Department of Zoology

D.B.S. (P.G.) College

 Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India 

Associate Professor

Department of Zoology

D.B.S. (P.G.) College

Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India

Abstract

The high-growth rate of the human population, leads to increasing encroachment of wildlife habitats. Due to loss of habitat many species have adapted their feeding habit, which results in competition in resource sharing and resultant conflict.This studyfocuses on people’s perception towards common monkey (rhesus macaque) in Doon valley, India, and roadside feeding of monkeys. It was found that habitat alterations have increased the number of human-monkey interactions in the study area, a fact that creates significant problems with the locals, some of whom are afraid of being attacked or bitten. Despite the anxiety regarding potential attacks, overall, 88% of people had a positive towards the conservation of monkey. A logistic regression analysis showed that socio-economic factors such as the income and education of the respondents significantly influenced their attitudes towards conservation.   

Keywords: Perception, Attitude, Anthropogenic Disturbance, Monkey, Feeding, Habitat Degradation.

Introduction

Population growth in past few decades has led to loss of forest land, which causes resource scarcity. The high-growth rate of the human population, particularly in Asia, is leading to the increasing encroachment on wildlife habitats. As a result, wildlife is forced to come into direct contact and competes with humans for resources. Crop raiding by wildlife is hypothesized to be one of the many adaptations to the loss of original habitat, and many species have adapted their feeding habits to include crops as part of their ecological strategy (Rao et. al., 2002; Pettitt & Pettitt, 2003; Ross & Warren, 2006), thus creating conflict with humans. Multiple factors cause change in wildlife behavior. Some of the factors cited are close association with humans, changes in crop cultivation patterns, land use pattern, and scarcity and temporal availability of edible foods (Hill,2000; Saj & Patterson, 2001; Hill & Webber, 2010; Sarker&Røskaft, 2011). The lack of access to forest resources has forced wildlife to come closer to human habitation (Kharel et.al.2001). In case of monkeys another reason that is affecting changes in their feeding pattern is readily available food thanks to human interference, therefore, instead of spending their time foraging in woods, these macaques wait near the roads, hoping to get food from humans (Sarker&Røskaft, 2011; Sarkeret.al., 2017).

The aim of this study was to gather knowledge concerning whether local people understand the conservation status of monkeys and reasons for feeding of monkeys by them. Also observed how people interact with monkeys and the factors that is responsible for changing behavior of this animal.

Study Area

This study was undertaken on three sites on Dehradun-Haridwar highway running parallel to Rajaji National Park (RNP) boundary. RNP is situated along the hills and foothills of Shiwalik ranges of Himalayas between 29^o52’41’’ and 30^o15’56” north latitudes, 77^o57’7” and 78^o23’3” east longitudes in North-western India. The area is covered with diverse forest types ranging from semi-evergreen to deciduous and from mixed broad-leaved to terai grassland and has been classified as Indus-Ganges Monsoon Forest type. Lofty strands of Sal dominate in many parts. The highway has few residential areas, temples and streams interspersed along the RNP boundary.

Methodology

A set of semi structured questionnaire with a few open type questions were used to collect data on the demographic profile of respondents and also gather information on perception and attitude of respondents towards feeding of monkeys, human wildlife conflict and their knowledge regarding changes in behavior of monkeys due to roadside feeding.

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive statistics (frequency, percentages) were used to summarize the data. Preliminary bivariate tests (cross-tabulations) were carried out as part of two-stage analysis, using SPSS, to identify the factors that were associated with various responses at various significance levels (p = 0.001; p = 0.01 and p = 0.01).

Result and Discussion

Demographic characteristics of the respondents

Most of the respondents questioned for this study belonged to the age group of 35 -55 years (54%), followed by 34% which were above 55% and 12 % below 35 years (Fig 1).

Respondents had various educational qualification. Most of the respondents had graduate degree (28%) or have completed school education (25%). While almost equal number of respondents either had no formal education or either had high school certificate or post graduate degree (Fig 2).

Most of the respondents surveyed were housewives (34%), closely followed by people who were either self employed (25%) or were in private jobs (22%). Least number of respondents were unemployed (10 %), while 7% were in government jobs (Fig 3).

Awareness, attitudes and views on feeding of monkeys

 Table 1 summarizes the attitude of local populace towards the feeding of monkeys and related issues. Majority of the respondents i.e. about 89.6% fed monkeys (n=118). A staggeringly high percentage (84.3 %) of people fed monkeys for religious reasons. Out of 118 responses 43.3% of people are willing to stop feeding the monkeys when told about the negative behavioral changes due to feeding, whereas all most one-third (36.6%) population was found to be indifferent in this regard. Only 18.3% of people feel there has been a violation of any law in roadside feeding of monkeys, the main reason behind such a feeling was strong cultural and religious reverence towards monkeys. Around 85% respondents felt that the monkeys should be provided protected status howeverat the same time72.4% respondents felt monkeys are encroaching in urban areas and causing human wildlife conflict (Table 5.1).

Table 1  Perception of respondents about feeding of monkeys (n = 118)

Questions	Yes (%)	No (%)	Don’t know/ Indifferent (%)
Do you feed monkeys?	89.6	10.4	0
Are you in favour of ban on feeding of monkeys	5.7	84.7	9.6
Do you see more monkeys on road side then in past years?	92.9	2.2	4.9
Do you face any problems due to monkeys?	43.3	20.1	36.6
Are you aware that feeding of monkeys can be harmful for them?	25	72.4	2.6

Respondents were aware that feeding of monkeys is prohibited, main source of awareness, being signs posted on roadside (43.7%) and word of mouth (35.8%).

Table 2  Source of information about ban on feeding monkeys

S. No.	Views (n = 118)	Frequency	Percent
1.	Road side signs	64	54.2
2.	Word of mouth	54	45.8

When a question regarding reasons for feeding the monkeys was directed to respondents, following views emerged: 71% of the respondents fed them for religious reasons. 22% fed as they love the animal and the rest 6.8% refused to answer (Table 3).

Table 3  Reasons for feeding monkeys

S. No.	Views (n = 118)	Frequency	Percent
1.	Religious reasons	84	71.2
2.	Love for animal	26	22.0
3.	Gave no reason	8	6.8

The importance of conservation of animals is emphasized by the fact that very few people (0.7%) are in favor of cutting down the forests and 88.2 % of the monkeys should be provided the status of protected species (Table 4.). 9.3% of the population believes that the present condition of habitat for monkeys is good. A significant difference was found in respondents view of conservation of monkeyswhich varied with educational qualification and income level (χ² = 755.179; df = 5 and p= 0.000).The extent of awareness of negative impact of feeding the monkeys and attitudes towards them were significantly affected by age, gender, and level of education, with limited awareness observed among those with lower education levels

Table 4  View of local people towards conservation status of monkeys

S. No.	Management alternatives	Response (n = 118) (%)
1.	Forests should be cut and land used for agricultural and other purposes	0.7
2.	Monkeys should be removed from the human habitation	1.8
3.	Present situation of protecting the forests is good	9.3
4.	Monkeys should be declared protected species	88.2

Conclusion

From the above discussion, it appears that the positive attitudes of respondents represent a significant source of hope for Monkey conservation. The study suggests that the conservation attitudes of the respondents have not yet been severely affected by the human-monkey interactions in the area. Despite this, careful consideration of the respondents’ perceptiontowards animals must be given prioritybefore planning any conservation strategy in the area. Otherwise, the results could be detrimental for both humans and animals. In this regard, further studies are recommended to investigate the behavioral adaptations of Monkeys in the area. Initially, a community-based conservation education program is essential to improve people’s awareness, which could lead to a social movement for conservation and stop feeding of monkeys by humans. Reintroduction of plant species that was once present in the forest area would provide food for the monkeys and would be a critical step towards their conservation. To do this effectively, a thorough understanding of the importance of habitat protection and resource preservation is essential. Management of planting should take into account the preferred foods of monkeys, plants not edible by humans but are ecologically important should be planted in area. The conservation value of such planting, particularly of forest vegetation, has received increasing recognition by conservation biologists throughout the world. Overall, there was an awareness and reverence towards monkeys among the respondents and this bodes as a positive sign for conservation of species.

Refrences

1. Hill, C. M. (2000). Conflict of interest between people and baboons: crop raiding in Uganda. International Journal of Primatology, 21(2):299-315.

2. Hill, C. M. and Weber, A. D. (2010). Perceptions of nonhuman primates in human-wildlife conflicts scenarios. International Journal of Primatology, 72: 919-924.

3. Petitt, L. J. and Petitt, D. R. (2003). Evaluating the importance of human modified land for Neotropical bird conservation. Conservation Biology, 17:687-694.

4. Rao, K.S.,Maikhuri, R. K., Nautiyal, S. and Saxena K. G. (2002). Crop damage and livestock depredation by wildlife: a case study from Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Journal of Environmental Management, 66(3):317-327.

5. Ross, C. and Warren, Y. (2006). Primate and other mammalian maize pests in Gashaka, Nigeria. International Journal of Primatology, 27(S1):403.

6. Saj, T. L., Sicotte P. and Paterson J. D. (2001). The conflict between vervet monkeys and farmers at forest edge in Entebbe, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology, 39(2):195-199.

7. Sarker, A. H. M. R. andRøskaft, E. (2010). Human attitudes towards conservation of Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in Bangladesh. International Journal of Biodiversity Conservation, 2(10):316-327.

8. Sarker, A. H. M. R. and Røskaft, E. (2011). Human attitudes towards the conservation of protected areas: a case study from four protected areas in Bangladesh. Oryx, 45(3): 391–400.

9. Sarker, A.H.M. & Hossen, A.& Suza, Ma &Røskaft, E. (2017). Protected Area Versus People Conflict and a Co-Management Programme: A Case Study from the Dhudpukuria-Dhopachari Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh. Environment and Natural Resources Research. 7 (2):88-97