Fig 1.
Map of the four surveys regions.
Clockwise from top-left, and in order are Boeny, Moramanga, Vatovavy-Fitovinany and Menabe (villages denoted in inserts by black circles).
Table 1.
Summary of our study regions, and the results of our three models.
Including: percentage of households (HH) that experienced fosa poultry predation; percentage of households that killed a fosa; and the average household attitude score.
Fig 2.
The significant predictors of fosas’ reported predation of poultry (with 95% confidence intervals).
The x-axis displays the odds of households sustaining poultry predation that were located in a region or used a snare, against Boeny the reference region. The level of significance is denominated by * p < 0.05, and ** 0 < 0.01.
Fig 3.
Interviewees’ stated attitude towards fosas and their reported reason.
Fig 4.
The significant predictors of interviewees’ stated attitude towards fosas (y-axis scale likert-scale from 1 strongly dislike to 5 strongly like), including the standard error of the mean.
Fig 5.
Interviewee estimates of the total fosas killed over the past year, five years and lifetime (each row displays national parks, reserves and unprotected forests).
Fig 6.
Forest plot of the three significant predictors of retaliatory killing, attitude, poverty and region (reference level is Menabe) (with 95% confidence intervals).
The level of significance is denoted by *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05 and *** p < 0.10.