People–primate interactions: implications for primate conservation

Abstract

Homo sapiens have, since they evolved, shared landscapes and resources with wildlife (Paterson 2005), and like other animals, compete with those species they share space with.Consequently it seems fair to assume there is a long history of interaction between people and wildlife; with interactions taking on a range of different characteristics from mutually beneficial or benign, to even harmful. It is these harmful, or apparently conflictual interactions, that are frequently referred to as 'human-wildlife conflicts'. According to the 2005 International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Parks Congress, 'humanwildlife conflict occurs when the needs and behaviour of wildlife impact negatively on the goals of humans or when the goals of humans negatively impact the needs of wildlife' (IUCN 2005).Recent years have witnessed a notable shift away from employing the term 'humanwildlife conflict' or any other terms such as 'crop-raiding', 'raider', 'thief' that position wildlife as conscious antagonists of people (Peterson et al. 2010). Such terms are perceived as detrimental to promoting coexistence between people and wildlife, partly because they mask the fact that conflicts arise as a consequence of stakeholders ascribing different values to different animal species (Peterson et al. 2010;Redpath et al. 2013). This shift in terminology has coincided with a notable surge in research on interactions between people and primates. This trend parallels recent intensification of human encroachment into natural habitats linked to agricultural, ranching, and extractive industrial activities, as well as increased urbanisation across primate range states. The spatial overlap between people and primates is ever increasing; primates face declining availability of their wild food supplies and restrictions in their access to space, water, nesting sites and familiar and safe habitat. In this context, the human-primate interface poses an increasing challenge for conservation, and studying it requires a cross-disciplinary approach, combining methodological and theoretical approaches from both the social and natural sciences.In this chapter we review primate-human relationships, patterns and lessons learnt, as well as studies that have sought to mitigate and/or prevent negative interactions between people and wildlife. We demonstrate that engaging with so called 'primate-human conflict' issues requires an ethically sensitive approach, encompassing the active participation and involvement of all stakeholders concerned, and especially those sharing landscapes with their primate relatives. Characterizing interactions Types of interactionsInteractions between people and primates can take on many different forms entailing a range of combinations of positive, neutral or negative outcomes for both parties. For instance, the Zanzibar red colobus (Procolobus kirkii) forage on damaged, immature coconuts; this pruning process, in effect, promotes palm productivity and monkeys in some areas, also attract tourists, thus potentially cont...

Effects of anthropogenic disturbance on primate density at the landscape scale

“…Because they live in heterogeneous and fragmented habitats, they are exposed to anthropogenic threats (Jones ; Rovero et al. ; Marsh ; Humle & Hill ). Despite recent advances in hierarchical distance sampling (HDS) (Kéry & Royle ), including applications to primates (Cavada et al.…”

Crop Foraging, Crop Losses, and Crop Raiding

“…"Crop raiding" is commonly used to mean the action of, or results of, wild animals damaging standing crops by feeding on or trampling them (Hill 2017a). Animals that engage in these activities are often labelled 'crop raiders', and their actions as 'crop raiding' (Humle & Hill, 2016). To raid is "to attack (a place or group) in a sudden and unexpected way: to enter (a place) suddenly in a forceful way in order to look for someone or something: to enter (a place) in order to steal or take something" (Merriam-Webster Online, accessed June 30, 2014).…”

The macronutrient composition of wild and cultivated plant foods of West African chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) inhabiting an anthropogenic landscape

“…): Hill, 2000; macaque ( Macaca spp. ): Priston & McLennan, 2013; and other non‐human primates (hereafter “primates”): Humle & Hill, 2016; wild boar ( Sus scrofa ): Keuling, Stier, & Roth, 2009; and raccoon ( Procyon lotor ): Beasley & Rhodes, 2008). Crop‐foraging (also often termed “crop‐raiding”) affects local livelihoods through crop losses and damages (Hill, 1997, 2005), while species that consume cultivated foods frequently face significant risks from crop protection and foraging deterrent methods and/or hostile behaviors from farmers (Hockings & Humle, 2009).…”