Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is human–rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) conflict in India a case of human–human conflict?

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Ambio Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The perceptions of wildlife managers regarding human–wildlife conflict (HWC) scenarios are likely to affect the outcomes of conflict mitigation measures. We studied the attitudes and perceptions of forest department personnel regarding the management of human–rhesus macaque conflict (HRMC) in Himachal Pradesh, northern India. We collected data through a questionnaire survey and used frameworks from organizational psychology to draw insights from our results. Forest department personnel belonging to different organizational levels varied with respect to their views on conflict mitigation measures. While the views of upper level management personnel aligned closely with the publicly-stated position of the forest department, the opinions of lower level management personnel were aligned with the opinions of farmers. Overall, wildlife managers differed from farmers in their opinions regarding causes and mitigation of HRMC. Our results indicate the presence of human–human conflict in the context of HRMC and we discuss the implications of this for the management of HRMC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anand, S., V.V. Binoy, and S. Radhakrishna. 2018. The monkey is not always a God: Attitudinal differences toward crop-raiding macaques and why it matters for conflict mitigation. Ambio 47: 711–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-1008-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B.E., and F. Mael. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of Management Review 14: 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.ObO13e31812e5535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashforth, B.E., S.H. Harrison, and K.G. Corley. 2008. Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management 34: 325–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barua, M., S.A. Bhagwat, and S. Jadhav. 2013. The hidden dimensions of human–wildlife conflict: Health impacts, opportunity and transaction costs.”. Biological Conservation 157: 309–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjerke, T., and B.P. Kaltenborn. 1999. The relationship of ecocentric and anthropocentric motives to attitudes toward large carnivores. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19: 415–421. https://doi.org/10.1006/JEVP.1999.0135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinson, A.A., and D.E. Benson. 2002. Values and Attitudes of National Wildlife Refuge Managers and Biologists: Report to Respondents. U.S. Department of Interior, U. S. Geological Survey, Open File Report OF 02-459.

  • Bruggers, R.L., R. Owens, and T. Hoffman. 2002. Wildlife damage management research needs: Perceptions of scientists, wildlife managers, and stakeholders of the USDA/Wildlife Services program. International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation 49: 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0964-8305(02)00042-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M.S., and H. Bruch. 2006. Organizational identity strength, identification, and commitment and their relationships to turnover intention: Does organizational hierarchy matter? Journal of Organizational Behavior 27: 585–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley, K.G. 2004. Defined by our strategy or our culture? Hierarchical differences in perceptions of organizational identity and change. Human Relations 57: 1145–1177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704047141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneman, N., and R. Heimann. 2014. Social Media Mining with R. Birmingham: Packt Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhiman, S.P., and L. Mohan. 2014. Prospects of managing human-rhesus monkey conflict in Himachal Pradesh India. In Human-Wildlife Conflict in the Mountains of SAARC Region: Compilation of Successful Management Strategies and Practices, 48–60. Kathmandu: SAARC Forestry Centre.

  • Dickman, A.J. 2010. Complexities of conflict: The importance of considering social factors for effectively resolving human-wildlife conflict. Animal Conservation 13: 458–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2010.00368.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickman, A., S. Marchini, and M. Manfredo. 2013. The human dimension in addressing conflict with large carnivores. In Key Topics in Conservation Biology, 2nd ed, ed. D.W. Macdonald and K.J. Willis, 110–126. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118520178.ch7.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fleischman, F. 2016. Understanding India’s forest bureaucracy: A review. Regional Environmental Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0844-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forest Survey of India. 2017. India State of Forest Report 2017. Dehradun: Forest Survey of India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, B., A. Monaco, and A.J. Bath. 2015. Beyond standard wildlife management: A pathway to encompass human dimension findings in wild boar management. European Journal of Wildlife Research 61: 723–730. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-0948-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillingham, S., and P.C. Lee. 2003. People and protected areas: a study of local perceptions of wildlife crop-damage conflict in an area bordering the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Oryx 37: 316–325. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605303000577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himachal Pradesh Forest Department. 2016. Proposal for Declaring Rhesus Macaques as a Vermin. Retrieved July 20, 2018, from http://hpforest.nic.in/files/Proposal under Sec 62 for declaring Macaque as Vermin in.pdf.

  • Hornsey, M.J., and J. Jetten. 2004. The individual within the group: Balancing the need to belong with the need to be different. Personality and Social Psychology Review 8: 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imam, E., H.S.A. Yahya, and I. Malik. 2002. A successful mass translocation of commensal rhesus monkeys Macaca mulatta in Vrindaban, India. Oryx 36: 39–87. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605301000011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P.S, J. Young, and A. Watt. 2005. Biodiversity Conflict Management: A Report of the BIOFORUM Project: CEH Banchory.

  • Kaltenborn, B.P., T. Bjerke, and J. Vitters. 1999. Attitudes toward large carnivores among sheep farmers, wildlife managers, and research biologists in Norway. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 4: 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209909359157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeton, K.B., and B. Mengistu. 1992. The perception of organizational culture by management level: Implications for training and development. Public Productivity & Management Review 16: 205–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, J.J. 1985. Viewing wildlife managers as a unique professional culture. Wildlife Society Bulletin 13: 571–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuran, T. 1997. Private Truths, Public Lies: The social consequences of preference falsification. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liddy, E.D. 2001. Natural language processing. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science, 2nd ed, 1–15. New York: Marcel Decker Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manfredo, M.J., and A.A. Dayer. 2004. Concepts for exploring the social aspects of human-wildlife conflict in a global context. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200490505765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchini, S. 2014. Who’s in Conflict with Whom? Human dimensions of the conflicts involving wildlife. In Applied Ecology and Human Dimensions in Biological Conservation, ed. L.M. Verdade, M.C. Lyra-Jorge, and C.I. Pina, 189–209. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54751-5.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, K., R. White, and A. Fischer. 2007. Conflicts between humans over wildlife management: On the diversity of stakeholder attitudes and implications for conflict management. Biodiversity and Conservation 16: 3129–3146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-007-9167-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J., and C. Siehl. 1983. Organizational culture and counterculture: An uneasy symbiosis. Organizational Dynamics, 12th ed, 52–64. Anmsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miley, F., and A. Read. 2011. Using word clouds to develop proactive learners. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 11: 91–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change. 2016. Gazette Notification No. S.O.1922 (E) dated 26.05.2016 regarding listing of Rhesus Macaque in Schedule-V of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

  • Muth, R.M., R.R. Zwick, M.E. Mather, and J.F. Organ. 2002. Passing the torch of wildlife and fisheries management: Comparing the attitudes and values of younger and older conservation professionals. In Transcations of the Sixty-Seventh North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, ed. J. Rahm, 178–193. Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naughton-Treves, L., and A. Treves. 2005. Socio-ecological factors shaping local support for wildlife: Crop-raiding by elephants and other wildlife in Africa. In People and wildlife: Conflict or coexistence?, ed. R. Woodroffe, S. Thirgood, and A. Rabinowitz, 253–277. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogra, M. 2008. Human–wildlife conflict and gender in protected area borderlands: A case study of costs, perceptions, and vulnerabilities from Uttarakhand (Uttaranchal), India. Geoforum 39 (3): 1408–1422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogra, M., and R. Badola. 2008. Compensating human-wildlife conflict in protected area communities: Ground-Level perspectives from Uttarakhand, India. Human Ecology 36: 717–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-008-9189-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M.N., J.L. Birckhead, K. Leong, M.J. Peterson, and T.R. Peterson. 2010. Rearticulating the myth of human-wildlife conflict. Conservation Letters. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00099.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirta, R.S., M. Gadgil, and A. Kharshikar. 1997. Management of the rhesus monkey Macaca mulatta and Hanuman langur Presbytis entellus in Himachal Pradesh, India. Biological Conservation 79: 97–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postmes, T., and J. Jetten. 2006. Reconciling individuality and the group. In Individuality and the Group: Advances in Social Identity, ed. T. Postmes and J. Jetten, 258–269. Thousand Oaks: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446211946.n14.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • QGIS Development Team. 2018. QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project.

  • R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2018. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radhakrishna, S., and A. Sinha. 2011. Less than wild? Commensal primates and wildlife conservation. Journal of Biosciences 36: 749–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-011-9145-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redpath, S.M., J. Young, A. Evely, W.M. Adams, W.J. Sutherland, A. Whitehouse, A. Amar, R.A. Lambert, et al. 2013. Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redpath, S.M., S. Bhatia, and J. Young. 2015. Tilting at wildlife: Reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. ORYX 49: 222–225. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605314000799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley, E.P., and N.E.C. Priston. 2010. Macaques in farms and folklore: Exploring the human-nonhuman primate interface in Sulawesi, Indonesia. American Journal of Primatology 72: 848–854. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rust, N.A., J. Tzanopoulos, T. Humle, and D.C. MacMillan. 2016. Why has human–carnivore conflict not been resolved in Namibia? Society and Natural Resources 29 (2016): 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2016.1150544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saltiel, J., and L.R. Irby. 1998. Perceptions of game damage in Montana by resource agency personnel and agricultural producers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 26: 84–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saraswat, R., A. Sinha, and S. Radhakrishna. 2015. A god becomes a pest? Human-rhesus macaque interactions in Himachal Pradesh, northern India. European Journal of Wildlife Research 61: 435–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-015-0913-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidaway, R. 2013. Resolving environmental disputes: From conflict to consensus. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, M., H.N. Kumara, and A.D. Velankar. 2016. Population status of Rhesus Macaque (Macaca mullata) in Himachal Pradesh, India.

  • Singh, V., and M. Thakur. 2012. Rhesus macaque and associated problems in Himachal Pradesh-India. Taprobanica: The Journal of Asian Biodiversity 4: 112–116.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, R.D., R.A. Beausoleil, and D.A. Martorello. 2007. How agencies respond to human–black bear conflicts: A survey of wildlife agencies in North America. Ursus 18: 217–229. https://doi.org/10.2192/1537-6176(2007)18%5b217:HARTHB%5d2.0.CO;2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, T.L., and T.A. Messmer. 2003. Perceptions of deer-vehicle collision management by state wildlife agency and department of transportation administrators. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31: 163–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. 1974. Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Social Science Information 13: 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204.

  • Terblanche, R. 2015. Good fences make good neighbours: A qualitative, interpretive study of human–baboon and human–human conflict on the Cape Peninsula. Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, M. 2003. Managing the unmanageable? Coping with complex educational change. Educational Management & Administration 31. Sage Publications: 9–29.

  • Weladji, R.B., S.R. Moe, and P. Vedeld. 2003. Stakeholder attitudes towards wildlife policy and the Bénoué Wildlife Conservation Area, North Cameroon. Environmental Conservation 30: 334–343. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892903000353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildlife SOS. 2016. Tackling Monkey Menace in Agra. Retrieved 20 October 2018, from http://wildlifesos.org/blog/wildlife-sos-tackling-monkey-menace-in-agra/.

  • Young, J.C., M. Marzano, R.M. White, D.I. McCracken, S.M. Redpath, D.N. Carss, C.P. Quine, and A.D. Watt. 2010. The emergence of biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: Characteristics and management strategies. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 3973–3990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9941-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to all officials of Himachal Pradesh Forest Department for their permission to participate in this study and for their support during the course of our study. We also gratefully acknowledge the field support of Jagdish Chand and Vikram Singh for data collection. SA is thankful to National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) for fellowship support during the period of the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Animal Behavior and Cognition Programme, School of Natural Sciences and Engineering, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Indian Institute of Science Campus, Bangalore, Karnataka, 560012, India

    Shaurabh Anand & Sindhu Radhakrishna

Authors
  1. Shaurabh Anand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sindhu Radhakrishna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sindhu Radhakrishna.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 82 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anand, S., Radhakrishna, S. Is human–rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) conflict in India a case of human–human conflict?. Ambio 49, 1685–1696 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01324-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01324-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation