Abstract
Incidental primate tourism is prevalent in many primate habitat countries. In these scenarios, although the primary motivation of the tourists may not be to interact with primates, they may do so because of the presence of primates in tourist spots. Provisioning of primates is a common behavior that humans engage in at these sites. While several studies have assessed the impact of tourism or provisioning on primates, understanding why humans provision and its sociocultural predictors are primary requirements for designing primate management and/or conservation plans. We assessed these issues using questionnaire surveys at two sites where people provision macaques in India: in Himachal Pradesh and Goa (N = 203). People were driven to feed macaques by the desire to observe them closely, concern over decreasing food resources for wildlife, and religious affinities. The best model for Goa included age, gender, religion, and education as predictors of whether respondents provisioned; people with religious affinities apart from Hinduism were ca. 24 times as likely to provision as Hindus, and respondents with the highest level of education were 54 times as likely to provision as those with the lowest. At Himachal Pradesh, the best model contained religion and education as predictors. The trend was the reverse of that at Goa; people following Hinduism and those with lower education were more likely to provision. Our results show that no singular template is suitable for managing human–primate interactions across sites. We suggest more studies involving diverse sites be conducted to assess region-specific issues for ensuring human–primate coexistence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
24 August 2020
The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake in the Acknowledgements section.
References
Ballantyne, R., Packer, J., & Hughes, K. (2009). Tourists' support for conservation messages and sustainable management practices in wildlife tourism experiences. Tourism Management, 30, 658–664.
Brotcorne, F., Giraud, G., Gunst, N., Fuentes, A., Wandia, I. N., et al (2017). Intergroup variation in robbing and bartering by long-tailed macaques at Uluwatu Temple (Bali, Indonesia). Primates, 58, 505–516.
Burton, F. D. (2002). Monkey king in China: Basis for a conservation policy? In A. Fuentes & L. D. Wolfe (Eds.), Primates face to face (pp. 137–162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chauhan, A., & Pirta, R. S. (2010). Agonistic interactions between humans and two species of monkeys (rhesus monkey Macaca mulatta and hanuman langur Semnopithecus entellus) in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. Journal of Psychology, 1, 9–14.
Clarke, A. S., & Boinski, S. (1995). Temperament in nonhuman primates. American Journal of Primatology, 37, 103–125.
Datar, M. N., & Lakshminarasimhan, P. (2013). Check list of wild angiosperms of Bhagwan Mahavir (Molem) National Park, Goa, India. Check List, 9, 186–207.
Dickman, A. J. (2010). Complexities of conflict: The importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human–wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation, 13, 458–466.
Fuentes, A., Southern, M., & Suaryana, K. (2005). Monkey forests and human landscapes: Is extensive sympatry sustainable for Homo sapiens and Macaca fascicularis on Bali. In J. Patterson (Ed.), Commensalism and conflict: The primate–human interface (pp. 168–195). Norman, OK: American Society of Primatologists.
Fuentes, A., Shaw, E., & Cortes, J. (2007). Qualitative assessment of macaque tourist sites in Padangtegal, Bali, Indonesia, and the Upper Rock Nature Reserve, Gibraltar. International Journal of Primatology, 28, 1143–1158.
Gad, S. D., & Shyama, S. K. (2009). Studies on the food and feeding habits of Gaur Bos gaurus H. Smith (Mammalia: Artiodactyla: Bovidae) in two protected areas of Goa. Journal of Threatened Taxa, 1, 128–130.
Grossberg, R., Treves, A., & Naughton-Treves, L. (2003). The incidental ecotourist: Measuring visitor impacts on endangered howler monkeys at a Belizean archaeological site. Environmental Conservation, 30, 40–51.
Hockings, K. J., Yamakoshi, G., Kabasawa, A., & Matsuzawa, T. (2010). Attacks on local persons by chimpanzees in Bossou, Republic of Guinea: Long-term perspectives. American Journal of Primatology, 72, 887–896.
Humle, T., & Hill, C. M. (2016). People–primate interactions: Implications for primate conservation. In S. A. Wich & A. J. Marshall (Eds.), An introduction to primate conservation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p 219–240.
IUCN. (2018). IUCN red list of threatened species. Version. 2018.2. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org (accessed May 1, 2018).
Kaburu, S. S., Marty, P. R., Beisner, B., Balasubramaniam, K. N., Bliss-Moreau, E., et al (2018). Rates of human–macaque interactions affect grooming behavior among urban-dwelling rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 168, 92–103.
Kendall, L. (2008). The conduct of qualitative interview: Research questions, methodological issues, and researching online. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel, C. Lankshear, & D. Leu (Eds.), Handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 133–149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Knight, J. (1999). Monkeys of the move: The natural symbolism of people–macaque conflict in Japan. The Journal of Asian Studies, 58, 622–647.
Knight, J. (2009). Making wildlife viewable: Habituation and attraction. Society and Animals, 17, 167–184.
Kretser, H. E., Hilty, J. A., Glennon, M. J., Burrell, J. F., Smith, Z. P., & Knuth, B. A. (2009). Challenges of governance and land management on the exurban/wilderness frontier in the USA. In K. Andersson, E. Eklund, M. Lehtola, & P. Salmi (Eds.), Beyond the rural–urban divide: Comparative perspectives on the differentiated countryside and its regulation. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing, p 277–304.
Kumar, R., Radhakrishna, S., & Sinha, A. (2011). Of least concern? Range extension by rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) threatens long-term survival of bonnet macaques (M. radiata) in peninsular India. International Journal of Primatology, 32, 945–959.
Marty, P. R., Balasubramaniam, K. N., Kaburu, S. S., Hubbard, J., Beisner, B., et al (2019). Individuals in urban dwelling primate species face unequal benefits associated with living in an anthropogenic environment. Primates, 1–7.
Matheson, M. D. (2017). Primate tourism. In A. Fuentes (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of primatology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, p 1074–1080.
Matheson, M. D., Sheeran, L. K., Li, J. H., & Wagner, R. S. (2006). Tourist impact on Tibetan macaques. Anthrozoös, 19, 158–168.
Medhi, R., Chetry, D., Choudhury, B., & Bhattacharjee, P. C. (2007). Status and diversity of temple primates in northeast India. Primate Conservation, 22, 135–138.
Orams, M. B. (2002). Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction: A review of issues and impacts. Tourism Management, 23, 281–293.
Pearson, R. (2016). GoodmanKruskal: Association analysis for categorical variables. R package version 0.0.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=GoodmanKruskal
Peterson, J. V., Riley, E. P., & Oka, N. P. (2015). Macaques and the ritual production of sacredness among Balinese transmigrants in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. American Anthropologist, 117, 71–85.
Priston, N. E. C., & McLennan, M. R. (2013). Managing humans, managing macaques: Human-macaque conflict in Asia and Africa. In S. Radhakrishna, M. A. Huffman, & A. Sinha (Eds.), The macaque connection: Cooperation and conflict between humans and macaques (pp. 225–250). New York: Springer Science+Business Media.
R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing https://www.R-project.org/.
Radhakrishna, S., & Sinha, A. (2011). Less than wild? Commensal primates and wildlife conservation. Journal of Biosciences, 36, 1–5.
Reynolds, P. C., & Braithwaite, D. (2001). Towards a conceptual framework for wildlife tourism. Tourism Management, 22, 31–42.
Richard, A. F., Goldstein, S. J., & Dewar, R. E. (1989). Weed macaques: The evolutionary implications of macaque feeding ecology. International Journal of Primatology, 10, 569–594.
Riley, E. P., Fuentes, A., & Dore, K. M. (2017). Introduction: Doing ethnoprimatology in the anthropocene. In K. M. Dore, E. P. Riley, & A. Fuentes (Eds.), Ethnoprimatology: A practical guide to research at the human–nonhuman primate interface (pp. 1–6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Russon, A., & Wallis, J. (2014). Reconsidering primate tourism as a conservation tool. In A. Russon & J. Wallis (Eds.), Primate tourism: A tool for conservation? (pp. 3–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139087407.002.
Sengupta, A., & Radhakrishna, S. (2013). Of concern yet? Distribution and conservation status of the bonnet macaque (Macaca radiata) in Goa, India. Primate Conservation, 27, 109–114.
Sengupta, A., Radhakrishna, S. (2018). The hand that feeds the monkey: mutual influence of humans and rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) in the context of provisioning. International Journal of Primatology 39(5), 817–830.
Sponsel, L. E. (1997). The human niche in Amazonia: Explorations in ethnoprimatology. In W. G. Kinzey (Ed.), New World primates: Ecology, evolution, and behavior. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, p 143–165.
Thierry, B. (2007). Unity in diversity: lessons from macaque societies. Evolutionary Anthropology, 16, 224–238.
Treves, A., Naughton-Treves, L., Harper, E. K., Mladenoff, D. J., Rose, R. A., et al (2004). Predicting human–carnivore conflict: A spatial model derived from25 years of data on wolf predation on livestock. Conservation Biology, 18, 114–125.
Unwin, T., & Smith, A. (2010). Behavioral differences between provisioned and non-provisioned Barbary macaques (Macaca sylvanus). Anthrozoös, 23, 109–118.
Wolfe, L. D. (2002). Rhesus macaques: A comparative study of two sites, Jaipur, India, and Silver Springs, Florida. In A. Fuentes & L. D. Wolfe (Eds.), Primates face to face: Conservation implications of human–nonhuman primate interconnections (pp. 310–330). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zhao, Q. K. (2005). Tibetan macaques, visitors, and local people at Mt. Emei: Problems and countermeasures. In J. D. Paterson & J. Wallis (Eds.), Commensalism and conflict: The human–primate interface (pp. 376–399). Norman, OK: American Society of Primatologists.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Goa and Himachal Pradesh State Forest Departments for their support. Rupesh Gawde assisted with field work and Shaurabh Anand helped with maps. A part of this work was presented at the 27th International Primatological Society Congress held in Nairobi, Kenya August 19–25, 2018. The authors wish to thank the organizers of the symposium where this work was presented for their kind invitation. This work was supported by the Science and Engineering Research Board, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India (Grant No. SERB/F/I0032/2016-17) awarded to SR. The authors also thank Dr. Joanna M. Setchell and the two anonymous reviewers for their extremely helpful comments that helped improve the manuscript immensely.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AS and SR conceived and designed the study; AS executed the study and analyzed the data; and AS and SR wrote the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Additional information
Handling Editor: Joanna M. Setchell
Electronic supplementary material
Table S1
(DOCX 13 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sengupta, A., Radhakrishna, S. Factors Predicting Provisioning of Macaques by Humans at Tourist Sites. Int J Primatol 41, 471–485 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-020-00148-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-020-00148-5