Understanding potential conflicts between human and non-human-primates: a large-scale survey in Malaysia

Karimullah Karimullah,Shahrul Anuar Mohd Sah,Anja Widdig,Federica Amici

doi:10.1007/s10531-022-02386-w

Abstract

With increasing anthropogenic pressure, interactions between humans and wildlife may become more frequent, including conflictual ones. To reduce conflicts, it is important to understand how different factors (e.g. education, previous experience, demographic variables) interplay with each other and contribute to the emergence of negative attitudes and behaviours toward wildlife in humans. To address this issue, we conducted a large-scale questionnaire in Malaysia, focusing on potential conflicts between human and other primates. We used generalized linear mixed models to assess how formal education, knowledge about primates, negative experience and potential competition affected participants’ negative attitudes to primates (i.e. how humans perceive primates), their behavioural intentions (i.e. opinion on how to reduce conflicts) and behaviour (i.e. measures taken to reduce negative interactions). We found that negative experience and potential competition had a negative impact on participants’ attitude and behavior (i.e. primates were more likely perceived as filthy, as negatively affecting residents’ health and safety, and as an increasing problem, with participants more likely to use invasive methods, including captures). Both higher education and better knowledge of primates predicted more positive behavioural intentions (i.e. primates should be protected, non-invasive interventions should be used). Higher education, however, was also linked to more negative attitudes (i.e. primates negatively affect residents’ health and safety), and partly to negative behavior (e.g. use of invasive methods). In contrast, better knowledge about primates predicted positive behaviour (i.e. exclusive use of non-invasive methods). Therefore, although better knowledge of primates had no clear effect on human attitudes, it may impact on their decisions to reduce potential conflicts with wildlife, and might be the most powerful tool to mitigate conflicts between humans and other species.

Highlights

Anthropogenic pressure has been steadily increasing in the last centuries, causing substantial changes to our planet (Sanderson et al 2002; Waters et al 2016)
We provided participants with questionnaires assessing their knowledge of primates, their previous experience with primates, their negative attitudes and behavioural intentions toward primates, and their behaviour to primates
We especially focused on the negative aspects of the human-primate relationship, because these may be more relevant to understand the occurrence of conflictual situations between humans and other species

Summary

Introduction

Anthropogenic pressure has been steadily increasing in the last centuries, causing substantial changes to our planet (Sanderson et al 2002; Waters et al 2016). Research has mainly focused on the occurrence of negative interactions between humans and other species (Bhatia et al 2020), because this allows researchers to better understand potential causes of conflict and possibly mitigate conflictual situations. Conflicts between humans and wildlife, for instance, can arise when wildlife poses (or is perceived to pose) threats to human health, food or property (Conover 2002; Treves and Karanth 2003; Peterson et al 2011; Nyhus 2016). Human-wildlife conflicts might have a negative impact on human health, safety and welfare: humans may be injured or killed by wildlife, during attacks or accidents, or as a consequence of zoonotic disease transmission (Conover 2002; Nyhus 2016). Throughout history, for instance, humans have contributed to the reduction of wildlife habitat, the decline and extinction of many species, and to a decrease in biodiversity (Dirzo et al 2014; Nyhus 2016; Surovell et al 2016). Reducing potential conflicts between humans and wildlife, and mitigating their negative consequences, is a necessary goal for politics, science and society (Woodroffe et al 2005; Reidinger and Miller 2013)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion