Insight for mitigating human-carnivore conflict from predation risk maps of tiger and leopard attacks on livestock

Background/Question/Methods

Human-carnivore conflict stemming from predator attacks on livestock is a primary driver of livelihood loss and carnivore declines worldwide. Many strategies for reducing conflict offer retroactive relief rather than proactive prevention. A preemptive and cost-efficient strategy would be to avoid livestock kills by grazing livestock in habitats where carnivores are less likely to attack. Yet because people’s responses and retaliations are ultimately shaped by perceptions more than realities, effective mitigation of conflict requires not only understanding risks from carnivores to humans but also how people perceive risk from carnivores. Misperceptions can result in misdirected efforts and wasted resources focused on areas where threats from carnivores are actually low. To refine strategies for reducing livestock depredation and conserving carnivores, we examined how carnivore hunting patterns shape the risk of attack on domestic prey relative to people’s perceptions of risk. Using tigers and leopards as a case study, we generated predation risk models and prediction maps by relating the spatial locations of 392 livestock kill sites and 349 random control sites to remote sensing data on environmental and anthropogenic predictor variables. We also surveyed 115 livestock owners about their spatial perceptions of carnivore attacks and extrapolated risk rankings to land cover maps.

Results/Conclusions

Discrepancies between predicted and perceived attack risk offered insight into methods for strengthening livestock protection efforts. Prediction maps from models based on actual attacks showed distinct hunting patterns between the carnivores. Tigers targeted livestock in dense vegetation away from roads and villages while leopards attacked in open vegetation with disregard to human presence. Risk maps provided a quantitative and visual aid for identifying high-risk landscape features and developing unique spatially refined strategies for reducing livestock vulnerability to each carnivore. Maps of risk perceptions further revealed that livestock owners recognize differences between tiger and leopard attack locations and accurately understand the highest-risk habitats for both carnivores. However, people overestimate low-risk areas, indicating an inflated perception of threat that may result in inefficient efforts spent in habitats where carnivores don’t often attack. Furthermore, these results suggest high levels of fear towards carnivores, which may skew people’s ability to detect spatial gradients of attack risk and could also hamper carnivore conservation efforts. Comparing spatial distributions of carnivore attack risk relative to people’s perceptions of attack risk can help refine strategies for protecting livestock and ultimately reduce livelihood losses and lethal retaliations against carnivores.