American Journal of Primatology 72:919–924 (2010)

COMMENTARY

Perceptions of Nonhuman Primates in Human–Wildlife Conflict Scenarios

CATHERINE M. HILL� AND AMANDA D. WEBBERAnthropology Centre for Conservation, Environment and Development, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, United Kingdom

Nonhuman primates (referred to as primates in this study) are sometimes revered as gods, abhorred asevil spirits, killed for food because they damage crops, or butchered for sport. Primates’ perceivedsimilarity to humans places them in an anomalous position. While some human groups accept the ideathat primates ‘‘straddle’’ the human–nonhuman boundary, for others this resemblance is a violation ofthe human–animal divide. In this study we use two case studies to explore how people’s perceptions ofprimates are often influenced by these animals’ apparent similarity to humans, creating expectations,founded within a ‘‘human morality’’ about how primates should interact with people. When animalstransgress these social rules, they are measured against the same moral framework as humans. Thishas implications for how people view and respond to certain kinds of primate behaviors, theirwillingness to tolerate co-existence with primates and their likely support for primate conservationinitiatives. Am. J. Primatol. 72:919–924, 2010. r 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Key words: perceptions; attitudes; pest; conservation; human morality

INTRODUCTION

Ethnoprimatology provides a useful frameworkfor exploring human–primate interconnections, in-cluding (i) how people’s perceptions of, and attitudestoward, primates reflect cultural understandings andexpectations, and (ii) their relevance for facilitatingmutual coexistence. Primates are associated with adiversity of values from religious icon to food, familymember, and pest. The existence of these relation-ships between primates and people is well documen-ted [Fuentes & Wolfe, 2002; Paterson & Wallis,2005], although research examining perceptions ofprimates in human–wildlife conflict scenarios is, asyet, relatively undeveloped. Clearly, understandingpeople’s view of ‘‘pest’’ primates (particularly thoseof threatened status) is vital to the success ofenvironmental management programs in conflictareas [Paterson & Wallis, 2005], facilitating thedevelopment of mitigation strategies that are in-formed by, and specifically target, local people’sconcerns [Hill et al., 2002; Osborn & Hill, 2005;Webber et al., 2007]. Here we summarize waysdifferent human groups have, and do, perceiveprimates; use two case studies to illustrate some ofthe common themes in people’s perceptions of‘‘problem’’ species; and discuss their relevance withinethnoprimatology, and to primate conservation.

HOW PRIMATES ARE VIEWED

Historically, and to the present day, primatesengender a range of different, and sometimesconflicting, perceptions among people living in

proximity to them, as well as those living outside ofhabitat range countries. Perhaps their evolutionaryrelationship, and thus physical and behavioralsimilarities with humans has led to their venerationand denigration. For example, in some nonwesterncultures, primates have spiritual importance andare revered, worshipped, and provisioned intemples [Fargey, 1992; Knight, 1999; Nivendita &Coormaraswamy, 1985, cited in Wolfe, 2002]. Localorigin myths represent primates as ancestors or asdescended from human ancestors [e.g., the ring-tailed lemur, Lemur catta and Verreaux’s sifaka,Propithecus verreauxi; Loudon et al., 2006a], or assacred or spiritual guardians or divine messengers(e.g., Sclater’s guenon, Cercopithecus sclateri [Oateset al., 1992]; Monkey King, a Chinese mythologicalcharacter [Burton, 2002]); such beliefs are usuallyassociated with cultural rules forbidding the harmingor killing of these animals. Among some groupsthat hunt monkeys for food, surviving infants arereared as pets, and are included within their

Published online 1 June 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wiley-onlinelibrary.com).

DOI 10.1002/ajp.20845

Received 19 November 2009; revised 12 April 2010; revisionaccepted 12 April 2010

Contract grant sponsors: Oxford Brookes University Scholar-ship; Wildlife Conservation Society Fellowship; Parkes Founda-tion; Wenner Gren Foundation; Primate Conservation, Inc.

�Correspondence to: Catherine M. Hill, Anthropology Centre forConservation, Environment and Development, Department ofAnthropology and Geography, School of Social Sciences and Law,Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK.E-mail: cmhill@brookes.ac.uk

rr 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

caretaker’s kinship relations [Cormier, 2003], afurther illustration of the apparent fluidity of thehuman–animal boundary in some nonwesterncosmologies. In stark contrast, other people viewparticular primate species as portents of evil,requiring them to be killed to deflect bad luck orfuture disaster (e.g., the Aye-aye, Daubentoniamadagascariensis, in parts of Madagascar [Simons& Meyers, 2001]).

Primates’ perceived similarity with humansplaces them in an anomalous/contentious positionparticularly within western dualist constructionsof the human–animal boundary [Corbey, 2005;Haraway, 1989]. Traditionally, apes and monkeys havebeen portrayed as brutish ‘‘agents of evil’’ [Corbey,2001], and this view has persisted from the MiddleAges into the 20th century [Corbey, 2005]. However,pictorial representations of apes in the 18th century,and moving reports from 19th century hunters,illustrate a degree of empathy expressed toward theseanimals [Ritvo, 1990]. While some human groupsembrace the idea that primates ‘‘straddle’’ the hu-man–nonhuman divide, for others this apparentcloseness is a ‘‘violation’’ of the human–animalboundary, precipitating a more negative outlook ontheir behavior, particularly when primates transgresspeople’s social rules and traditions. The extreme caseof primates as ‘‘pests’’ provides an excellent opportu-nity to explore these ideas.

PRIMATES AS ‘‘PROBLEM’’ ANIMALS

Primates are often cited as significant agricul-tural pests, which cause considerable damage to fieldand tree crops, and additionally impose time andenergy costs on farmers who have to protect theircrops against them [Boulton et al., 1996; Hill, 2000;Loudon et al., 2006b; Naughton-Treves, 1997;Priston, 2005]. Much of the literature documentinghow local people perceive primates focuses onunderstanding farmers’ perceptions of primates ascrop-raiding species [e.g., Chalise, 2000–2001; King& Lee, 1987; Naughton-Treves, 1997; Priston, 2005].These studies have value in understanding thepotential mismatch between people’s perceptions ofrisk and the actual risk of incurring crop damage byprimates. However, it is important to be aware thatsuch studies focus on people’s perceptions of animalsas ‘‘pest’’ or ‘‘vermin’’ and the results very likelyreflect cultural constructions of ‘‘pest’’ rather thannecessarily fully exploring all nuances of how theanimal itself is viewed and understood locally.Perhaps in some cases certain animals are onlyunderstood/perceived of in this context of ‘‘pest’’ or‘‘problem’’ species, i.e., only thought about in termsof their relationship with people. To explore thesepoints further we use two case studies from sites ofpeople–primate conflict in Uganda and Japan. Whileboth focus on primates as crop raiders, they examine

how people view or understand the animals asopposed to the conflict situation itself. Using a casestudy approach, particularly of sites with differingcultural/religious influences, allows us to exploreparticular issues in depth and assess their socialsignificance as well as their relevance to ethnopri-matology.

Perceptions of Baboons, Monkeys andChimpanzees in Bunyoro Kingdom, Uganda

In villages around the Budongo Forest Reserve,Uganda, baboons (Papio anubis) are considered themost destructive species of wildlife, with monkeys(Cercopithecus mits, C. ascanius, C. aethiops, andColobus guereza) and chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)ranked as much less serious causes of crop damage[Hill, 1997; Webber, 2006]. (Here monkey refers toall monkey species present locally, other thanbaboons, because this is the linguistic distinctionused by people living in this area.) Baboons areresponsible for a high level of damage compared withother species, but perceptions of the risk of raids aredisproportionately high compared with actual risk.Not surprisingly, local perceptions of these animalsare very negative. For example, farmers describebaboons as ‘‘the enemy,’’ using words like ‘‘rebel’’and ‘‘Kony’’ (Joseph Kony was the leader of theLord’s Resistance Army, a rebel group responsiblefor the displacement of an estimated 1.5 millionpeople in northern Uganda [Allen, 2006]). When oneconsiders that many local people have personalexperience of rebel and military activity, the use ofmartial language and symbolism underscores theirstrong negative reaction to this primate species.

Military symbolism is further developed asbaboons are described as being organized like anarmy, conducting apparently premeditated yetunpredictable foraging in farms. Baboons are pre-dominantly terrestrial, and are to be observedentering farms in large groups, sometimes even inthe presence of people. This, combined with reportsthat baboons are not frightened of people and willremain on farms until the last possible moment whenbeing driven out of crops, is interpreted by farmers asan aggressive act toward them. Baboons are per-ceived to be highly organized, reportedly postinglookouts in tall trees at the edge of the forest to alertthe rest of the troop to approaching farm guards.Additionally, baboons are thought to be capable ofproviding distractions for guards, allowing the rest ofthe troop access to the farm unobserved [Hill, 2000].

Baboons are considered ‘‘wasteful’’ and ‘‘vindic-tive,’’ destroying parts of crops they find unpalatable,and spoiling people’s crops for their own entertain-ment when they did not intend to eat them. They arealso described as gluttonous, arrogant, and stubborn,character traits that are expressly condemned in manysocieties, and which specifically offend Banyoro ideals

Am. J. Primatol.

920 / Hill and Webber

of neighborliness and respect for appropriate hier-archical social relationships between individuals[Beattie, 1971]. In summary, local descriptions ofbaboons portray them as intelligent, persistent,calculating, malicious, and vindictive.

On the contrary, while people recognize thatmonkeys damage crops and some people refer to themas ‘‘thieves,’’ they are also believed ‘‘clever’’ or of‘‘good character,’’ demonstrating positive character-istics such as ‘‘faithful,’’ ‘‘honest,’’ and ‘‘consistent.’’Monkeys are observed raiding in small groups or assolitary animals, and their mode of entry to the fieldsis understood as being opportunistic rather thanplanned, although this benign view of monkeys ascrop raiders is much reduced at times when raidingfrequency is perceived as high. ‘‘The emphasis placedon these animals as ‘‘honest’’ is dependent on theperception that raids represent, in part, a fair contestbetween farmer and animal’’ [Webber, 2006, p 145].Additionally, monkey feeding behavior is describedvery differently to that of baboons’; monkeys areviewed as animals that damage crops only to feed, anddo not cause willful or ‘‘unnecessary’’ damage.

Around the Budongo Forest chimpanzees are saidto ‘‘walk gently’’ and be ‘‘disciplined’’ in their feedingon human crops, only removing the food items theyneed. People describe them as ‘‘human,’’ being‘‘friendly,’’ ‘‘humble,’’ and ‘‘respectful,’’ all characterattributes that are socially highly valued locally, aselsewhere. Use of the descriptors ‘‘humble’’ and‘‘respectful’’ is significant because locally if peoplebehave in a manner that implies they considerthemselves of higher status than their neighbors’ theycan then be the focus for retribution throughwitchcraft or sorcery [Beattie, 1971; Middleton,1992]. However, in the case of chimpanzees inUganda, there is evidence that although peopleperceive them positively they also fear them to adegree, identifying them as ‘‘friendly but dangerous’’[Webber, 2006].

Perceptions of Macaques in Rural Japan

Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) causeconsiderable damage to field and tree crops [Sprague& Iwasaki, 2006], damage buildings and externalstructures, and raid houses and graveyard offeringsfor food in rural Japan [Knight, 1999]. Traditionally,macaques were hunted for meat and usedin medicines, but hunting them became illegal in1947. However, they continue to be culled insignificant numbers every year because of the cropdamage they cause [Sprague, 2002]. Crop-raidingmonkeys are described by local farmers, and also inthe media, as ‘‘thieves’’ who ‘‘steal’’ from people.According to Knight a local policeman commentedthat occasionally farmers come to the police stationto complain about the monkeys. This is consistentwith crop damage by monkeys often being presented

‘‘in the language of criminality’’ [Knight, 2003].Monkeys are also considered ‘‘lazy’’ by some people,because they ‘‘opt for the easiest source of food’’[Knight, 2003, p 98], i.e., they subsist off the industryof others. Furthermore, Japanese media descriptionsof the conflict between people and monkeys adopt anidiom of war, with monkeys being labeled ‘‘enemies’’that ‘‘invade’’ village space. However, Knight pro-vides evidence that in these same rural communitiesthat are plagued by monkeys damaging their crops,farmers will feed these same animals during thewinter months because they pity them having to findfood during periods of scarcity [Knight, 2003].

Some Japanese fear the monkeys, claiming thatthey are physically dangerous. There are reports,throughout Japan, of monkeys attacking people[Knight, 2003]; at one wild monkey park it wasestimated that there were an average of 300 attacksper year on visitors by the monkeys, ranging fromaggressive displays to actual biting [Wada, 1991,cited in Knight, 2005]. Notwithstanding their recog-nized status as a significant crop pest, and theirsometimes aggressive behavior toward people, thereis still considerable reluctance among rural Japanese,including hunters, to cause them harm. Reasonsgiven for not hunting them include their physicalresemblance to humans, the fact that they demon-strate strong kinship ties, and the strong bondbetween mother and infant monkey; these lattercharacteristics are much admired by people locally.This is summed up succinctly by Knight who says‘‘Although the monkey-culler may claim to beremoving threatening pests, he risks appearing toothers as a killer of loving mothers and a destroyer offamilies’’ [Knight, 2003, p 113]. Thus monkeys, whilehated as ‘‘pests’’ are worthy of admiration, becauseof their capacity to develop and maintain strongsocial relationships, and engender feelings of pitywhen those social relationships are destroyedthrough human violence toward them.

Unlike the baboons of Uganda, perceptions ofraiding Japanese macaques are tempered as a resultof their behavioral similarities with humans. This isnot surprising given that monkeys have an impor-tant role in Japanese cultural life. Ohnuki-Tierney[1987] uses the phrase ‘‘metaphor for the Japanese’’to explain the symbolic significance of these animalsfrom historical times to the present. Contrary totraditional western views of animals, Japanesecosmology assumes a much less concrete boundarybetween people and primates, fostering a degree oftolerance of them, and acknowledging they haveagency and motivation similar to humans.

THE ETHNOPRIMATOLOGY OF ‘‘PEST’’PRIMATES

As demonstrated in the case studies above whenprimates behave in ways that meet people’s social

Am. J. Primatol.

Perceptions of Primates / 921

rules and expectations they are generally viewedpositively (for example, the perception that chim-panzees take only what they need when they cropraid and are not greedy, or the perception thatJapanese macaques are devoted mothers). Underthese circumstances people particularly acknowledgethe aspects that make the animal ‘‘more human.’’However, should primates transgress those rules orsocial boundaries, as is the case when they damagecrops or threaten people’s safety, then their ‘‘appar-ent humanness’’ is held against them.

Further analysis reveals it is not just the amountof damage animals’ cause that determines the degreeto which people view them negatively. The ways inwhich they are believed to behave, be it feeding in a‘‘greedy,’’ ‘‘wasteful,’’ or ‘‘mindful’’ manner arecentral to people’s perceptions of these primates.More moderate perceptions prevail where animalsare accredited with the capacity for socially respect-ful and neighborly behavior, or their behavior isunderstood in terms of meeting their daily needs,rather than exploitation of others for additional gain.For example, although the language used to describeJapanese macaque crop-raiding behavior incorpo-rates both military metaphors and a ‘‘language ofcriminality,’’ farmers also provision the monkeysduring periods of food scarcity, in response tofeelings of pity for the monkeys’ plight. Similarly,in the Ugandan example, farmers refer to monkeysas ‘‘thieves’’ but counter this with descriptors suchas ‘‘honest’’ and ‘‘of good character,’’ in line with theperception that monkeys take only what they need tomeet their immediate dietary requirements.

However, such ambivalence does not extend toall the species concerned. While Japanese macaques,and monkeys and chimpanzees in Uganda areacknowledged to demonstrate positive behaviorsand characteristics separate to their identity aspotential problem species, social constructions ofbaboons appear firmly rooted within a ‘‘discourse ofpestilence,’’ with little evidence that these animalsare viewed as anything other than a threat topeople’s livelihoods. Furthermore, in Uganda thereis a strong stated preference for lethal means ofcontrol for baboons [Hsiao, 2008; Webber, 2006], andin recent years there have been reports of organizeddrives specifically targeting baboons around theBudongo Forest and also further south in Bunyoro[Hill, unpublished data]. In comparison, Knight’swork on people–macaque relationships in Japanreveals that while macaques pose a significantproblem to farmers in rural areas, there is dissentas to the most appropriate and acceptable way to dealwith these troublesome animals. Not only are farm-ers reluctant to carry out or sanction killing of them,but hunters (who are employed to carry out monkeyculls) express discomfort with and opposition tolethal responses to the threat of crop damage[Knight, 2003].

In both situations primate behavior is measuredagainst the same moral framework as humans, butwhere social rules, and spatial boundaries, aretransgressed, primate perpetrators are likely to befound wanting, and thus vulnerable to humanvilification or even retribution, according to the localcultural norms. Understandings of how people viewand perceive their interactions with primates, andparticularly the factors that promote or dampenpeople’s tolerance of their presence and behavior,need to be examined as part of the process ofdeveloping mitigation strategies that are both effec-tive and acceptable to local people [Fuentes et al.,2005; Hill, 2004; Hockings, 2009; Lee & Priston,2005; Paterson, 2005]. The potential mutability ofsocial understandings and rules could then beutilized, through the development of culturallysensitive and appropriate conservation educationinitiatives that build on local understandings andperspectives, to promote more positive attitudes,thus increasing local tolerance toward target species,which is an important component of any mitigationstrategy [Hill, 2005; Madden, 2004; Osborn & Hill,2005]. However, it is important to recognize thatcultural rules and understandings are not necessa-rily fixed or permanent but change over time andmay impact on people’s willingness to continue totolerate primates living alongside them. We seeevidence of this currently occurring in Uganda. Localcommunities that previously were relatively tolerantof chimpanzees are now demonstrating reducedacceptance of their ape neighbors. Increased cash-generating opportunities for farmers (introductionof sugar cane as a cash crop) and local landowners (buoyant timber market), with concomitantincreased crop raiding activity by chimpanzees, havepreceded this changing perspective [McLennan,2008; Reynolds, 2005].

Ethnoprimatology provides an ideal frameworkwithin which to explore further the complexity ofrelationships between people and ‘‘pest’’ primates.With its strong disciplinary linkages across differentanthropological sub-fields, there is scope forexploring more fully the interconnections betweenthe behavioral ecology of crop raiding, and people’scognitive, cultural, and behavioral responses to theseanimals’ behavior. A next step would be to analyzepeople’s responses to problem primates in thecontext of how they respond to other pest species.Is what we see here, and in other studies of problemprimates, a reflection of people’s responses to‘‘pests’’ more generally or are primate ‘‘pests’’ aspecial case?

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the Uganda National Council forScience and Technology, The Forest Department(now National Forest Authority) and the Uganda

Am. J. Primatol.

922 / Hill and Webber

Wildlife Authority for their permission to conductresearch around the Budongo Forest Reserve. Thefieldwork was supported by an Oxford BrookesUniversity Scholarship and a Wildlife ConservationSociety Fellowship, grants from British Airways/Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) TravelBursary. We thank the following field assistants:Dissan Kigonza, Ruthlen Atugonza, Jackson Okuti,Mawa Diedonne and Geoffrey Okethuwengu. We alsothank Fred Babweteera, the staff of BudongoConservation Field Station and the Nyabyeya For-estry College for their help, Kim Hockings, AugustinFuentes and two anonymous reviewers for theircomments on earlier drafts. The data we refer tohere, collected by Hill and Webber, were collectedfrom human subjects, with the full ethical approvalof (i) Oxford Brookes University Research EthicsCommittee and (ii) the Ugandan National Councilfor Science & Technology. None of our researchdirectly involved nonhuman animals. Additionally,all our research activities were carried out in Ugandawithin the limits of our respective research permitsfrom The President’s Office, Uganda.

REFERENCES

Allen T. 2006. Trial justice. The international crime court andthe Lord’s Resistance Army. London, NY: Zed Books.

Beattie J. 1971. The Nyoro state. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Boulton AM, Horrocks JA, Baulu J. 1996. The Barbados vervet

monkey (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus): changes in popu-lation size and crop damage 1980–1994. InternationalJournal of Primatology 17:831–844.

Burton FD. 2002. Monkey King in China: basis for aconservation policy? In: Fuentes A, Wolfe LD, editors.Primates face to face. The conservation implications ofhuman-nonhuman primate interconnections. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. p 137–162.

Chalise MK. 2000–2001. Crop raiding by wildlife, especiallyprimates, and indigenous practices for crop protection inLakuna Area, East Nepal. Asian Primates, IUCN/SSCPrimate Specialist Group 7:4–9.

Corbey R. 2001. Negotiating the ape-human boundary. In:Beck BB, Stoinski TS, Hutchins M, Maple TL, Norton B,Rowan A, Stevens EF, Arluke A, editors. Great apes andhumans. The ethics of coexistence. Washington & London:Smithsonian Institution. p 163–177.

Corbey R. 2005. The metaphysics of apes. Negotiating theanimal–human boundary. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Cormier LA. 2003. Kinship with monkeys. The Guaja foragersof eastern Amazonia. New York: Columbia University Press.

Fargey PJ. 1992. Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary—anexample of traditional conservation in Ghana. Oryx26:151–156.

Fuentes A, Wolfe LD. 2002. Primates face to face: theconservation implications of human-non-human primateinterconnections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fuentes A, Souther M, Suaryana KG. 2005. Monkey forestsand human landscapes: is extensive sympatry sustainablefor Homo sapiens and Macaca fascicularis on Bali? In:Paterson JD, Wallis J, editors. Commensalism and conflict:the human–primate interface. Norman, OK: AmericanSociety of Primatologists. p 168–195.

Haraway D. 1989. Primate visions. Gender, race, and nature inthe world of modern science. New York, London: Routledge.

Hill CM. 1997. Crop-raiding by wild vertebrates: the farmers’perspective in an agricultural community in western Uganda.International Journal of Pest Management 43:77–84.

Hill CM. 2000. A conflict of interest between people andbaboons: crop raiding in Uganda. International Journal ofPrimatology 21:299–315.

Hill CM. 2004. Farmers’ perspectives of conflict at the wildlife-agriculture boundary: some lessons learned from Africansubsistence farmers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife9:279–286.

Hill CM. 2005. People, crops and primates: a conflict ofinterests. In: Paterson JD, Wallis J, editors. Commensalismand conflict: the human–primate interface. Norman, OK:American Society of Primatologists. p 40–59.

Hill CM, Osborne FV, Plumptre AJ. 2002. Human-wildlifeconflict: identifying the problem and possible solutions.Albertine Rift Technical Reports Series Vol. 1. WildlifeConservation Society.

Hockings KJ. 2009. Living at the interface: human–chimpan-zee competition, coexistence and conflict in Africa. Journalof Interaction Studies 10:183–205.

Hsiao SS. 2008. Evaluation and monitoring of crop raidingmitigation strategies in villages around Budongo ForestReserve, Uganda. MRes Thesis, University of Roehampton.

King FA, Lee PC. 1987. A brief survey of human attitudes to apest species of primate—Cercopithecus aethiops. PrimateConservation 8:82–84.

Knight J. 1999. Monkeys on the move: the natural symbolismof the people-macaque conflict in Japan. Journal of AsianStudies 58:622–647.

Knight J. 2003. Waiting for wolves in Japan: an anthropolo-gical study of people-wildlife relations. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Knight J. 2005. Feeding Mr. monkey: crop-species foodexchange in Japanese monkey parks. In: Knight J, editor.Animals in person: cultural perspective on human–animalintimacies. Oxford, NY: Berg. p 231–253.

Lee PC, Priston NEC. 2005. Perceptions of pests: humanattitudes to primates, conflict and consequences for con-servation. In: Paterson JD, Wallis J, editors. Commensalismand conflict: the human–primate interface. Norman, OK:American Society of Primatologists. p 1–23.

Loudon JE, Sauther ML, Fish KD, Hunter-Ishikawa M,Ibrahim YJ. 2006a. One reserve, three primates: applyinga holistic approach to understand the interconnectionsamong ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta), Verreaux’s sifaka(Propithecus verreauxi), and humans (Homo sapiens) atBeza Mahafaly Special Reserve, Madagascar. Ecological andEnvironmental Anthropology 2:54–74.

Loudon JE, Howells ME, Fuentes A. 2006b. The importance ofintegrative anthropology: a preliminary investigation em-ploying primatological and cultural anthropology datacollection methods in assessing human-monkey co-existencein Bali, Indonesia. Ecological and Environmental Anthro-pology 2:2–13.

Madden F. 2004. Creating coexistence between humans andwildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to addresshuman-wildlife conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife9:247–257.

McLennan MR. 2008. Beleaguered chimpanzees in theagricultural district of Hoima, Western Uganda. PrimateConservation 28:45–54.

Middleton J. 1992. The Lugbara of Uganda. Forth Worth, TX:Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Naughton-Treves L. 1997. Farming the forest edge: vulnerableplaces and people around Kibale National Park, Uganda.Geographical Review 87:27–46.

Oates JF, Anadu PA, Gadsby EL, Were JL. 1992. Sclater’s Guenon.National Geographic Research & Exploration 8:476–491.

Ohnuki-Tierney E. 1987. The monkey as mirror. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.

Am. J. Primatol.

Perceptions of Primates / 923

Osborn FV, Hill CM. 2005. Techniques to reduce crop loss toelephants and primates in Africa: the human and technicaldimension. In: Woodroffe R, Thirgood S, Rabinowitz A,editors. People and wildlife: conflict or co-existence?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 72–85.

Paterson J. 2005. Residents and immigrants: reactions andperceptions of crop raiding in Masindi District, Uganda. In:Paterson JD, Wallis J, editors. Commensalism and conflict:the human–primate interface. Norman, OK: AmericanSociety of Primatologists. p 76–89.

Paterson JD, Wallis J. 2005. Commensalism and conflict: thehuman–primate interface. Norman, OK: American Societyof Primatologists.

Priston N. 2005. Crop raiding by Macaca ochreata brunnescensin Sulawesi: reality, perceptions and outcomes for conserva-tion. DPhil Thesis. University of Cambridge.

Reynolds V. 2005. The chimpanzees of the Budongo Forest.Ecology, behaviour and conservation. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Ritvo H. 1990. The animal estate. The English and othercreatures in the Victorian age. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

Simons EL, Meyers DM. 2001. Folklore and beliefs about the ayeaye (Daubentonia madagascariensis). Lemur News 6:11–16.

Sprague DS. 2002. Monkeys in the backyard: encroachingwildlife and rural communities in Japan. In: Fuentes A,Wolfe L, editors. Primates face to face: the conser-vation implications of human–nonhuman primate inter-connections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.p 254–272.

Sprague DS, Iwasaki N. 2006. Coexistence and exclusionbetween humans and monkeys in Japan: is either reallypossible?. Ecological and Environmental Anthropology2:30–43.

Webber A. 2006. Primate crop raiding in Uganda: actual andperceived risks around Budongo Forest Reserve. PhDThesis. Oxford Brookes University.

Webber AD, Hill CM, Reynolds V. 2007. Assessing the failureof a community-based human-wildlife conflict mitigationproject in Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. Orxy 41:117–184.

Wolfe L. 2002. Rhesus macaques: a comparative study oftwo sites Jaipur, India and Silver Springs, Florida. In:Fuentes A, Wolfe L, editors. Primates face to face: theconservation implications of human–nonhuman primateinterconnections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.p 310–330.

Am. J. Primatol.

924 / Hill and Webber