Keywords
crop damage,
farmers attitudes
vulnerability indicators
conservation
Kanji Lake National Park
How to Cite
Abstract
Human-primate conflict is a persistent challenge in conservation efforts. The study investigates vulnerability indicators of crop damage by primates and farmers attitudes towards conservation in Kanji Lake National Park, aiming to inform effective conflict mitigation strategies. Direct method and structured questionnaire were used to obtain information on crop damage severity, farmer perceptions and conservation attitudes. The Completely Randomised Design (CRD) was used in comparing vulnerability indicators that predisposed primates to conflict and the relationship between vulnerability indicators to crop damage intensity was determined using karl pearsons’ product moment coefficient of correlation. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square test analyses were adopted to reveal the opinions of respondents for significant differences on farmer’s attitudes and perceptions for effective conservation. The results show a significant correlation between crop damage and vulnerability indicators thus, highlighting the need for effective conflict mitigation strategies. The results revealed that the identified key vulnerability indicator, numbers of standing crops (0.015) differed significantly among the ranges of the park (P < 0.05). Nevertheless, farm sizes (0.068) were not significantly different among ranges (P > 0.05). Farm distance to park has positive correlation with farm size (r = 0.203) and number of standing crops (r = 0.310). Similarly, there were strong correlations between farm size and number of crops damaged (r = 0.680). In respect to conservation attitudes 74% of the respondents were in support of primate conservation, 38% wished that primates should be exterminated to stop crop damage and economic losses. 40% of the respondents supported the use of lethal methods for preventing primates from raiding crops while 53.1% were of the opinion that zone dwellers should be allowed to hunt. The findings highlighted the need for conservation efforts, emphasizing the importance of addressing human-primate conflict through collaborative approaches that consider both human livelihoods and wildlife conservation.
References
conservation around bwindi impenetrable National park. In USDA forest service proceedings, RMRS-P-64 (pp. 39–40).
Amaja, L. G., Feyssa, H., & Gutema T. (2016). Assessment of types of damage and causes of human-wildlife conflict in Gera district, south western Ethiopia. J. Ecol. Nat. Environ. 8(5):49-54.
Datiko D. & Bekele A (2013). Conservation Challenge: Human-herbivore Conflict in Chebera Churchura National Park, Ethiopia. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 16(23):1758-1764.
Digitized from Google Earth Pro (May, 2018): GIS Laboratory, Dept. of Geography, University of Maiduguri.
Eleazor, A. U. (2002). Critical site for biodiversity conservation in Nigeria NCF, Lagos. Nigeria. pp 39.
Gifford, R. & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence pro- environmental concern and behaviour: a review. International Journal of Psychology, 49(3):141–157.
Goldman, M., Roque De Pinho, J. & Perry, J. (2010). Maintaining complex relations with large cats: Maasai and lions in Kenya and Tanzania. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 15(5): 332–346.
Harcourt, A. H., Pennimgton, H. & Weber, A. W. (2016). Public attitudes to wildlife and conservation in the Third World. Oryx, 20, 152-154.
Hassen, L. K. (2013). Influence of forest-farm boundaries and human activity on raiding by the Buton macaque (Macaca ochreata brunnescens) [MSc Dissertation]. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University. 46 p.
Hill, C. M. (2014). Farmers’ perspectives of conflict at the wildlife-agriculture boundary: some lessons learned from African subsistence farmers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9(4): 279–286.
Infield, H. (2008). Attitudes of a rural community towards conservation areas in Natal, South Africa. Biological conservation, 45: 21-46.
Levang, P., Lescuyer, G., Noumbissi, D., Dehu, A. & C, Broussolle L (2015) Does gathering really pay? Case studies from forest areas of the East and South regions of Cameroon. For Trees Livelihoods 24(52):128–143
Marguba, L. B. (2002). National parks and their benefits to local communities in Nigeria.
MikoloYobo C, Ito K (2015) Trade of the most popular indigenous fruits and Gabon nuts, threats and opportunities for their sustainable management around Ivindo national Park (INP), Gabon. Int J Biodivers Conserv, 7(2):85–102.
Modu, M., Ojo, V. A., Modu, M. B. & Yaduma, Z. B. (2023). Evaluation of Factors Predisposing Primates to conflict in Kainji Lake National Park, Nigeria. Scientific Report in Life Sciences.
Newmark, W. D. and Leonard N. L. (2013). Conservation attitudes of local people living adjacent to five protected areas in Tanzania. Biological Conservation, 63(2): 177-183
Nijman, V. & Nekaris, K. A., (2010). Testing a model for predicting primate crop raiding using crop and farm specific risk values. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 127(34):125 –129
Noumbissi, D. (2013). Usages locaux des ressources forestie `res autour de trois concessions camerounaises: 1050, 1059 et 1060. Comple ´mentarite ´ ou competition? [Local use of forest resources around three logging concessions in Cameroon: 1050, 1059 and 1060. Complementarity or competition?]
Priston, N. E. C., Wyper, R. M. & Lee, P. C. (2012) Buton macaques (Macaca ochreata brunnescens): Crops, conflict and behaviour on farms. American Journal of Primatology, 74: 29–36.
Riley, E. P. & Priston, N. E. C. (2010). Macaques in farms and folklore: Exploring the human nonhuman primate interface in Sulawesi, Indonesia. American journal of primatology, 72(10): 848–54.
Simons, E. L. & Meyers, D. M., (2011). Folklore and beliefs about the aye aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis). Lemur News, 6:11–16
Wallace, G. E. & Hill, C. M. (2012), Crop Damage by Primates: Quantifying the Key Parameters of Crop Raiding Events. Journal Pone, 4: 66-76.
Zaffar, R. M., Athar, N., Bilal, H & Gopi, G. P, (2015). Attitudes of local people toward wildlife conservation: A case study from the Kashmir valley. Mountain Research and Development (MRD). Journal of International Mountain Society, 35: 392–400.