university students: a study from Kargil Trans-Himalaya, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 18(9): 29559–29570. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9770.18.9.29559-29570

  

Copyright: © Ali & Young 2026. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the author(s) and the source of publication.

 

Funding: This study is part of the Ph.D. project of the corresponding author and was financially supported by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India with award number – NOS-11016/09/2016.

 

Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

 

ETHICS STATEMENT:  This study was approved by the Research, Innovation and Academic Engagement Ethical Approval Panel of the University of Salford, United Kingdom, with application number – SRT1920-14. Permission to conduct the study was obtained also from the District Administration of Kargil No.- DMK/JC-Permission/2019.

 

Author details: Iftikar Ali is an environmental scientist and researcher based in Ladakh, India. His research interests include human–wildlife interactions, wildlife conservation, biodiversity, and environmental education. His work primarily focuses on wildlife conservation and human dimensions of biodiversity in the Trans-Himalayan region. Robert John Young is professor of Animal Behaviour and Wildlife Conservation at the University of Salford, UK. His research integrates animal welfare science with in-situ and ex-situ wildlife conservation. His work focuses on animal behaviour, wildlife conservation, bioacoustics, biotelemetry, and the effects of noise on wildlife. His research spans field conservation in Brazil and zoo-based animal welfare across diverse animal species.

 

Author contributions: IA-—conceptualization, methodology, field investigation, data collection, data analysis, project coordination, writing - original, and preparation of manuscript. RJY—supervision, conceptual guidance, methodology review, interpretation of results, critical review and editing of the manuscript.

 

Acknowledgements: Our sincere thanks go to all the respondents. We appreciate the efforts of various student associations in Kargil and other parts of India, who assisted in distributing the questionnaire to the target respondents. We thank the Ladakh Times media outlet for assisting in circulating the questionnaire across various social media platforms to ensure the reach of the questionnaire to the desired respondents.

 

 

Abstract: Several studies have reflected that the success of wildlife conservation approaches and efforts are determined by local people’s knowledge and attitude toward the target wildlife species. It is critical to have a favourable attitude of the local communities towards wildlife for implementing successful conservation efforts that involve public participation. We conducted this study in Kargil Trans-Himalaya, India to understand the knowledge and attitude of local undergraduate and postgraduate students towards wildlife in general, and wild carnivores in particular. To achieve the objectives of this study, an online semi-structured questionnaire was drafted and distributed among student residents of Kargil pursuing their higher education degrees from Kargil and other parts of India. We received a total of 385 responses, and 362 were considered fit for the study. The total knowledge score for the respondents ranged from 3–12 out of 12, with a mean score of 9.68 ± 1.565. With the overall attitude score ranging from 4–12 out of 12, and a mean score of 10.19 ± 1.417, students in higher education from Kargil possess a favourable attitude towards the wildlife of the region. The Spearman’s correlation between knowledge and attitude score was weak, rs = 0.255, p < .001, N = 362. The knowledge and attitudes of local students towards wild carnivore species should be considered for effective long-term conservation efforts. This could be accomplished by timely sustainable conservation education and awareness initiatives. Although this study tries to explore an important factor to be considered in wildlife conservation efforts from a less explored region in the trans-Himalaya, future studies can intensively look into the factors that influence the formation of social attitudes toward wildlife.

 

Keywords:  Biodiversity, cold desert, conservation, environmental awareness, Himalayan Brown Bear, Ladakh, perception, Snow Leopard, social attitudes, wildlife.

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Humans have been sharing space with wildlife and competing with them for natural resources throughout history. As the human population is expanding at a rapid pace, demand for natural resources is also increasing, which has resulted in inflated competition for resources and intensified pressure on wildlife (Woodroffe 2000; Conover 2002). As anthropogenic activities expanding across the world, biodiversity suffers a direct loss, and there is a decline in human well-being (Dickman & Hazzah 2016). The exponential increase in the human population has led to an increase in human-wildlife conflicts throughout the world (Woodroffe 2000; Conover 2002). The degradation and fragmentation of wildlife habitats through intensive human use have brought wildlife and humans closer than ever before. Attacks by large predators on humans and their livestock, as well as agricultural damage by large herbivores, have always occurred, but have gained increased attention in recent decades (Inskip & Zimmermann 2009). These occurrences have led to misconceptions and unfavourable notions/emotions about the behaviour of non-charismatic carnivores and large herbivore species in rural areas where people share land and resources with such species (Marchini & Macdonald 2012; Dickman et al. 2014; Castillo-Huitrón et al. 2020).

In the case of emotions and attitudes towards a wild carnivore, physical traits of animal species, as well as human-created “personalities”, have elicited a wide range of emotions (Kellert et al. 1996; Kruuk 2002; Prokop & Randler 2018; Castillo-Huitrón et al. 2020). Large charismatic creatures that have historically been viewed as dangerous, yet intelligent, elicit emotions that can lead to protective acts, as has been the case with Lions Panthera leo, Tigers Panthera tigris, Leopards Panthera pardus, Snow Leopards Panthera uncia, and different species of Bears Ursus spp. (Marchini & Macdonald 2012; Dickman et al. 2014). Knowledge of the behaviour of culturally significant species develops better in rural communities where people are in contact with wildlife regularly than in other locations (Castillo-Huitrón et al. 2020). This allows the anthropomorphising of particular animals, which enhances dread and rejection toward them by labelling them “shy”, “noxious”, and “monstrous” among other descriptors (Lescureux & Linnell 2010; Castillo-Huitrón et al. 2020). Furthermore, if the existence of an animal causes members of a community to suffer economic losses, their main perspective will be negative, resulting in resentment that may lead to fatal management (Naughton-Treves 1997).

The environmental ethics of the Abrahamic monotheistic faiths—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are all based on the concept of stewardship, which implies human responsibility for the preservation of nature (Bhagwat et al. 2011). Further, religions evolved in Asia (Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Sikhism) place a high value on the holiness of nature and its animals, and principles that might elicit environmental awareness and action (Bhagwat et al. 2011). Moral ideals are both derived from and legitimized by religion/faith and they can play a significant role in addressing today’s global environmental issues (Mcleod & Palmer 2015). Religion can assist in developing compassion towards an animal/creature, which is the primary ethics of all the faiths but sometimes not valued on an individual level (Mcleod & Palmer 2015).

Community knowledge, engagement, and the impact of conservation measures depend on public attitudes toward conservation. Assessing local people’s perspectives can reveal how they will act, whether they will comply with wildlife protection rules, how they will respond to wildlife-related economic losses, and how eager they are to cohabit with wildlife (Megaze et al. 2017). Local community knowledge is regarded as an important component in the expression of feelings toward animals (Castillo-Huitrón et al. 2020). Moreover, local knowledge and emotional ties with animals can be an important factor in identifying strategies to promote environmental awareness (Bowen-Jones & Entwistle 2002).

Individuals’ emotional responses to animals are influenced by a variety of factors, including their gender, age, cultural & natural settings, and perceived sensitivity to each species (Johansson et al. 2012). Significant disparities in fear of wildlife species have been discovered among persons with various levels of education; those with higher educational levels are frequently less fearful of wild animals than those with lower educational levels (Røskaft et al. 2003). Understanding the attitude and perception of local people towards wildlife and conservation approaches is necessary to improve favourable human-wildlife interactions (Shrestha & Alavalapati 2006; Vodouhê 2010; Mir et al. 2015; Ciocănea et al. 2016) and how the future of wildlife conservation is shaped (Adams & Hutton 2007; Røskaft et al. 2007; Barua et al. 2013; Lyamuya et al. 2014). In addition, local communities’ views and attitudes toward wildlife are essential in resolving conflict problems, which put a negative toll on both the local communities living adjacent to wildlife habitat and on the wildlife species (Naughton-Treves & Treves 2005). Further, individuals with higher education are likely to have more opportunities to learn about the environment and, in particular, wild animals, which may help individuals realize the ecological advantages given by noncharismatic species reducing their unfavourable preconceptions and beliefs about them (Castillo-Huitrón et al. 2020). Given that values evolve at a youth age (Schwartz 2006), understanding how the younger generation understands and perceives wildlife is critical. These values eventually impact attitude and behaviour related to wildlife and human-wildlife interactions. There is not a single study from Kargil District, India addressing the awareness of wildlife among university students and how they perceive wildlife species. Hence, this study was aimed to fill the gap and targeted respondents studying at the university level to explore and assess their knowledge and attitude towards wildlife of the region in general, and wild carnivores in particular. Although ecological research has expanded in Kargil in recent years, there remains a gap in understanding the social dimensions of wildlife conservation, particularly the attitudes and knowledge of local youth. To assist in implementing concrete, successful, and sustainable conservation efforts in the region, it was felt necessary to conduct this study with the specific objectives: (1) to understand the knowledge and attitude towards wildlife among students from Kargil; (2) to identify the factors and associations, if any, between various respondent categories and knowledge and attitude scores and variables within; and (3) to examine if there is any relationship between knowledge of students and their attitude towards wildlife. Based on the objectives, we hypothesized that: (1) higher knowledge scores are positively associated with more favourable attitude towards wildlife; (2) knowledge and attitude scores significantly vary by demographic variables such as education level, subject background, faith, and gender.

 

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 

STUDY aREA

Administratively, Kargil is divided into 15 community development (CD) blocks (District Statistics & Evaluation Officer Kargil 2020). But with demographic insights and data available according to the past demarcation of nine CD blocks of the district, we adapted and utilized the data according to the nine CD blocks of the study area (Census of India 2011; District Statistics & Evaluation Officer Kargil 2020) (Image 1).

Kargil is one of the two districts in the newly formed Union Territory of Ladakh, India. Before 2019, it was a district in the former state of Jammu & Kashmir. Often referred to as ‘cold desert’ in the scientific community, Kargil has a unique floral and faunal assemblage (Pfister 2004), with cold and temperate climatic characteristics. Kargil is home to some of the important and endangered wild carnivore and ungulate species such as Snow Leopard, Himalayan Brown Bear Ursus arctos isabellinus, Wolf Canis lupus, Fox Vulpes vulpes, Pallas’s Cat Otocolobus manul, Asiatic Ibex Capra ibex sibirica, and Ladakh Urial Ovis vignei (Pfister 2004). Livestock rearing and sustenance agricultural practices are the main traditional livelihood practices in this region (Barthwal & Mathur 2012). Particularly, in Kargil and Zanskar region, livestock rearing is one of the most important sources of income for agro-pastoral communities (Maheshwari 2016; Maheshwari & Sathyakumar 2020). With a total human population of 140,802 (Census of India 2011) and a geographical area of 14,036 km2, Kargil is one of the least densely populated districts in India. The human population is distributed along the glacial streams and the three main river valleys (Suru, Drass, and Wakha), which form important tributaries of the Indus river. The majority of the human population in Kargil belongs to the tribal community of the Purigpa and Balti people of Tibetan descent mixed with the Dard, Mon, and other Aryan people (Gellner 2013).

Education in Kargil has undergone a transition phase since the beginning of the 21st century. Until 1998, 95% of Ladakhi (Kargil and Leh district) students failed to complete their high school exams (10th class, as per the education system of India) every year (SECMOL 2022). This reflects that modern education is very new to the region. However, some major steps have been taken by the then state of Jammu & Kashmir, and the government of India to boost the education quality in the region. To improve and provide accessible higher education to the people of the region, the former state of Jammu & Kashmir established the Degree College Kargil by Order No: 138-HE of 1995 dated 31 March 1995 (District Statistics & Evaluation Officer Kargil 2020). The College was founded on 29 June 1995, and the operation of this district’s top seat of higher education learning marked the beginning of a new era in the educational development of Kargil’s steep, under-developed, and sensitive border region (District Statistics & Evaluation Officer Kargil 2020).  The University of Ladakh, established in 2019, is the sole Trans-Himalayan institute of higher learning and research in the Union Territory of Ladakh (University of Ladakh 2020). Both Leh and Kargil are home to the University’s administrative offices. The university has campuses in both Leh and Kargil, as well as six constituent colleges. In August 2021, to ensure quality education and higher educational requirements for people residing in Ladakh, a bill was passed in the Indian parliament to establish a central university in the Union Territory of Ladakh (The Hindu 2021). Besides the efforts to improve the quality of education, from an early age, many pupils are admitted to renowned Indian colleges to prepare for and participate in competitive postsecondary education (Smith & Gergan 2015). Likewise in the case of Kargil, to pursue quality education students frequently travel to bigger cities like Jammu, Srinagar, Delhi, Chandigarh, and Mumbai.

Kargil has been disregarded in terms of intense wildlife studies and follow-up conservation efforts since it was an armed conflict zone in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Maheshwari 2016). Although human-wildlife interaction is not unique to Kargil, people in this region are particularly vulnerable owing to the high level of reliance on livestock, limited agriculture season, and pasture lands, which restricts conflict mitigation strategies. Understanding human-wildlife interactions require an understanding of how the local communities living adjacent to wild carnivore species’ habitat perceive and respond toward the species (Woodroffe 2005).

Methods

ONLINE sURVEY

Nonprobability convenience sampling was adopted for the application of an online survey. The inclusion criteria were students resident of Kargil, aged 18 years or above, and pursuing graduation or higher degree education in Kargil and other parts of India. A preliminary version of the questionnaire was distributed among 40 respondents (mostly students in higher education) to adapt the questions and improve the clarity of the language. The final set of the questionnaire was distributed among the students through executive members of various student organizations in Kargil and other parts of India, emails (colleges and universities), media outlets, and virtual platforms (WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram) from 8 November 2021 to 8 December 2021. This is a random technique that ensures the representativeness and equity of the sample (Boso et al. 2021).

The first page detailed the information and purpose of the study. The name, e-mail address, and other contact information of the responsible researcher were available on this page if the respondents needed more information and clarity on the purpose of the study. This section also highlighted the ethical measures in place to protect the participants’ integrity, anonymity, and well-being. The page ended with the consent of the respondent to participate in the study with a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ response. The participants were allowed to proceed further to the completion of the full survey only upon their consent to participate in the research.

 

QUESTIONNAIRE dESIGN

An online questionnaire form was drafted using the Google Form survey sheet. The questionnaire was divided into three sections. Being one of the three official languages of Kargil (Kargil District - Wikipedia 2021), and a compulsory subject at primary, middle, high, and higher secondary school education levels across Kargil, English was adopted as the medium of language for the questionnaire. We decided to exclude the responses that stated English was not a subject at their higher secondary education level and also, where the respondents stated difficulty in understanding the questionnaire.

Section one of the questionnaire obtained the socio-demographic information (gender, faith, age, CD block of residence, level of education, current place of study, subjects at higher secondary level, environmental science in higher secondary) of the respondents. The section also explored whether the respondent studied English as a subject at their school level to understand the clarity of the questionnaire.

Section two explored the knowledge score of the respondents through 12 sets of questions or statements about the wildlife of Kargil. This section included questions with ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ responses or text space to identify wild carnivore species of the region. The pictures of the mammal species that were included to be identified by the respondents were a Red Fox, a Himalayan Brown Bear, a Snow Leopard, and a Wolf. The correct answer to each knowledge question was given a score of ‘1’ and ‘0’ for incorrect responses. Hence the overall knowledge score of the respondent was accumulated to a maximum of 12.

Section three examined the attitude scores of the respondents. This section consists of 12 statements/questions intended to assess the attitude of the respondents towards the wildlife of the region. A favourable response/attitude towards wildlife was scored ‘1’ and a negative response was scored ‘0’. Hence, the accumulated maximum attitude score for a respondent summed up to 12.

A question was included to find out whether the questionnaire was intelligible to the respondents. One open-ended question was also included in the last section of the questionnaire to explore their experience, further comments on the wildlife of the region, and scope for future studies.

The questionnaire was validated through a pilot test involving 20 students from Kargil in higher education, who matched the inclusion criteria. This pretesting was aimed to assess clarity, language comprehensibility, and content relevance. Based on their feedback, questions were simplified that were hard to understand. While reliability coefficients were not calculated, internal consistency was promoted through clearly defined binary scoring (0 = incorrect/unfavourable, 1 = correct/favourable).

The knowledge section of the questionnaire entirely composed of fact-based questions. Each item was scored as correct (1) or incorrect (0), based on factual accuracy.  

 

STATISTICAL aNALYSIS

A one-sample Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to assess the normality of the data. Square root and log transformation were performed on non-normally distributed data to obtain normality. None of the variables satisfied the normality criterion after log and square root transformations. Hence, nonparametric tests were used to guarantee that the findings were reliable.

The Chi-square test (Pearson chi-square, Fisher exact test, likelihood ratio) was used to assess any association between two categorical variables. We used the Kruskal-Wallis test to compare the knowledge and attitude score with more than two independent categories of socio-demographic variables. The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare the attitude and knowledge score with two independent paired sociodemographic categories. To evaluate the relationship between the total knowledge and attitude score, we performed a Spearman’s correlation test (rho). All the data handling and statistical analysis were performed in Microsoft© Excel and SPSS© 27.

A limitation of this study lies in non-probability convenience sampling approach. The sole use of digital distribution channel may have led to selection bias as those without internet may have left out of the sample. Hence, the findings should be interpreted cautiously.

 

 

RESULTS

 

In total, we received 385 responses. Nine respondents did not consent to participate in the study. A total of 14 additional responses were removed from the final data list. These were the responses that indicated difficulty in understanding the questionnaire (n = 6) and the responses where English was not one of the subjects at their higher secondary education level (n = 8). Hence, a total of 362 responses were considered fit for the final data analysis. The age of the participants ranged between 18 and 33 years with a mean of 23.10 years ± 3.368. The detailed demographic information of the respondents is shown in Table 1.

 

Knowledge score

The total knowledge score for the respondents ranged 3–12, with a mean score of 9.68 ± 1.565. The accurate responses (in percentage) for the knowledge statement by the respondents are detailed in Table 2.

 

Identification of species

Identification of different wild carnivore species and their association with various categories of respondents are laid out in Table 3. Fox was correctly identified by 331 respondents. However, it was confused for Wolf Canis lupus and common dog Canis familiaris by 8.65% (n = 31) of the total respondents. The chi-square test of independence was performed to assess the relationship between various demographic categories of the respondents and the identification of the species.  There was a significant relationship between the identification of fox and the students who studied environmental science at the higher secondary school level χ2 (1, 362) = 3.949, p = 0.047. Students who had environmental science as one of their subjects at higher education level were able to identify the fox more accurately (93.26%) as compared to students without an environmental science background (86.32%).

Bear was the easiest species to be identified by respondents, with 356 (98.3%) respondents correctly identifying the species. It should be noted here that we also considered the responses as accurate, where the Brown Bear was also responded as ‘bear’ by the participants but excluded responses with Polar Bear Ursus maritimus. Six respondents were not able to identify the brown bear correctly, confusing it for the polar bear.

The Snow Leopard was the least identified species by the respondents. It was correctly identified by 255 (70.4%) of the total 362 respondents. The Snow Leopard was confused by the respondents for the common cat Felis catus, Cheetah Acinonyx jubatus, Tiger, and other cat species in terms of identification. There was a significant relationship between gender and identification of Snow Leopard, χ2 (2, 362) = 11.128, p = 0.004, with male respondents identifying the species more accurately (75.71%) as compared to female counterparts (58.77%).

Three-hundred-and-thirteen of the total 362 respondents were able to identify the wolf correctly. However, 13.5% (n = 49) confused it for the common dog, fox, and Jackal Canis aureus.

 

Knowledge score and various factors

The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a non-significant difference, H(2) = 3.885, p = 0.143, in the total knowledge score across three gender categories. However, the distribution of the total knowledge score was significantly different, H(3) = 12.724, P = 0.005, across four categories of faith (Islam, mean rank = 185.45; Buddhism, mean rank = 178.93; Bon-chhos, mean rank = 68.35; prefer not to say, mean rank = 183.64). The distribution of total knowledge scores was significantly different, H(3) = 10.626, P = 0.014 across the different levels of education (graduation, mean rank = 175.05; masters, mean rank = 194.25; PhD, mean rank = 236.82; others higher than 10+2, mean rank = 163.71). The distribution of total knowledge score was not the same, H(3) = 10.120, P = 0.018, across the categories of academic subjects of the respondents at the higher secondary education level (Science, mean rank = 191.73; arts & humanities, mean rank = 159.65; commerce, mean rank = 140.20; others, mean rank = 192.85).

To evaluate the difference in knowledge scores among students who studied environmental science as a subject in their higher secondary education level, a non-parametric Mann Whitney U test was performed. Effect size (r) statistic, was calculated using the below formula:

Where Z is the Z statistic from the Mann-Whitney U test, and N is the number of cases. The test revealed a significant difference in knowledge scores among students who studied environmental science as a subject at their higher secondary school level (median = 10, n = 267) and students who did not study environmental science at their higher secondary school (median = 9, n = 95), U = 9978.000, z = -3.159, p = 0.002, r = 0.166.

 

Attitude score of the respondents

The overall attitude score for the respondents ranged from 4–12, with a mean score of 10.19 ± 1.417. In general, students in higher education possessed a favourable attitude towards the wildlife of the region (Table 4).

A significant difference, H(3) = 20.286, p = <0.001, was observed in the distribution of total attitude score across various categories of faith of the respondents (Islam, mean rank = 183.09; Buddhism; mean rank = 201.36, Bon-chhos, mean rank = 47.50; prefer not to say, n = 195.43). The distribution of the total attitude score of the respondents was not the same, H(3) = 17.006, p = < 0.001, across four categories of the current level of education (graduation, mean rank = 177.80; masters, mean rank = 189.30; PhD, mean rank = 254.45; others (higher than 10+2, n = 157.32). The distribution of overall attitude score was significantly not uniform, H(3) = 5.523, p = 0.037, across categories of respondents’ subjects of study (Science, n = 252; arts/humanities, n = 78; commerce, n = 22; others, n = 10). Further, the Kruskal-Wallis test of the independent sample reflected that the distribution of the total attitude score was significantly different, H(7) = 22.547, p = 0.002, in the categories of the current place of study (Kargil, mean rank = 168.76; Leh, mean rank = 195.00; Srinagar, mean rank = 214.43; Jammu, mean rank = 166.95; Delhi, mean rank = 236.05; Chandigarh, mean rank = 201.36; Dehradun, n = 201.90; others, mean rank = 152.71). Mann Whitney U test revealed a non-significant difference in the total attitude score among students who studied environmental science as a subject in their higher secondary school level (median = 11, n = 267) and students who did not study environmental science in their higher secondary school level (median = 11, n = 95), U = 11466.000, z = -1.476, p = 0.140. The effect size (r = 0.077) of the difference was negligible/very small (Cohen 1988).

 

Relationship between Knowledge Score and Attitude Score

A nonparametric correlation test (Spearman’s rho) was performed to explore any relationship between the total knowledge score and the attitude score. Spearman’s correlation of knowledge score and attitude score was moderately positive and statistically significant, rs = 0.255, p < 0.001, N = 362. This correlation though weak, reflected that the increase in knowledge of the wildlife of the region increases the favourable attitude of students in higher education towards wildlife.

 

 

DISCUSSIONS

 

Although several studies have indicated that females are more afraid of wild animals and have a negative attitude toward them than males (Costello 1982; Klrkpatrick 1984; Kellert & Berry 1987; Arrindell 2000), this study revealed that there was no significant difference in the attitude of university students from Kargil towards wildlife across different gender categories. Although females are more afraid of wild animals, they, on the other hand, place a higher value on wildlife as objects of affection and are more concerned about wildlife exploitation (Kellert & Berry 1987).

The study also revealed that the distribution of the knowledge score was not the same across the different levels of education of the respondents. The knowledge score increased with an increasing level of education. These findings are consistent with the findings of previous researchers who determined that education plays a significant role in influencing knowledge (Fiallo & Jacobson 1995; Pyrovetsi & Daoutopoulos 1997; Gillingham & Lee 1999; Barthwal & Mathur 2012).

 

The attitude of students towards wildlife

The study also revealed that the distribution of the total attitude score was not the same across categories of the subject of the education of the respondents at the higher secondary education level, students with an educational background with arts and science possess a more favourable attitude than those of commerce and other streams. This could be due to fact that students with arts and science as their main subject have an option for choosing environmental science as a subject in their higher secondary school education level.

The study also informed that the increase in knowledge of the wildlife of the region increases the favourable attitude of students in higher education towards it. This, on some level, confirms past studies that reveal education and awareness can improve attitude and tolerance for wild carnivores (Woodroffe 2005), which may further assist in translating knowledge into positive behavioural changes within the student population and further. Another reason could be, living in close proximity to native species improves awareness of their ecology and behaviour, enabling the development of improved management techniques and responses to them (Røskaft et al. 2003).

The significant correlation, though weak (rs = 0.255, p < 0.001) suggests that knowledge may be an important factor that instils a favourable attitudes in humans, but in context to this study it is not the only predictor. This finding also align with existing literature that identifies the importance of other psychosocial variables, such as emotional association with the surroundings, cultural identity, perceived personal risk, or moral values, in determining conservation attitudes (Johansson et al. 2012; Castillo-Huitrón et al. 2020). Another possibility is that individuals’ preexisting attitudes affect their acquisition and interpretation of knowledge, instead of the other way around (Khan et al. 2022). Besides, the study did not used any multivariate regression methods to control for potential influencing variables such as gender, education level, or subject background, etc. These variables can be examined in a regression model in future studies to better understand the independent effects of these variables in attitude formation.

In other parts of the Himalaya, such as Suryawanshi et al. (2014) in Himachal Pradesh and Bhatia et al. (2017) in Ladakh, it was found that people with higher education tend to have more positive attitudes toward large carnivores. In those settings, however, direct experiences of livestock loss or perceived risks often moderated those attitudes. In contrast, in our study, students from Kargil living in or outside of Kargil, may have less firsthand experience of human-wildlife interactions, which may partially explain the overall favourable attitudes despite moderate knowledge levels.

There can also be a significant cultural and religious worldview. The majority of respondents in this study identified with Islamic faith, where the concept of stewardship encourages respect for all forms of life, including wild animals. Likewise, Buddhist principles of non-violence (Ahimsa) in neighboring regions like Zanskar may contribute to conservation-positive attitudes. Furthermore, as Kargil is a geopolitically sensitive and historically underserved border region, wildlife may be viewed less as a threat and more as a symbol of regional identity and ecological uniqueness.

The statistical analyses shows some variation in knowledge scores across religious groups, but this needs to interpreted cautiously. Religious identity alone is unlikely to have any effect on factual ecological knowledge. Rather, these differences may be indicative of larger socio-cultural factors, such as access to education, geographic concentration, and community values & interest on the environment. These pathways could be explored further in future studies more explicitly through qualitative or ethnographic approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

 

Students from Kargil in higher education possessed good knowledge and information of their local wild carnivores and have a favurable attitude towards them; 78.3% of the respondent studied environmental science at their higher secondary education level, this shows students’ interest in understanding and exploring more about the natural environment. Several studies (Kellert 1985; Røskaft et al. 2007; Suryawanshi et al. 2014; Bhatia et al 2017) have revealed that people with higher levels of education and awareness have higher levels of tolerance towards wild carnivores, and other non-charismatic species. Considering knowledge as an important component of human emotions (Castillo-Huitrón et al. 2020), we recommend that the perception and emotions of wild carnivores among local students can be improved by organizing regular awareness campaigns and programs in schools and higher education institutions across Kargil. This approach can also assist in shaping the need to translate knowledge into positive behaviour change of local communities towards wildlife.

Studies had also indicated that education and awareness can improve attitude and tolerance for wild carnivores (Woodroffe 2005), however, educating people who have a negative attitude about large carnivores due to a lack of interest in knowing more about them might be challenging (Bath & Majic 2001; Kaczensky 2003). Better direct experiences, such as understanding the importance of species in tourism and their aesthetic values, can help alleviate fear and promote favourable attitudes toward wildlife (de Pinho et al. 2014). Implementing proper livestock compensation schemes by considering the tangible and intangible cost of livestock loss (e.g., loss of sleep due to worry) by the local communities, setting up proper livestock insurance programs, and promoting eco-tourism could be some of the positive steps in reducing poor attitudes and perceptions towards wildlife and can also serve as initial steps in enhancing their interest in knowing more about species of the region.

The study also reflected that students with environmental science as a subject at their higher secondary education level possess more knowledge about the wildlife of the region. Although environmental sciences, as a subject is taught at a higher secondary school level across Kargil within science and arts stream as an optional subject, we recommend prioritizing the subject at a higher secondary school level to promote knowledge and awareness of wildlife of the region in specific and Environment as a general.

The findings of this study carry important conservation implications. The weak correlation between knowledge and attitudes suggests that awareness campaigns should not focus solely on factual knowledge but also engage with local values, emotions, and lived experiences. Conservation programs targeting youth in Kargil and similar trans-Himalayan landscapes should be designed to reinforce positive perceptions, integrate traditional ecological knowledge, and build platforms for direct and empathetic engagement with wildlife. Additionally, religious and community leaders can be strategic allies in shaping conservation messaging that resonates with local belief systems.

Future research could intensively look into the factors that influence the formation of social attitudes toward wildlife.

 

Table 1. Socio-demographic profile of the respondents to questionnaire about wildlife in Kargil region (N = 362).

 

 

Frequency

Percent (%)

Gender

Male

247

68.2

Female

114

31.5

Prefer not to say

1

0.3

Faith

Islam

307

84.8

Buddhism

38

10.5

Bon-chhos

10

2.8

Prefer not to say

7

1.9

Current education level

Graduation

181

50.0

 

Masters

91

25.1

 

PhD

22

6.1

 

Others (higher than 10+2)

68

18.8

Resident (Block)

Kargil

123

34.0

Zanskar

15

4.1

Shakar-Chiktan

30

8.3

Sankoo

68

18.8

Drass

35

9.7

Taisuru

30

8.3

Cha/Lungnak

4

1.1

Shargole

33

9.1

TSG

24

6.6

Current place of study

Kargil

158

43.6

Leh

17

4.7

Srinagar

22

6.1

Jammu

59

16.3

Delhi

38

10.5

Chandigarh

32

8.8

Dehradun

5

1.4

Others (outside Kargil)

31

8.6

Subject in higher secondary (10+2)

Science

252

69.6

Arts & Humanities

78

21.5

Commerce

22

6.1

Others

10

2.8

Environmental Science as a subject in higher secondary

No

95

26.2

Yes

267

73.8

 

Table 2. Students’ response to knowledge statement/questions.

Question/Statement

Accurate response (%)

Identification of regional wildlife species (fox)

91.4

Identification of regional wildlife species (bear)

98.3

Identification of regional wildlife species (Snow Leopard)

70.4

Identification of regional wildlife species (wolf)

86.5

Kargil has unique and rich biodiversity, due to its special geographical    characteristics

91.2

There are many protected areas for wildlife in Kargil

57.7

Wolves are omnivorous animals?

67.1

Kargil (Ladakh) is sometimes referred to as a 'cold desert' in the scientific community

90.6

Each wild carnivore plays an important role in the 'food web'

95.0

The scientific name of the fox is (Vulpes vulpes or Canis lupus)

75.7

The largest carnivore species of Kargil is (the Brown Bear or Snow Leopard)

66.3

Tigers (Panthera tigris) are also found in Kargil

77.9

 

 

Table 3. Association between categories of respondents and identification of species.

Respondent categories

Variables

Fox

Bear

Snow Leopard

Wolf

Ci (%)

Ii (%)

Asso.

df

Sig.

(p value)

Ci (%)

Ii (%)

Asso.

df

Sig. (p value)

Ci  (%)

Ii (%)

Asso.

df

Sig. (p value)

Ci (%)

Ii (%)

Asso.

df

Sig. (p value)

Gender

Male

92.31

7.69

5.328* (G2)

2

0.07

98.38

1.62

0.042 (G2)

2

0.979

75.7

24.3

11.128 (G2)

2

0.004

87.04

12.96

0.542 (G2)

2

0.762

Female

90.35

9.65

98.25

1.75

58.78

41.22

85.09

14.91

Prefer not to say

0

100

100

0

100

0

100

0

Faith

Islam

91.86

8.14

5.128 (G2)

3

0.163

98.7

1.3

6.183 (G2)

3

0.103

71.66

28.34

12.023 (G2)*

3

0.007

85.99

14.01

0.492 (G2)

3

0.921

Buddhism

92.11

7.89

100

0

71.05

28.95

89.47

10.53

Bos-chhoss

70

30

90

10

20

80

90

10

Prefer not to say

100

0

85.72

14.28

87.5

12.5

85.72

14.28

Block resident

Kargil

90.24

9.76

8.139 (G2)

8

0.42

98.38

1.62

4.759 (G2)

8

0.783

65.04

34.96

5.911 (G2)

8

0.657

85.37

14.63

17.458 (G2)*

8

0.026

Zanskar

93.34

6.66

100

0

60

40

80

20

Shakar-Chiktan

96.67

3.33

100

0

73.34

26.66

83.34

16.66

Sankoo

92.65

7.35

97.06

2.94

73.53

26.47

85.3

14.7

Drass

85.72

14.28

97.14

2.86

80

20

74.29

25.71

Taisuru

83.34

16.66

96.67

3.33

76.67

23.33

100

0

Lungnak

100

0

100

0

50

50

100

0

Shargole

96.97

3.03

100

0

72.73

27.27

90.91

9.09

TSG

87.38

12.62

100

0

70.84

29.16

95.84

4.16

Current education level

Graduation

93.37

6.63

2.364 (G2)

3

0.5

99.45

0.55

4.288 (G2)

3

0.232

71.27

28.73

6.623 (G2)

3

0.085

90.06

9.94

10.534 (G2)*

3

0.015

Masters

91.21

8.79

97.71

2.29

67.04

32.96

85.72

14.28

PhD

86.37

13.63

100

0

90.91

9.09

95.46

4.54

Other

88.24

11.76

97.06

2.94

66.18

33.82

75

25

Current place of Study

Kargil

92.41

7.59

4.078 (G2)

7

0.771

99.37

0.63

5.436 (G2)

7

0.607

62.66

37.34

21.189 (G2)*

7

0.003

82.09

17.91

3.699 (G2)

7

0.814

Leh

94.12

5.88

100

0

64.71

35.29

78.58

21.42

Srinagar

81.82

18.18

100

0

77.28

22.72

84.21

15.79

Jammu

89.83

10.17

98.31

1.69

64.41

35.59

90.74

9.26

Delhi

89.47

10.53

94.74

5.26

86.84

13.16

81.25

18.75

Chandigarh

93.75

6.25

96.875

3.125

78.13

21.87

85.72

14.28

Dehradun

100

0

100

0

100

0

100

0

Others

93.55

6.45

96.77

3.23

87.1

12.9

85.19

14.81

Subject in Higher Secondary

Science

92.46

7.54

4.433 (G2)

3

0.218

98.41

1.59

1.415 (G2)

3

0.702

72.23

27.77

4.552 (G2)

3

0.208

88.1

11.9

2.660 (G2)

3

0.447

Arts

89.74

10.26

97.44

2.56

64.11

35.89

80.77

19.23

Commerce

81.82

18.18

100

0

63.64

36.36

86.37

13.63

Others

100

0

100

0

90

10

90

10

EVSin 10+2

Yes

86.32

13.68

 

1

0.053 (Ƥ)

96.84

3.16

 

1

0.188 (Ƥ)

72.63

27.37

0.297 (χ2)

1

0.586

82.11

17.89

2.091 (χ2)

 

1

0.148

No

93.26

6.74

98.88

1.12

69.66

30.34

 

88.02

11.98

G2—Likelihood ratio | Ƥ—Fisher exact | χ2—Pearson chi-square | EVS—Environmental science as a subject | *—significant at 0.05 | Ci—Correct identification | Ii—Incorrect identification | Asso.—Association.

 

Table 4. Students’ response to attitude statement/questions.

Question/ Statement

Favourable response (%)

Do you think there should be more emphasis on the wildlife-related curriculum/subjects in schools?

92.5

There should be more protected areas in Kargil to conserve and protect biodiversity?

90.3

Local people living in areas adjacent to wild carnivores should be educated and aware about wild carnivores?

88.7

Wild carnivores should be protected even if it incurs a loss of some livestock

82.9

Would you be interested or thrilled to see a snow-leopard in wild?

91.2

It is Important to protect wild carnivores of Kargil

75.4

I feel relieved and comforted when there are efforts to protect the wildlife of Kargil

94.2

Conservation of the wild carnivores is necessary for human survival

91.7

Curriculum/subjects focusing on local and global wildlife should be included in school  education

95.5

In geographically challenging regions, like Kargil, the wise use of natural resources is necessary

96.7

Every student especially in higher education must have good basic knowledge of the wildlife of his/her region

90.9

We should respect and strive to protect all living beings, including wild carnivores as an integral part of the ecosystem

95.0

 

 

FOR IMAGE - - CLICK HERE FOR FULL PDF

 

REFERENCES

 

Adams, W.M. & J. Hutton (2007). People, parks and poverty: Political ecology and biodiversity conservation. Conservation and Society 5(2): 147–183.

Arrindell, W.A. (2000). Phobic dimensions: IV. The structure of animal fears. Behaviour Research and Therapy 38(5): 509–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00097-2

Barthwal, S.C. & V.B. Mathur (2012). Teachers’ knowledge of and attitude toward wildlife and conservation. Mountain Research and Development 32(2): 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-11-00040.1

Barua, M. et al. (2013). The hidden dimensions of human-wildlife conflict: Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs. Biological Conservation 157: 309–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.014

Bath, A. & A. Majic (2001). Human dimensions in wolf management in Croatia. Large Carnivore Initiative for Europe Report. http://www.large-carnivores-lcie.org. Accessed on 5.i.2022.

Bhagwat, S.A. et al. (2011). The role of religion in linking conservation and development: Challenges and opportunities. Journal for the Study of Religion. Nature & Culture 5(1).  https://doi.org/10.1558/jsrnc.v5i1.39

Bhatia, S. et al. (2017). The relationship between religion and attitudes toward large carnivores in northern India? Human Dimensions of Wildlife 22(1): 30–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2016.1220034

Boso, À. et al. (2021). Understanding human attitudes towards bats and the role of information and aesthetics to boost a positive response as a conservation tool. Animal Conservation 24(6): 937–945. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12692

Bowen-Jones, E. & A. Entwistle (2002). Identifying appropriate flagship species: the importance of cultural and local contexts. Oryx 36(2): 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605302000261

Castillo-Huitrón, N.M. et al. (2020). The importance of human emotions for wildlife conservation. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 1277. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01277

Census of India (2011). Provisional population totals. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, New Delhi.

Ciocănea, C.M. et al. (2016). Assessing public perception on protected areas in Iron Gates Natural Park. Procedia Environmental Sciences 32: 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.03.013

Cohen, J. (1988). The Effect Size. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge, Abingdon.

Conover, M. (2002). Resolving human-wildlife conflicts: The science of wildlife damage management. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

Costello, C.G. (1982). Fears and phobias in women: A community study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 91(4): 280–286.

de Pinho, J.R. et al. (2014). Influence of aesthetic appreciation of wildlife species on attitudes towards their conservation in Kenyan agropastoralist communities. PloS ONE 9(2): e88842. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088842

Dickman, A.J. et al. (2014). Carnivores, culture and ‘contagious conflict’: Multiple factors influence perceived problems with carnivores in Tanzania’s Ruaha landscape. Biological Conservation 178: 19–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.07.011

Dickman, A.J. & L. Hazzah (2016). Money, myths and man-eaters: Complexities of human–wildlife conflict, pp. 339–356. In: Angelici, F.M. (ed.). Problematic Wildlife. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22246-2_16

District Statistics & Evaluation Officer Kargil (2020). Statistical Handbook 2018–19. https://kargil.nic.in/

Fiallo, E.A. & S.K. Jacobson (1995). Local communities and protected areas: Attitudes of rural residents towards conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environmental Conservation 22(3): 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689290001064X

Gellner, D.N. (2013). Borderland Lives in Northern South Asia. Duke University Press.

Gillingham, S. & P.C. Lee (1999). The impact of wildlife-related benefits on the conservation attitudes of local people around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environmental Conservation 26(3): 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892999000302

Inskip, C. & A. Zimmermann (2009). Human-felid conflict: a review of patterns and priorities worldwide. Oryx 43(1): 18–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S003060530899030X

Johansson, M. et al. (2012). Factors governing human fear of brown bear and wolf. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17(1): 58–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2012.619001

Kaczensky, P. (2003). Is coexistence possible? Public opinion of large carnivores in the Alps and Dinaric Mountains, pp. 59–89. In: Krystufek, B. et al. (eds.). Living With Bears: A Large Carnivore in a Shrinking World. Ecological Forum of the Liberal Democracy of Slovenia, Ljubljana.

Kargil district - Wikipedia (2022). Retrieved 16.viii.2021 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_district

Kellert, S.R. (1985). Public perceptions of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote. Biological Conservation 31(2): 167–189.

Kellert, S.R. & J.K. Berry (1987). Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973–2006) 15(3): 363–371.

Kellert, S.R. et al. (1996). Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Conservation Biology 10(4): 977–990. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10040977.x

Khan, K. et al. (2022). Gender differences in perception and awareness of climate change in the Suru valley of Western Himalayas, India. Current World Environment Journal 17(1): 88–98. https://doi.org/10.12944/cwe.17.1.8

Kirkpatrick, D.R. (1984). Age, gender and patterns of common intense fears among adults. Behaviour Research and Therapy 22(2): 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(84)90102-5

Kruuk, H. (2002). Hunter and Hunted: Relationships between Carnivores and People. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lescureux, N. & J.D. Linnell (2010). Knowledge and perceptions of Macedonian hunters and herders: The influence of species-specific ecology of bears, wolves, and lynx. Human Ecology 38(3): 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-010-9326

Lyamuya, R.D. et al. (2014). Human–carnivore conflict over livestock in the eastern part of the Serengeti ecosystem, with a particular focus on the African wild dog Lycaon pictus. Oryx 48(3): 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605312001706

Maheshwari, A. (2016). Conservation and management of snow leopard and co-predators with special reference of large carnivore-human conflicts in the select areas of Western Himalayas. PhD Thesis, Saurashtra University.

Maheshwari, A. & S. Sathyakumar (2020). Patterns of livestock depredation and large carnivore conservation implications in the Indian Trans-Himalaya. Journal of Arid Environments 182: 104241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaridenv.2020.104241

Marchini, S. & D. Macdonald (2012). Predicting ranchers’ intention to kill jaguars: case studies in Amazonia and Pantanal. Biological Conservation 147(1): 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.002

McLeod, E. & M. Palmer (2015). Why conservation needs religion. Coastal Management 43(3): 238–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2015.1030297

Megaze, A. et al. (2017). Human-wildlife conflict and attitude of local people towards conservation of wildlife in Chebera Churchura National Park, Ethiopia. African Zoology 52(1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15627020.2016.1254063

Mir, Z.R. et al. (2015). Attitudes of local people toward wildlife conservation: A case study from the Kashmir Valley. Mountain Research and Development 35(4): 392–400. https://doi.org/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-15-00030.1

Naughton-Treves, L. (1997). Farming the forest edge: vulnerable places and people around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Geographical Review 87(1): 27–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/215656

Naughton-Treves, L.A. & A. Treves (2005). Socio-ecological factors shaping local support for wildlife: Crop-raiding by elephants and other wildlife in Africa, pp. 252–277. In: Woodroffe, R. et al. (eds.). People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Pfister, O. (2004). Birds and Mammals of Ladakh. Oxford University Press.

Prokop, P. & C. Randler (2018). Biological predispositions and individual differences in human attitudes toward animals, pp. 447–466. In: Alves, R.R.N. & A.P.D. de Albuquerque (eds.). Ethnozoology: Animals in Our Lives. Academic Press, Cambridge, MA.

Pyrovetsi, M. & G. Daoutopoulos (1997). Contrasts in conservation attitudes and agricultural practices between farmers operating in wetlands and a plain in Macedonia, Greece. Environmental Conservation 24(1): 76–82.

Røskaft, E. et al. (2003). Patterns of self-reported fear towards large carnivores among the Norwegian public. Evolution and Human Behavior 24(3): 184–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00011-4

Røskaft, E. et al. (2007). Human attitudes towards large carnivores in Norway. Wildlife Biology 13(2): 172–185. https://doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396(2007)13[172:HATLCI]2.0.CO;2

Schwartz, S.H. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology 5(2–3): 137–182. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913306778667357

SECMOL (2022). Education Reforms and ONH. https://secmol.org/about/education-reforms/education-in-ladakh/

Shrestha, R.K. & J.R.R. Alavalapati (2006). Linking conservation and development: An analysis of local people’s attitude towards Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Environment, Development and Sustainability 8(1): 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-005-0188-5

Smith, S.H. & M. Gergan (2015). The diaspora within: Himalayan youth, education-driven migration, and future aspirations in India. Environment and Planning D: Society & Space 33(1): 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1068/d13152p

Suryawanshi, K.R. et al. (2014). Multiscale factors affecting human attitudes toward snow leopards and wolves. Conservation Biology 28(6): 1657–1666. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12320

The Hindu (2021). Parliament passes Bill to set up Central University in Ladakh. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/parliament-passes-bill-to-set-up-central-university-in-ladakh/article35815097.ece

University of Ladakh (2020). About UOL. https://www.universityofladakh.org.in/about-us

Vodouhê, F.G. et al. (2010). Community perception of biodiversity conservation within protected areas in Benin. Forest Policy and Economics 12(7): 505–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.06.008

Woodroffe, R. (2000). Predators and people: Using human densities to interpret declines of large carnivores. Animal Conservation Forum 3(2): 165–173. Cambridge University Press.

Woodroffe, R. et al. (2005). The future of coexistence, pp. 1–8. In: People and Wildlife: Conflict or Coexistence? Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614774