The costs and benefits of coexistence: What determines people's willingness to live near nonhuman primates?

Abstract

Living near primate species has positive and negative outcomes for human communities. While most studies focus on understanding people's perceptions regarding the adverse consequences of interacting with primates, less is known about people's willingness to coexist with primates or reasons that may promote human–primate coexistence. We surveyed 794 people co‐living with four different primate species—rhesus macaque Macaca mulatta, bonnet macaque Macaca radiata, lion‐tailed macaque Macaca silenus, and Hanuman langur Semnopithecus dussumieri—in southern and western India to understand how people perceived the costs and benefits of coexistence. The results of our semi‐structured interview study revealed that although tangible costs (i.e., financial losses from primate depredation) primarily drive people's stated tolerance for primate presence, intangible benefits from primates (i.e., their ecological, existence, sentience, and religious values) also critically affect attitudes towards coexistence. Amongst the four species, people associated rhesus macaques with the greatest costs and fewest benefits, lion‐tailed macaques with the lowest costs, and bonnet macaques with the highest benefits. People preferred lion‐tailed macaques and Hanuman langurs more than bonnet and rhesus macaques, and affection for a species shaped how people viewed costs accruing from the species. People's preferences for species were influenced by their existence, ecological, and sentience values more than their religious value. We suggest that intangible benefits influence people's fondness for a primate species and this, in turn, shapes how people perceive costs resulting from the species. Hence strengthening people's perceptions of the intangible benefits they receive from primate species will improve human tolerance for living near primates. We argue that there is a need to understand the context of human–primate conflicts beyond the cost aspects and focus on the benefits to improve human–primate coexistence.

Local Voices: Perspectives from the Local Community on the Primates of Kakamega Forest, Western Kenya

“…Yet a local community is not likely to be a homogeneous entity, and many rural communities are changing rapidly across the globe [6,7]. Recent studies have highlighted local variation in people's knowledge of and attitudes toward their local primates [8][9][10][11][12]. It is with this variation in mind that we aimed here to describe local attitudes and beliefs about monkeys inhabiting a rain forest in western Kenya (Kakamega Forest) that is surrounded by a rural community living at high density.…”

Identifying the potential for sustainable human–wildlife coexistence by integrating willingness to coexist with habitat suitability models

“…Yet, to achieve sustainable coexistence, both animal and human occurrence potential thresholds must be met (Jochum et al, 2014; Figure 1b), with sufficiently suitable environmental conditions and the satisfaction of human interests without depriving species, native ecosystems or native populations of their health’ (Vucetich & Nelson 2010). Without the later, continued human support for wildlife is unlikely (Franco and Eivin, 2021; Pebsworth and Radhakrishna, 2021).…”

“…Human coexistence with wildlife is increasingly recognised as key to successful conservation and restoration in areas where humans and large mammals share space and resources (Frank & Glikman, 2003; König et al, 2020). But if people are unwilling to coexist—share space and resources—with large mammals, the prospect of their long-term persistence or population growth will be low in the shared spaces, even in socio-ecologically suitable habitats (Franco and Eivin, 2021; Pebsworth and Radhakrishna, 2021). This can be linked to intensive human–wildlife and human–human conflicts, to the detriment of wildlife, local communities and conservation programs (Dickman, 2010).…”