Nonhuman primates (referred to as primates in this study) are sometimes revered as gods, abhorred as evil spirits, killed for food because they damage crops, or butchered for sport. Primates' perceived similarity to humans places them in an anomalous position. While some human groups accept the idea that primates "straddle" the human-nonhuman boundary, for others this resemblance is a violation of the human-animal divide. In this study we use two case studies to explore how people's perceptions of primates are often influenced by these animals' apparent similarity to humans, creating expectations, founded within a "human morality" about how primates should interact with people. When animals transgress these social rules, they are measured against the same moral framework as humans. This has implications for how people view and respond to certain kinds of primate behaviors, their willingness to tolerate co-existence with primates and their likely support for primate conservation initiatives.

Primate crop raiding is a major cause of human-wildlife conflict around the forests of western Uganda. In an attempt to ameliorate the situation a conflict mitigation strategy was established in villages around the Budongo Forest Reserve in 2001. Live-traps were constructed that allowed the identification of crop raiding animals; pest species could be disposed of and threatened species released unharmed. However, by 2004 none of the traps in the study area were functioning and interviews were conducted to assess the reasons for their decline and local people's acceptance of the intervention. Forty-one percent of respondents did not believe the strategy was effective and the majority of local farmers did not accept responsibility for the traps. This was because of operational failures in four areas: (1) the identification of key stakeholders, (2) objective evaluation to assess the efficacy and benefit of the intervention, (3) participatory monitoring and evaluation, and (4) long-term funding commitment by conservation agencies. We examine the impact of these four elements upon the sustainability of the live-trap programme and stress the importance of recognizing and reporting failures to develop effective and acceptable mitigation strategies.

Qualitative methods are important in gaining a deep understanding of complex problems and poorly researched areas. They can be particularly useful to help explain underlying conservation problems, as in Rust et al. (2016). However, the significance in choosing and justifying appropriate methodological frameworks in conservation studies should be given more attention to ensure data are collected and analysed appropriately.

Considering how people perceive risks to their livelihoods from local wildlife is central to (i) understanding the impact of crop damage by animals on local people and (ii) recognising how this influences their interactions with, and attitudes towards, wildlife. Participatory risk mapping (PRM) is a simple, analytical tool that can be used to identify and classify risk within communities. Here we use it to explore local people's perceptions of crop damage by wildlife and the animal species involved. Interviews (n = 93, n = 76) and seven focus groups were conducted in four villages around Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda during 2004 and 2005. Farms (N = 129) were simultaneously monitored for crop loss. Farmers identified damage by wildlife as the most significant risk to their crops; risk maps highlighted its anomalous status compared to other anticipated challenges to agricultural production. PRM was further used to explore farmers' perceptions of animal species causing crop damage and the results of this analysis compared with measured crop losses. Baboons (Papio anubis) were considered the most problematic species locally but measurements of loss indicate this perceived severity was disproportionately high. In contrast goats (Capra hircus) were considered only a moderate risk, yet risk of damage by this species was significant. Surprisingly, for wild pigs (Potamochoerus sp), perceptions of severity were not as high as damage incurred might have predicted, although perceived incidence was greater than recorded frequency of damage events. PRM can assist researchers and practitioners to identify and explore perceptions of the risk of crop damage by wildlife. As this study highlights, simply quantifying crop loss does not determine issues that are important to local people nor the complex relationships between perceived risk factors. Furthermore, as PRM is easily transferable it may contribute to the identification and development of standardised approaches of mitigation across sites of negative human-wildlife interaction.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.