Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 497–503

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal for Nature Conservation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.de/jnc

Protected species outside the protected areas: People’s attitude,

threats and conservation of the Yellow Monitor (Varanus flavescens) in
the Far-western Lowlands of Nepal
Hemant R. Ghimire a,∗ , Sunita Phuyal a , Karan B. Shah b
a
Central Department of Environmental Science, Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal
b
Natural History Museum, Tribhuvan University, Swoyambhu, Kathmandu, Nepal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Although there is high potential for conservation of species outside protected areas, it is often neglected in
Received 28 June 2013 researches and conservation programs. Protected species are legally protected even outside the protected
Received in revised form 7 August 2014 areas and can be flagships for conservation in these areas, but their conservation aspects in these areas
Accepted 7 August 2014
are poorly studied. We studied conservation aspects of a poorly known species, Yellow Monitor (Varanus
flavescens), which is protected in most of its range countries, outside the protected areas in the Far-
Keywords:
western lowlands of Nepal. We studied people’s relationship, attitudes and threats to the species through
Adult
questionnaire survey with adults and children in Parasan Village Development Committee of Kanchanpur
Awareness
Children
District. We found that most of the adults were unaware about the protected status and importance of the
Fear species, and both adults as well as children killed the species. The study revealed that most of the killing
Killing occurred in agricultural land and children were more responsible for the killing than the adults. We found
Species vulnerability that monsoon vacation in schools increased the threat to the species. Our study revealed that fear from
Unprotected areas the species was the main reason and use of the species as food, medicine and hide were other reasons for
Vacation killing of the species by adults. Low awareness was the major reason behind the killing by children as most
of the killing was not related to any good reasons. We estimated that 87 individuals of the species could
have been killed in the area in that year. Based on available evidences, we recommend further studies
to predict the vulnerability of the species. Our study suggests that raising awareness among locals about
its legal status and importance is the simple and efficient measure for the conservation of the species as
well as for conserving other protected species outside the protected areas.
© 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Introduction et al., 2013; Rayner, Lindenmayer, Wood, Gibbons, & Manning,

Protected areas (PAs) are one of the important bases for conserv-
ing the world’s biodiversity (Defries, Hansen, Newton, & Hansen,
2005; Rodrigues et al., 2004), however, they are insufficient to rep-
resent and conserve the world’s remaining biodiversity (Gaston,
Jackson, Cantu-Salazar, & Cruz-Pinon, 2008; Miller & Hobbs, 2002;
Rodrigues et al., 2004). As PAs are normally created on the basis
of the umbrella species concept, they may not protect all species
equally (Caro, 2001; Kerr, 1997). Numerous studies have empha-
sized the importance of the areas outside PAs (unprotected areas)
for species conservation (e.g. Balme, Slotow, & Hunter, 2010; Galvez
∗ Corresponding author. Present address: Kathmandu, Nepal.
Tel.: +977 9849225062.
E-mail addresses: hemantrajghimire@yahoo.com, hemantghimire@hotmail.com
(H.R. Ghimire).
2014). In addition, PAs do not effectively represent reptiles (Araujo,
Lobo, & Moreno, 2007) and some reptile species are more abun-
dant in unprotected areas in comparison to PAs (Smart, Whiting,
& Twine, 2005). So, unprotected areas are of even greater impor-
tance for reptiles. However, despite their importance in faunal
conservation, unprotected areas are often neglected and threat-
ened (Rodrigues et al., 2004).
Wild faunas cross boundaries of PAs and usually inhabit loca-
tions outside them (Gaston et al., 2008), where they become
unprotected. However, protected species are legally protected even
in the unprotected areas. Despite threats on the unprotected areas,
species do not avoid these areas (e.g. leopard in South Africa: Balme
et al., 2010). In addition, species extinction in the unprotected areas
increases their extinction probability even inside PAs (Mcdonald,
Kareiva, & Forman, 2008; Gaston et al., 2008; Purvis, Gittleman,
Cowlishaw, & Mace, 2000). Due to these reasons, if unpro-
tected areas are not considered for conservation, it may threaten

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2014.08.003
1617-1381/© 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
498 H.R. Ghimire et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 497–503
survival of a species. As importance of the protected species is
already recognized by country, they can be useful for increas-
ing awareness for biodiversity conservation in the unprotected
areas.
Conservation has a higher probability of being successful if it
is backed up by public support (Miller & Hobbs, 2002; Rosalino
& Rosalino, 2012), and their support depends on people’s percep-
tion. Negative attitudes about wildlife create difficulties in their
conservation (Alves et al., 2014; Knapp, Iverson, Buckner, & Cant,
2011; Sarasola, Santillan, & Galmes, 2010). Most of the conserva-
tion efforts are focused on few charismatic species and unpopular
animals are often decimated with little concern, and reptiles are
among the unpopular animals (Ballouard et al., 2013; Ceriaco,
Marques, Madeira, Vila-vicosa, & Mendes, 2011). Negative per-
ception towards reptiles is widespread (Ceriaco et al., 2011) and
children are no exception (Alves et al., 2014). Children’s attitude is
important for conservation as they can influence adults’ behaviour
(Damerell, Howe, & Milner-Gulland, 2013). So, it is important to
study the relationship between human and reptile for the conser-
vation of the reptile (Alves et al., 2012).
The Yellow monitor, Varanus flavescens, known as Sun Gohoro in
Nepali language, is a legally protected reptile in its range countries
including Nepal except Bhutan (Ghimire & Shah, 2014). Although
it is listed as Lower Risk/Least Concern species in IUCN Red Data
List (World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 1996), it is listed in
Appendix I of CITES (2013). Despite the protected status, it is poorly
studied (Auffenberg, Rahman, Iffat, & Perveen, 1989) and faces var-
ious threats in Nepal (Ghimire & Shah, 2014; Shah & Tiwari, 2004),
but these threats to the species have not been intensively studied.
Due to this, knowledge gaps exist for the species; in addition its
IUCN status has not been updated since 1996 (World Conservation
Monitoring Centre, 1996). As the monitor is often found in agri-
cultural land (Ghimire & Shah, 2014), it is essential to study the
conservation aspects of the species such as threats and people’s
attitude to the species in unprotected areas.
As direct killing is a major threat to the reptiles (Smart et al.,
2005) and to the Yellow Monitor (Ghimire & Shah, 2014), this
study mainly focuses on direct killing due to different reasons. In
the study, we studied human relation and attitudes towards the
Yellow Monitor with the help of a questionnaire survey. We also
analyzed the cause of the threat and way to minimize the threat to
the species. As there is no any data about quantification of threats
to the species such as killing, we tried to quantify the killing of
the species in the study area. Although having limitations in qual-
ity, local knowledge can be very useful for quantification of threat
in situation of constrained resources (Golden, 2009; Jenkins et al.,
2011; Moore et al., 2010; Turvey et al., 2013) and we used chil-
dren’s and adults’ knowledge for quantification of the killing. As a
case study, it gives some insights for conservation of a protected
species in unprotected areas.
Methods
Study area
The study was conducted in the Parasan Village Development
Committee (VDC) of Kanchanpur District, Nepal that lies on the
southeastern border of the district (see Ghimire & Phuyal, 2013;
Ghimire & Shah, 2014). The VDC has an area of 37.90 sq km. (CBS,
2007) and roughly lies on 28◦ 37 30 N and 80◦ 30 00 E. The VDC lies
more than 10 km away from the Suklaphanta Wildlife Reserve, the
nearest PA of Nepal. Although, the study area is connected to the
Dudhwa National Park (India) with its eastern border, it is far from
the network of PAs of Nepal including corridors between PAs. No
other conservation activities were conducted in the study area and
it is practically completely outside the network of PAs. Although,
the study area was wholly forested as famous Char Koshe Jhadi (four
mile bush), it was deforested after the 1960s and presently Jana
Jagaran Community Forest is the only natural forest of the VDC.
Besides the Yellow Monitor, various nationally protected ani-
mals such as Asiatic Rock Python (Python molurus), Sarus Crane
(Grus antigone), Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus) inhabit or visit
the study area. Other globally threatened animals such as Marsh
Crocodile (Crocodylus palustris), Smooth-coated Otter (Lutrogale
perspicillata) inhabit the area; and Pyara Tal (lake) in the area con-
tains three globally threatened species of turtle and is the only
reported habitat for Crowned River Turtle (Hardella thurjii) in Nepal
(Aryal, Dhamala, Bhurtel, Suwal, & Rijal, 2010). The important flo-
ral species of the study area are Sal (Shorea robusta), Simal (Bombax
ceiba), Sindure (Mallotus philipensis) and Sissoo (Dalbergia sissoo).
Major ethnic groups of the VDC are Brahmin, Chhetri, Kami, Damai,
Sarki, Tamang, Rana Tharu and Chaudhary Tharu and at least five
different languages are spoken in the area.
Questionnaire preparation
We used interview method by using structured questionnaire
to understand the human relationship and attitudes towards the
Yellow Monitor (Huntington, 2000; Smart et al., 2005; Turvey
et al., 2013). We prepared structured questionnaires based on the
data collected from preceding studies (Ghimire, 2012; Ghimire &
Shah, 2014) regarding human relationship and threats towards the
species. We prepared two separate questionnaires for adults and
children containing 15 questions and 10 questions respectively.
The reasons for these short questionnaires were to increase the
reliability of data and decrease the non-response rate.
Questions related to the attitudes towards the species such
as fear of the species, willingness to conserve the species were
included in the questionnaire for adults. The questionnaire also
included questions on whether adults tolerated the species in their
vicinity i.e. they let the species thrive in their vicinity or tried to
kill/remove species from their vicinity. In this study, we tried to
get information about killing of the species such as reasons behind
the killing, numbers of killing, place of killing, consumption of the
meat of the species by both children and adults. The questions
related to knowledge about the species such as the protected sta-
tus and importance were included in adults’ questionnaire. As it is
a protected species, importance of the species means its ecologi-
cal role such as agricultural pest control, and utility value such as
consumption of meat (as food and medicine) and use of skin are
not included. Hence, if respondent replied that he/she know about
the importance of the species, we tried to know about the types of
importance and if the importance was related to use as resources,
we concluded that they did not know its importance. We did not
include any questions likely to cause respondents to hesitate such
as economic status, but it was calculated by using agricultural land,
house type, and income sources. The lists of questions included in
the questionnaires are in Appendices I and II.
Questionnaire survey
We conducted the survey in January–February 2012. For the
questionnaire survey of adults, we randomly selected and inter-
viewed a member (above 16 years) from each of the 209 households
out of 2554 households in the VDC, among which 90 were female
(43.1%). The interviews were conducted in the respondents’ res-
idence. The age of the respondents varied from 17 to 70 years
(mean = 32.37, s.d. = 12.35). We also categorized the respondents
according to their ethnicity, occupation, education and economic
status. We categorized economic status into five classes according
to their annual family income as very low (≤NRs 30,000), low (NRs
 H.R. Ghimire et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 497–503
30,000–80,000), low middle (NRs 80,000–150,000), high middle
(NRs 150,000–300,000) and high (>NRs 300,000) ($ 1 ≈ NRs 90). The
classification was based on local economy (Hemant R. Ghimire pers.
obs.) and discussions with local people, local teachers, professors
and peers in the Tribhuvan University.
As about 98% children of schooling age were enrolled in schools
in the study year (VDC Profile of Parasan, 2012), we assumed that all
children between 8 to 16 years are represented in schools. Hence,
we conducted the questionnaire survey at local schools (primary
to secondary level). We interviewed children (students) in a sep-
arate room with only one researcher and the student. We made
friendly relationship with the children to comfort them and make
the interviews less biased. We chose students from grade 2 to 10
in private school and from 3 to 10 in government school, due to
difference in their ages in a class. We randomly selected and inter-
viewed 215 children out of the 3225 children of that age group in
all 16 schools of that area, among which 94 (43.7%) were female.
Among the children, 172 (80%) were from governmental and 43
(20%) from private schools. The less representation of children from
private school was due to less number of total children in com-
parison to that of the governmental schools. We also categorized
the respondents according to their ethnicity, major occupations of
parents and education level of parents.
We conducted interviews in the Nepali language and if the
respondent did not know Nepali then we used a translator to trans-
late Nepali into their ethnic language. During the interviews, we
also used photos of the species because some people did not know
the species by its Nepali name. We noted down the responses in
a notebook during the interviews. We ensured respondents (both
adults and children) regarding the confidentiality of the informa-
tion they had provided. During the questionnaire survey, we also
asked cross checking questions (not included in questionnaires) to
increase the reliability of the data.
Analysis of data
We described the frequencies for the nominal variables and
mean with standard deviation for the ratio variables. We used
Pearson Chi-square test to determine any association between two
variables and standard confidence level was taken as 95%. The esti-
mation of killing was calculated by using average rate of killing per
100 people, and then multiplied it by the total number of people of
the category divided by 100, who killed the species.
Results
Conservation attitude
We found adults and children had different attitudes about the
Yellow Monitor. Most adult (97.1%) and child (78.6%) respondents
reported having seen the species. We found that more than half
of the respondents (63.9% of adults and 59.1% of children) were
afraid of the species. However, none of the adults claimed that the
species had harmed them. We also found that most of the adult
respondents did not know about the legal protected status (65.1%)
and importance (77%) of the species. However, most of the adult
respondents (74.6%) had expressed their willingness to conserve
the species in their area.
Killing of the species
We found that both adults and children killed the Yellow Mon-
itor, and 2.3% of the child respondents had killed the species in
that year. In addition, 14.9% child and 10.1% of the adult respon-
dents had killed the species in past. However, none of the adult
respondents reported killing the species in that year. We found
499
that most of the adult respondents had killed the species due to
fear (38.33%) followed by its use as resources for hide, food and
medicine (33.33%), to save pets (4.8%) and about one fourth (23.8%)
of the respondents killed the species without any reason. However,
the child respondents reported killing the species without any rea-
son (64.5%) followed by fear (19.4%) and its use as resources (16.1%).
Most of the adult respondents killed the species in agricultural land
(44.44%) followed by near or around houses (29.62%) and forests
(25.92%).
About one-third (31.2%) of the adult respondents said they could
not tolerate the Yellow Monitor near their house, whereas only
14.9% could not tolerate it in agricultural land and a small fraction of
the respondents (6.7%) could not tolerate it even inside forest. More
adult respondents who were afraid of the species, did not tolerate
the species near their house (2 = 17.53, p < 0.001) than not afraid
ones. In addition, a non-significant association exists between fear
and tolerance in agricultural land (2 = 2.87, p = 0.09). However, we
did not find significant association between fear of the species and
tolerance in forest (2 = 0.365, p = 0.546).
More adult respondents (7.7%) consumed meat of the Yellow
Monitor than the child respondents (2.3%). We found that killing
and consuming the meat were associated as adult respondents
who had consumed the meat killed more individuals of the species
(2 = 40.68, p < 0.001). We found that consumption of the meat
of the species was associated with economic status of the adult
respondents as more adult respondents with higher economic sta-
tus (high and high-middle) had consumed meat as compared to
lower economic status (2 = 13.43, p = 0.009). However, we did not
find significant association between killing of the species and eco-
nomic status of adult respondents (2 = 6.56, p = 0.161).
Children and threats to the species
We found that children often killed the Yellow Monitor dur-
ing their vacation. During the vacation, children go for herding (for
grazing families’ livestock), which increases killing of the species as
the child respondents who had gone for herding killed more species
(2 = 10.29, p = 0.001). In addition, all children who had killed the
species in that year had gone herding. More than half of the child
respondents (58.6%) had gone for herding and among them, most
of them had gone in monsoon (summer) vacation (90.5%) followed
by other vacations (71.4%), morning school days (39.7%) and after-
noon school days (20.6%). Almost all the child respondents (99.1%)
said that their teachers did not say anything about not to kill the
species. Similarly, most of the students (87%) said that their parents
also did not say anything about not to kill the species. We did not
find significant difference in killing of the species by governmental
and private school children (2 = 0.04, p = 0.85).
Gender and threats to the species
The Yellow Monitor does not face the same threat from males
and females as they have different attitudes. We found that females
were more afraid of the species in both adult (2 = 12.45, p < 0.001)
and child respondents (2 = 4.32, p = 0.04). However, only one of
the female respondents, a child, had killed the species directly.
We found that gender was associated with killing of the species
and opposite to the fear attitude, male respondents often killed
the species than female in both adults (2 = 17.47, p < 0.001) and
children (2 = 25.18, p < 0.001). In addition, all respondents who
had killed the species that year were male children. However, we
did not find any significant difference in consumption of meat of
the species between male and female respondents in both adults
(2 = 2.24, p = 0.13) and children (2 = 1.17, p = 0.28). Compared to
the adult female respondents, adult male respondents were less
tolerant to the species in forest (2 = 7.79, p = 0.005). However,
500 H.R. Ghimire et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 497–503
we did not find significant association between gender and toler-
ance of respondents towards the species in both nearer to houses
(2 = 0.3, p = 0.58) and agricultural land (2 = 0.25, p = 0.62) in adult
respondents. Although there was no significant gender difference in
knowing the importance (2 = 0.31, p = 0.579) and protected status
of the species (2 = 1.69, p = 0.19), more male (79%) were posi-
tive for conservation of the species than female (68.88%) in adult
respondents.
Estimation of killing
As only male children killed the Yellow Monitor in that year,
we considered male children for the estimation of the killing. Out
of 125 male children interviewed, five children had killed seven
individuals of the species. Hence, we estimated the killing rate as
5.6 individuals of the species per 100 male children of that age.
Therefore, it can be estimated that 87 individuals of the species
could have been killed in the study area in the study year (based on
1561 male children of that age in schools of the study area).
Conservation of the species
More adult respondents who were less afraid of the Yellow Mon-
itor, wanted to conserve the species as compared to afraid ones
(2 = 15.35, p < 0.001). We found that fewer adult respondents who
knew the importance of the species were found to be afraid of
the species (2 = 77.54, p < 0.001), and intolerable to the species
near house (2 = 24.71, p < 0.001), in agriculture land (2 = 10.33
p = 0.001) and in forest (2 = 4.5, p = 0.034). Similarly, fewer adult
respondents who knew the protected status of the species were
found to be afraid of the species (2 = 51.32, p < 0.001), and intoler-
able to the species near house (2 = 9.46, p < 0.002), in agriculture
land (2 = 5.75, p = 0.016) and in forest (2 = 5.15, p = 0.023). In
addition, we found that more adult respondents who knew the
protected status (2 = 34.01, p < 0.001) and importance (2 = 21.17,
p < 0.001), were willing to conserve the species. However, we did
not find significant association between attitude of adult respon-
dents for conserving the species and their education level (2 = 5.32,
p = 0.150), economic status (2 = 1.14, p = 0.888), and occupation
(2 = 6.32, p = 0.177).
Less awareness among children played an important role in the
killing of the Yellow Monitor, as none of the children who killed
the species in that year had been told not to kill the Yellow Monitor
by their parents or teachers. In addition, fewer child respondents
killed the species when made aware by their parents (2 = 5.63,
p = 0.018). However, we did not find significant association between
education level of parents and attitude of parents to aware their
children (2 = 2.13, p = 0.548).
Discussion
Conservation of Yellow Monitor
In spite of more than 35 years of legal protected status, we found
most of the people were unaware about the protected status and
importance of the Yellow Monitor. This problem is common in
various countries for other protected species: geckos in Portugal
(Ceriaco et al., 2011) and various protected species in USA (Brook,
Zint, & De Young, 2003). Local people of the study area knew only
about high profile species such as Bengal Tiger (Panthera tigris),
Asian Elephant, Rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis) as protected animals
(Ghimire, 2012). Although, reptiles are killed in large number in
various countries due to their commercial value or they are con-
sidered dangerous (Alves et al., 2012; Ceriaco, 2012; Smart et al.,
2005), they are often neglected by conservation efforts (Ballouard
et al., 2013) and researches (Christoffel & Lepczyk, 2012). Listed in
CITES and protected species list are the only known conservation
initiatives taken for the Yellow Monitor (see World Conservation
Monitoring Centre, 1996). This suggests that the monitor is not
among the priority species for conservation in Nepal.
Fear is the main reason for killing of the Yellow Monitor by
adults and second most probable reason for killing by children.
Fear from the reptiles causes killing and anti-conservation atti-
tudes (Ceriaco, 2012) and people are afraid of reptiles including
monitor lizards (Bennett, 1995; Ceriaco, 2012; Ceriaco et al., 2011;
Mittermeier, Carr, Swingland, Werner, & Mast, 1992). Folklore and
lack of information are the main reasons for the dislike and fear
of wildlife including reptiles (Bennett, 1995; Ceriaco et al., 2011;
Lescureux et al., 2011). As there is not any folklore about the mon-
itor in the area (Ghimire, 2012), lack of information about the
species should be the main reason for the fear. People have neg-
ative attitude about these species, which they think as dangerous
and harmful (Brook et al., 2003), and locals perceived that its flat-
tened tail could wound them (Ghimire & Shah, 2014), although
there were no reports of such injuries caused by the species in the
area.
Killing without any reason by children and adults accounted for
the first and second major reasons for the killing of the species in the
area respectively. This could be due to the lack of awareness among
the respondents. Hence, increasing awareness about the species
can be helpful to minimize the killing without any good reasons
as well. Locals perceived that the species is very rare near human
settlements and its abundance is decreasing. This may be due to
precautionary action arisen from their intolerance to the species
that led to its killing and thus decrease in its abundance. Reptiles
near human settlements are often killed (Smart et al., 2005) and in
this study, most of the killing occurred near houses and agricultural
land. This indicates the reptiles found near human settlements face
greater threat to their existence.
The use of the Yellow Monitor as medicine and food were the
second and third major reasons behind the killing of the species
by adults and children, respectively, in the area. It was also identi-
fied as a major threat to the species (Shah & Tiwari, 2004). Killing
of reptiles is often associated with use requirements (Smart et al.,
2005). Resource use has created a negative mentality towards con-
servation of resources (Sah & Heinen, 2001) and in this case, the
species is used as a resource. The result showed that people hav-
ing higher economic status consumed more meat of the species,
which suggests that consuming the meat of the species is not only
for subsistence (Wilkie & Godoy, 2001). People generally favour
fresh bushmeat (East, Kumpel, Milner-Gulland, & Rowcliffe, 2005),
and consumption of preferred species is increased when income
increases (Wilkie & Godoy, 2001). Ethnicity affects the preference
to bushmeat (East et al., 2005) and in the study area, some of the
ethnic groups favour the species for food, while other take it as
medicine (Hemant R. Ghimire pers. obs.). Due to these reasons, the
species is considered as superior or necessity rather than inferior
(see Wilkie & Godoy, 2001), which can exaggerate the threat to the
species.
The Yellow Monitor faces more threats from children than
adults. The species is active in the wetter part of the year with
highest activity in June–July (Auffenberg et al., 1989; Bennett,
1995), which coincides with the monsoon vacation in the schools
of Terai region of Nepal. The vacation is more than one month
long and children often go herding during this time. In addition,
the children also often go herding during their morning school
days (April–June) since they have leisure time in the afternoon,
which also coincides with the active period of the species. Most of
the children go herding in the northern floodplain and the south-
ern slope area of the study area (Hemant R. Ghimire pers. obs.),
suitable habitats of Yellow Monitor (see Ghimire & Shah, 2014).
During the herding, the children probably encounter the species
 H.R. Ghimire et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 497–503
and kill it. The children have little knowledge about conserva-
tion of the species because only few teachers and parents make
them aware about not killing the species. Due to negligence of
the society towards uncharismatic species, children sometimes
know more about exotic charismatic species than native species
(e.g. in Europe: Genovart, Tavecchia, Ensenat, & Laiolo, 2013).
Providing environmental education to children can change their
as well as their parents’ attitudes and behaviour towards the
species (Damerell et al., 2013; Randler, Hummel, & Prokop, 2012;
Vaughan, Gack, Solorazano, & Ray, 2003). Therefore raising aware-
ness through environmental education about the species, at least
before the vacation, can be a feasible solution for minimising of the
threat.
In our study, females had insignificant negative attitude about
the conservation of the Yellow Monitor than males. Females have
a more positive attitude towards nature conservation than males
(e.g. Herzog, 2007; Rosalino & Rosalino, 2012), however, it is not
true for reptiles and other unpopular species (Prokop, Fancovicova,
& Kubiatko, 2009; Randler et al., 2012). Females were more afraid of
the species than males, which may be the reason for the less positive
attitude. Females generally are not directly involved in hunting;
however, they encourage males to hunt (Lowassa, Tadie, & Fischer,
2012). At a young age, boys are more inclined towards hunting than
girls (Mulder, Schacht, Caro, Schacht, & Caro, 2009), which may
be the reason for fewer females involved in killing of the species
than males, despite their fear and intolerance towards the species.
Although, few females killed the species as compared to males, their
fear and intolerance towards species can exaggerate the threat to
the species.
It is surprising that an estimated 87 individuals of the Yellow
Monitor could have been killed in the VDC in a single year. Accord-
ing to the National Park and Wildlife Conservation Act (1973) of
Nepal, the people who harm the protected species are penalized
up to NRs 75,000 (approx $ 825) or ten years of imprisonment or
both. However, only a single news report was found about con-
servation law enforcement in Nepal for the Yellow Monitor; two
persons were arrested trading a live Yellow Monitor in Kathmandu
(The Himalayan Times, 2013). To our knowledge, total popula-
tion or density of the species has not been quantified in Nepal or
any other range countries, except Khan (1988) (cited in Bennett,
1995) that suggest the species has a density as low as 7.5 indi-
viduals per square km. even in suitable habitats of Bangladesh.
In addition, lizards naturally have low annual survival rates (Pike,
Pizzatto, Pike, & Shine, 2008) and the species also faces threat due
to poisoning of rivers and lakes for fishing in the area (Ghimire
& Shah, 2014). Killing of the species is reported from other parts
of Nepal as eight individuals were killed in a community forest
in single day in Kapilvastu District (Resources Himalaya, 2010).
The species is already extinct from some of its previous ranges
(Auffenberg et al., 1989) and faces other threats from local and
international trade (Bennett, 1995; Ghimire & Shah, 2014; Shah
& Tiwari, 2004). This evidence indicates that the species is declin-
ing. If no conservation actions are taken it might become extinct
in unprotected areas including the study area, which also affects
survival of the species inside the PAs. The species faces threats
even inside PAs as locals also killed the species inside the Dudhwa
National Park (India) (Ghimire, 2012). Therefore, further studies
on the species are urgently needed to predict vulnerability of
the species and amend the IUCN status for conservation of the
species.
We found that raising awareness among locals about the Yel-
low Monitor is a simple and effective measure for minimizing the
fear and killing of the species. As children who were made aware
by their parents killed the species less, therefore increasing aware-
ness also helps to minimize the killing by children. Education has
a major role in conservation because it positively influences the
501
conservation attitude (Sah & Heinen, 2001) but educational level
was not significantly associated with conservation attitude (e.g.
Vulture conservation: Baral & Gautam, 2007). In this study, the con-
servation attitude is related to awareness about the species but not
with the educational level, this indicates that formal school educa-
tion system may not be enough for giving conservation education.
This is also supported by the fact that almost none of the teachers
made their students aware of conservation of the species in the
study area. Successful conservation strategies should involve stu-
dents and teachers (Alves et al., 2014). Therefore, the educational
system should be redesigned to involve children and teachers in
the conservation.
Although, most of the children and adults have negative atti-
tudes towards the Yellow Monitor, it can be minimized by raising
awareness among them about the importance of the species. Small
changes in knowledge about a species can result in more posi-
tive attitudes towards the species (Reimer et al., 2013). Hence,
increasing knowledge about the Yellow Monitor is recommended
for conservation of the species in the study areas as well as other
unprotected areas. Regular contact with animals helps to decrease
fear and enhance positive attitude in children (Ballouard, Provost,
Barre, & Bonnet, 2012; Randler et al., 2012). So taking students
for regular visits to the zoos and natural areas will be helpful to
minimize their fear of the species. Weak law enforcement affects
some species survival (e.g. Pygmy Slow Loris in Cambodia: Starr,
Nekaris, Streicher, & Leung, 2010) including the Yellow Monitor,
hence, law enforcement should be made effective to conserve the
species.
Conservation of protected species
Despite limitations in sample size, study of single species in
a locality and focusing on direct killing, the research helps to
understand aspects of conservation of protected species in unpro-
tected areas. Unprotected areas are also important for conservation
(Deguise & Kerr, 2006) and a large proportion of endangered and
protected species reside outside the boundary of PAs (Haavik &
Dale, 2012; Lindsey, Du Toit, & Mills, 2004). For long term con-
servation of any species, conservation should also be successful in
unprotected areas along with PAs (Cox & Underwood, 2011; Didier,
2010). Although governments have declared protected species,
people are not fully aware about their protected status, except
some high profile animals, as indicated by this study. However,
most of the killings of these protected species are due to lack of
knowledge (Ceriaco et al., 2011); and if people are well informed
about their protected status then the survival of these species
would be less threatened (e.g. Philippine crocodile: van der Ploeg,
Cauilan-Cureg, van Weerd, & De Groot, 2011). Although adults are
considered a threat to the survival of large animals, this study
showed that children could cause more harm to the survival of
small faunal species. However, children can be easily convinced
to protect wildlife even focusing on unpopular animals if they are
informed about importance of the animals (Ballouard et al., 2013). If
any species is legally protected, it implies that it is important to the
country; hence, informing people of the protected status along with
effective law enforcement can be helpful for conservation of the
protected species in unprotected areas. In addition, these protected
species can act as flagship species for conservation of biodiversity
in unprotected areas as they are nationally prioritized species for
conservation.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Aman Dangaura, Pradeep R. Joshi,
Tek R. Bhatt and Uma K. Mishra for critical comments on the
502 H.R. Ghimire et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 497–503

manuscript. We thank Balram Giri, Avinash Ghimire and Bas- 5. Do you tolerate this species if found in:
ant R. Ghimire for their help in the field. We are thankful to i) Near (around) house ii) Agricultural land iii) Forest
Manoj Aryal for his valuable contribution on the research. We a) Yes b) No a) Yes b) No a) Yes b) No
would like to thank Linda T. Uyeda and Sabita Gurung for their 6. Have you ever killed this species?
critical comments on the manuscript. We thank Parasan VDC, a) Yes b) No
Schools of the VDC and Jana Jagaran Community Forest for 7. Have you killed this species in this year?
supporting the research. We would like to thank locals includ- a) Yes b) No
ing children of the study area for their cooperation. We are If yes how many times;
thankful to New ERA Pvt. Ltd., Kathmandu, Nepal for financial 8. Where did you kill this species in past:
support for the study, and Central Department of Environ- Agricultural land: times
mental Science, Tribhuvan University, Nepal for allowing the Forest: times
research. Near (around) house: times
Others: times
(specify)
Appendix I: Questionnaire for children 9. Why did you kill the species?
a) To eat (food and medicine) b) Skin (hide) c) Fear
Name: Age: Class: Sex: d) Don’t know e) Others (specify)
Highest education level of parent: 10. Have your dog ever killed this species?
Occupation of the parent (specify major one): a) Yes b) No
If yes, how much times in this year:
1. Have you ever seen the species? 11. Have you ever eaten meat of this species?
a) Yes b) No a) Yes b) No
2. Are you afraid of the species? If yes, how much in this year:
a) Yes b) No 12. Why did you eat this species?
3. Have you ever killed this species? a) Medicine b) Food c) Others (specify):
a) Yes b) No 13. Do you want to conserve this species?
4. Did you kill this species in this year? a) Yes b) No
a) Yes b) No 14. Do you know the importance species as benefits of its conser-
If yes how many times: vation?
5. Why did you kill the species? a) Yes b) No
a) To eat (food and medicine) b) Skin (hide) c) Fear 15. Do you know it is a protected wildlife species of Nepal?
d) Don’t know e) Others (specify) a) Yes b) No
6. The time you killed this species in this year
Monsoon (summer) vacation: times
Other vacation: times References
Morning school days: times
Afternoon school days: times Alves, R. R. N., Silva, V. N., Trovao, D. M. B. M., Oliveira, J. V., Mourao, J. S., Dias,
7. Have you ever gone to herding for livestock? T. L. P., et al. (2014). Students’ attitudes towards and knowledge about snakes
in the semiarid region of Northeastern Brazil. Journal of Ethnobiology and Eth-
a) Yes b) No nomedicine, 10, 30.
8. When did you go to herding for livestock in this year? Alves, R. R. N., Vieira, K. C., Santana, G. G., Vieira, W. L. S., Almeida, W. O., Souto,
Monsoon vacation: W. M. S., et al. (2012). A review on human attitudes towards reptiles in Brazil.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 184, 6877–6901.
Other vacation:
Araujo, M. B., Lobo, J. M., & Moreno, J. C. (2007). The effectiveness of Iberian
Morning schooling days: protected areas in conserving terrestrial biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 21,
Afternoon schooling days: 1423–1432.
Auffenberg, W., Rahman, H., Iffat, F., & Perveen, Z. (1989). A study of Varanus
9. Have you ever eaten the meat of the species?
flavescens (Hardwicke and Gray) (Sauria: Varanidae). Journal of the Bombay Nat-
a) Yes b) No ural History Society, 86, 286–307.
10. Did your teachers and parents say not to kill the species? Aryal, P. C., Dhamala, M. K., Bhurtel, B. P., Suwal, M. K., & Rijal, B. (2010). Species
a) Yes b) No accounts and distribution of turtles with notes on exploitation and trade in
Tarai, Nepal. In unedited (Ed.), Proceedings of the first national youth conference on
If yes then who said environment (NYCE-I) (pp. 29–38). Kathmandu: Himalayan Alliance for Climate
a) Parents b) Teachers Change (HIMCCA).
Ballouard, J. M., Ajtic, R., Balint, H., Brito, J. C., Crnobrnja-Isailovic, J., Desmonts, D.,
et al. (2013). Schoolchildren and one of the most unpopular animals: Are they
ready to protect snakes? Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of the Interactions
Appendix II: Questionnaire for adults of People & Animals, 26, 93–109.
Ballouard, J. M., Provost, G., Barre, D., & Bonnet, X. (2012). Influence of a field trip
Name: Age: Sex on the attitude of schoolchildren towards unpopular organism: An experience
with snakes. Journal of Herpetology, 46, 423–428.
Educational status: Occupation: House type: Balme, G. A., Slotow, R., & Hunter, L. T. B. (2010). Edge effects and the impact of
Land: Income sources: non-protected areas in carnivore conservation: Leopards in the Phinda–MKhuze
Complex, South Africa. Animal Conservation, 13, 315–323.
Baral, N., & Gautam, R. (2007). Socio-economic perspectives on the conservation of
1. Have you ever seen this species? Critically Endangered vultures in South Asia: An empirical study from Nepal.
a) Yes b) No Bird Conservation International, 17, 131–139.
Bennett, D. (1995). A little book of monitor lizards: A guide to the monitor lizards of the
2. Do you know this species is found in your area?
world and their care in captivity. UK: Viper Press.
a) Yes b) No Brook, A., Zint, M., & De Young, R. (2003). Landowners’ responses to an Endangered
3. Are you afraid of this species? Species Act listing and implications for encouraging conservation. Conservation
a) Yes b) No Biology, 17, 1638–1649.
Caro, T. M. (2001). Species richness and abundance of small mammals inside
4. Does this species harm you and your property? and outside an African national park. Biological Conservation, 98, 251–
a) Yes b) No 257.
 H.R. Ghimire et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 497–503
CBS. (2007). District profile of Kanchanpur. Kathmandu: Central Bureau of
Statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.cbs.gov.np/wp-content/uploads/2012/
District%20Profiles/District%20profile 72.pdf (accessed 20.04.12).
Ceriaco, L. M. P. (2012). Human attitudes towards herpetofauna: The influence of
folklore and negative values on the conservation of amphibians and reptiles in
Portugal. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 8, 8.
Ceriaco, L. M. P., Marques, M. P., Madeira, N. C., Vila-vicosa, C. M., & Mendes, P.
(2011). Folklore and traditional ecological knowledge of geckos in southern
Portugal: Implication for conservation and science. Journal of Ethnobiology and
Ethnomedicine, 7, 26.
Christoffel, R. A., & Lepczyk, C. A. (2012). Representation of herpetofauna in wildlife
research journals. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 76, 661–669.
CITES. (2013). Appendices I, II and III valid from 12 June 2013. CITES. Retrieved from:
http://www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices.php (accessed 19.06.13)
Cox, R. L., & Underwood, E. C. (2011). The importance of conserving biodiversity
outside of protected areas in Mediterranean ecosystem. PLoS One, 6, e14508.
Damerell, P., Howe, C., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2013). Child-orientated envi-
ronmental education influences adult knowledge and household behavior.
Environmental Research Letters, 8, 015016.
Defries, R., Hansen, A., Newton, A. C., & Hansen, M. (2005). Increasing isolation of pro-
tected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecological Applications,
15, 19–26.
Deguise, I. E., & Kerr, J. T. (2006). Protected areas and prospects for endangered
species conservation in Canada. Conservation Biology, 20, 48–55.
Didier, K. (2010). From managing protected areas to conserving landscapes. In N. S.
Sodhi, & P. R. Ehrlich (Eds.), Conservation biology for all (pp. 293–296). UK: Oxford
University Press.
East, T., Kumpel, N. F., Milner-Gulland, E. J., & Rowcliffe, J. M. (2005). Determinants
of urban bushmeat consumption in Rio Muni, Equatorial Guinea. Biological Con-
servation, 126, 206–215.
Galvez, N., Hernandez, F., Laker, J., Gilabert, H., Petitas, R., Bonacic, C., et al. (2013).
Forest cover outside protected areas plays an important role in the conservation
of the vulnerable Guinea Leopardus guigna. Oryx, 47, 251–258.
Gaston, K. J., Jackson, S. F., Cantu-Salazar, L., & Cruz-Pinon, G. (2008). The ecolog-
ical performance of protected areas. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and
Systematics, 39, 93–113.
Genovart, M., Tavecchia, G., Ensenat, J. J., & Laiolo, P. (2013). Holding up a mirror
to the society: Children recognize exotic species much more than local ones.
Biological Conservation, 159, 484–489.
Ghimire, H. R. (2012). Distribution and conservation of Yellow Monitor, Varanus
flavescens (Hardwicke and Gray, 1827) in Parasan VDC of Kanchanpur District.
Nepal: Central Department of Environmental Science, Tribhuvan University. M.
Sc. thesis (unpublished).
Ghimire, H. R., & Phuyal, S. (2013). Impacts of community forestry on the Bengal
Monitor, Varanus bengalensis (Daudin, 1802): An empirical study from Nepal.
Biawak, 7, 11–17.
Ghimire, H. R., & Shah, K. B. (2014). Status and habitat ecology of the Yellow Moni-
tor, Varanus flavescens, in the Southeastern part of Kanchanpur District, Nepal.
Herpetological Conservation and Biology,, in Press.
Golden, C. D. (2009). Bushmeat hunting and use in the Makira Forest, north-eastern
Madagascar: A conservation and livelihoods issue. Oryx, 43, 386–392.
Haavik, A., & Dale, S. (2012). Are reserves enough? Value of protected areas for boreal
forest birds in southeastern Norway. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 49, 69–80.
Herzog, H. A. (2007). Gender differences in human-animal interactions: A review.
Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of the Interactions of People & Animals, 20,
7–21.
Huntington, H. P. (2000). Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: Methods
and applications. Ecological Applications, 10, 1270–1274.
Jenkins, R. K. B., Keane, A., Rakotoarivelo, A. R., Rakotomboavonjy, V., Randrianandri-
anina, F. H., Razafimanahaka, H. J., et al. (2011). Analysis of patterns of bushmeat
consumption reveals extensive exploitation of protected species in eastern
Madagascar. PloS One, 6, e27570.
Kerr, J. T. (1997). Species richness, endemism and the choice of areas for conserva-
tion. Conservation Biology, 11, 1094–1100.
Knapp, C. R., Iverson, J. B., Buckner, S. D., & Cant, S. V. (2011). Conservation of amphib-
ians and reptiles in the Bahamas. In A. Hailey, B. S. Wilson, & J. Horrocks (Eds.),
Conservation of Caribbean Island Herpetofauna, 2, Regional Accounts of the West
Indies (pp. 53–87). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers.
Lescureux, N., Linnell, J. D., Mustafa, S., Melovski, D., Stojanov, A., Ivanov, G., et al.
(2011). Fear of unknown: Local knowledge and perceptions of the Eurasian lynx
Lynx lynx in western Macedonia. Oryx, 45, 600–607.
Lowassa, A., Tadie, D., & Fischer, A. (2012). On the role of women in bush-
meat hunting—Insight from Tanzania and Ethiopia. Journal of Rural Studies, 28,
622–630.
Lindsey, P., Du Toit, J. T., & Mills, M. G. L. (2004). The distribution and population sta-
tus of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) outside protected areas in South Africa.
South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 34, 143–151.
503
Mcdonald, R. I., Kareiva, P., & Forman, R. T. (2008). The implications of current and
future urbanization for global protected areas and biodiversity conservation.
Biological Conservation, 141, 1695–1703.
Miller, J. R., & Hobbs, R. J. (2002). Conservation where people live and work. Conser-
vation Biology, 16, 330–337.
Mittermeier, R. A., Carr, J. L., Swingland, I. R., Werner, T. B., & Mast, R. B. (1992).
Conservation of amphibians and reptiles. In K. Alder (Ed.), Herpetology: Current
research on biology of amphibians and reptiles (pp. 59–80). Missouri: Society for
the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. Proceedings of First World Congress of
Herpetology.
Moore, J. E., Cox, T. M., Lewison, R. L., Read, A. J., Bjorkland, R., McDonald, S. L., et al.
(2010). An interview based approach to assess marine mammal and sea turtle
captures in artisanal fisheries. Biological Conservation, 143, 795–805.
Mulder, M. B., Schacht, R., Caro, T., Schacht, J., & Caro, B. (2009). Knowledge and
attitudes of children of the Rupununi: Implications for conservation in Guyana.
Biological Conservation, 142, 879–887.
Pike, D. A., Pizzatto, L., Pike, B. A., & Shine, R. (2008). Estimating survival rates of
uncatchable animals: The myth of high juvenile mortality in reptiles. Ecology,
89, 607–611.
Prokop, P., Fancovicova, J., & Kubiatko, M. (2009). Vampires are still alive: Slovakian
students’ attitudes towards bat. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of the
Interactions of People & Animals, 22, 19–30.
Purvis, A., Gittleman, J. L., Cowlishaw, G., & Mace, G. M. (2000). Predicting extinc-
tion risk in declining species. Proceeding of the Royal Society of London. Series B:
Biological Sciences, 267, 1947–1952.
Randler, C., Hummel, E., & Prokop, P. (2012). Practical work at school reduces disgust
and fear of unpopular animals. Society & Animals, 20, 61–74.
Rayner, L., Lindenmayer, D. B., Wood, J. T., Gibbons, P., & Manning, A. D. (2014). Are
protected areas maintaining bird diversity? Ecography, 37, 43–53.
Reimer, A., Mase, A., Mulvaney, K., Mullendore, N., Perry-Hill, R., & Prokopy, L. (2013).
The impact of information and familiarity on public attitudes toward the eastern
hellbender. Animal Conservation, 17, 235–243.
Resources Himalaya. (2010). 8 Monitor lizards killed for meat. Nepal Himalaya Notes
pp 25. Kathmandu: Resources Himalaya Foundation.
Rosalino, L. M., & Rosalino, C. (2012). Nature conservation from a junior high school
perspective. Journal for Nature Conservation, 20, 153–161.
Rodrigues, A. S., Akcakaya, H. R., Andelman, S. J., Bakarr, M. I., Boitani, L., Brooks, T.
M., et al. (2004). Global gap analysis: Priority regions for expanding the global
protected-area network. Bioscience, 54, 1092–1100.
Sah, J. P., & Heinen, J. T. (2001). Wetland resource use and conservation attitude
among indigenous and migrant people in Ghodaghodi Lake Area, Nepal. Envi-
ronmental Conservation, 28, 345–356.
Shah, K. B., & Tiwari, S. (2004). Herpetofauna of Nepal: A conservation companion.
Kathmandu: IUCN Nepal.
Sarasola, J. H., Santillan, M. A., & Galmes, M. A. (2010). Crowned eagles rarely prey
on livestock in central Argentina: Persecution is not justified. Endangered Species
Research, 11, 207–213.
Smart, R., Whiting, M. J., & Twine, W. (2005). Lizards and landscapes: Integrat-
ing field survey and interviews to assess the impact of human disturbance on
lizard assemblage and selected reptiles in Savanna in South Africa. Biological
Conservation, 122, 23–31.
Starr, C., Nekaris, K. A. I., Streicher, U., & Leung, L. K. P. (2010). Field surveys of
the vulnerable Pygmy slow loris Nycticebus pygmaeus using local knowledge
in Mondulkiri Province, Cambodia. Oryx, 45, 135–142.
The Himalayan Times. (2013). Two arrested in city with Golden Monitor Lizard.
Retrieved from: http://www.thehimalayantimes.com/rssReference.php?
headline=Two+arrested+in+City+with+golden+monitor+lizard&NewsID=
381617 (accessed 04.06.2014) (News published on 26.06.2013).
Turvey, S. T., Risley, C. L., Moore, J. E., Barrett, L. A., Yujiang, H., Xiujiang, Z., Kaiya, Z.,
& Ding, W. (2013). Can local ecological knowledge be used to assess status and
extinction drivers in a threatened freshwater Cetacean? Biological Conservation,
157, 352–360.
van der Ploeg, J., Cauilan-Cureg, M., van Weerd, M., & De Groot, W. T. (2011).
Assessing the effectiveness of environmental education: Mobilizing public sup-
port for Philippine Crocodile conservation. Conservation Letters, 4, 313–323.
Vaughan, C., Gack, J., Solorazano, H., & Ray, R. (2003). The effect of Environmental
education on schoolchildren, their parents, and community members: A study
of intergenerational and intercommunity learning. The Journal of Environmental
Education, 34, 12–21.
VDC Profile of Parasan. (2012). Village Development Committee of Parasan, Kanchan-
pur. Nepal: VDC Profile of Parasan (unpublished).
Wilkie, D. S., & Godoy, R. A. (2001). Income and price elasticities of bushmeat demand
in Lowland Amerindian Societies. Conservation Biology, 15, 761–769.
World Conservation Monitoring Centre. (1996). Varanus flavescens. In IUCN.
(2012). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Retrieved from:
http://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed 19.06.13).