Demographic and socio-economics characteristics
Of the 200 farmers interviewed (Table 1), males comprised 91% of the total farmers in the unprotected sites and 88% in the protected sites. The farmers' ages ranged from 18 to 75 (mean and SD: 50.8 ± 24.0). In the unprotected sites, older individuals (> 40 years old) made up 83% of all interviewed farmers, while corresponding value in the protected sites was 91%. There were no significant differences in the proportions of gender (χ2 = 0.68, df = 1, p = 0.420) and age group (χ2 = 3.00, df = 1, p = 0.081) of farmers interviewed between sites. There was a significant difference in education level (χ2 = 26.50, df = 1, p < 0.001), i.e., farmers in unprotected sites (68.3%) were likely more educated than protected sites (31.2%).
Table 1
The differences of socio-economic characteristic between farmers in unprotected and protected forest sites
Variables | Categories | Location | Chi-square test |
Protected | Unprotected | ꭕ2 | df | p |
Sex | Female | 12.5 | 8.8 | 0.68 | 1 | 0.42 |
| Male | 87.5 | 91.2 | | | |
Age | Old | 90.8 | 82.5 | 3.04 | 1 | 0.081 |
| Young | 9.2 | 17.5 | | | |
Education | Educated | 31.7 | 68.3 | 26.5 | 1 | < 0.0001 |
| Non-educated | 68.8 | 31.2 | | | |
Source of income | Farming | 89.2 | 67.5 | 14.3 | 1 | < 0.0001 |
| Non-farming | 10.8 | 32.5 | | | |
Land owned | Rented | 3.3 | 8.8 | 2.7 | 1 | 0.092 |
| Owned | 96.7 | 91.3 | | | |
Monthly income | < 2.500.000 IDR (< 165 USD) | 67.5 | 61.2 | 0.82 | 1 | 0.364 |
| ≥ 2.500.000 IDR (≥ 165 USD) | 32.5 | 38.8 | | | |
"Table 1should appear around here."
More than eighty percent (80.5%) of farmers relied entirely on subsistence agriculture for their income, while the remaining (19.5%) included farming as a sideline income, with their main income generated from government employees, labor, fishermen, personal vendors, and other occupations. Between sites, the income sources of farmers were significantly varied (χ2 = 14.30, df = 1, p < 0.001). A greater number of farmers in protected sites depend on farming activity alone (89.0%), whereas many farmers in unprotected sites rely on other sources of income (33.0%). The monthly income of farmers interviewed ranged from 800,000 (53 USD) to 6,000,000 IDR (400 USD) (mean and SD: 3,000,000 ± 926,000 IDR). Approximately 65.0% of farmers claimed monthly incomes higher than ≥ 2,500,000 IDR/month (≥ 165 USD) while 35.0% were less than 2,500,000 IDR/month (< 165 USD). Overall, the monthly income of the farmers did not significantly differ between sites (χ2 = 0.80, df = 1, p = 0.364). There were more farmers have monthly income equal or higher than 2,500,000 IDR (protected: 67.5% and unprotected: 61.2%). In regards to land owned, there were also no differences in the status of land used by farmers in both sites (χ2 = 2.70, df = 1, p = 0.092). Most of them owned their farmland for farming purposes (protected: 97.6% and unprotected: 91.3%).
Crop feeding experienced and cost concerned
Farmers identified several primate species to be crop feeding: LTM (71%) were the most common, followed by southern pig-tailed macaques (Macaca nemestrina) (13%), black-crested langurs (Presbytis melalophos) (9%), and silvery lutungs (Trachypithecus cristatus) (6%). No one reported crop feeding by lorises and gibbons. There was no difference in which type of primate species cause more damage between study sites (χ2 = 5.60, df = 1, p = 0.06). Nearly all of the farmers in both sites (protected: 84.4% and unprotected: 87.8%) considered the LTM is the most problematic one causing crop damage, while no one considered black-crested langurs and silvery lutungs as destructive crop feeders (Fig. 2a). We further asked farmers about the pattern of crop feeding by LTM: number of LTM in their surrounding farmland showed no difference between sites (χ2 = 71.10, df = 3, p > 0.81). More than half (62.0%) of farmers in both study sites claimed that number of individuals macaques feed on their crop ranged from 20–30 individuals (mean ± SD: 22 ± 20) and rest (38.0%) stated exceed than 40 individuals (Fig. 2b). We then asked frequency of crop feeding by LTM. Over 79.6% claimed the macaques feed on crops almost daily (four to more than five times a week), 16.4% answered monthly (less than ten times per month) and 8.0% said that they experienced only twice in a year (Fig. 2c); and this perception was common across the sites (χ2 = 1.70, df = 2, p = 0.42). Although the frequency of macaques reported feed on crops was similar in the two study sites, the time of LTM perform crop feeding was significantly vary (χ2 = 11.50, df = 2, p = 0.003): in protected site, farmers reported that the LTM feed on crop more frequent in morning and afternoon, while farmers in the unprotected sites reported crop feeding to be most frequent in morning and evening (Fig. 2d).
“Figure 2(a,b,c,d,e,f,g) should appears around here”
Those farmers who experienced crop feeding by LTM shared information about the negative impacts perceived. About 76.3% of farmers indicated financial losses (reducing income), 18.1% were concerned with time and energy costs, and 5.4% were concerned about health costs. There was no difference in terms the types of cost concerned by farmers in the two sites (χ2 = 4.60, df = 2, p = 0.126). A large number of farmers from protected (85.0%) and unprotected sites (71.0%) were likely concerned about economic impact (Fig. 2e). We then asked estimation of current crop losses caused by LTM. The crop losses ranged from 15– 100% with the mean of loss was about 46.7% (± 36.5%). The individual level of crop losses did not significantly differ between sites (χ2 = 13.80, df = 2, p = 0.513). At the time of interview, a large number farmers in protected (63.2%) and unprotected (58.0%) were likely experienced high crop losses which reducing more than half of their income (Fig. 2f).
“Table 2should appears around here”
Table 2
Reports of crops damaged by the long-tailed macaques (LTM) in both study sites
Name | Scientific name | Reports of crops damage (%) | Total |
Protected | Unprotected |
Durian | Durio zibethinus | 87.93 | 72.73 | 82.42 |
Banana | Musa sp. | 72.41 | 62.12 | 68.68 |
Cacao | Theobroma cacao | 69.83 | 37.88 | 58.24 |
Jackfruit | Artocarpus sp. | 54.31 | 36.36 | 47.8 |
Bitter bean | Parkia speciose | 30.17 | 45.45 | 35.71 |
Mango | Mangifera indica | 25 | 51.52 | 34.62 |
Papaya | Carica papaya | 37.93 | 25.76 | 33.52 |
Jengkol | Pithecellobium jiringa | 25.86 | 33.33 | 28.57 |
Manggo (Kueni) | Mangifera odorata | 20.69 | 25.76 | 22.53 |
Rambutan | Nephelium lappaceum | 18.97 | 24.24 | 20.88 |
Coconut | Cocos nucifera | 10.34 | 34.85 | 19.23 |
Mangosteen | Garcinia mangostana | 17.24 | 21.21 | 18.68 |
Cassava | Manihot utilisima | 6.9 | 9.09 | 7.69 |
Water guava | Syzygium aqueum | 6.9 | 9.09 | 7.69 |
Maize | Zea mays | 1.72 | 16.67 | 7.14 |
Langsat | Lansium domesticum | 6.9 | 3.03 | 5.49 |
Chili | Capsicum annuum | 6.03 | 3.03 | 4.95 |
Egg plant | Solanum melongena | 2.59 | 9.09 | 4.95 |
Avocado | Persea Americana | 0.86 | 7.58 | 3.3 |
Cloves | Syzygium aromaticum | 0.86 | 6.06 | 2.75 |
Melinjo | Gnetum gnemon | 2.59 | 3.03 | 2.75 |
Sugar cane | Saccharum sp. | 2.59 | 1.52 | 2.2 |
Sweet potato | Ipomoea batatas | 0.86 | 4.55 | 2.2 |
Watermelon | Citrullus lanatus | 0.86 | 3.03 | 1.65 |
Jamaican cherry | Muntingia calabura | 0.86 | 1.52 | 1.1 |
Peanut | Arachis hypogaea | 0.86 | 1.52 | 1.1 |
Across study sites, farmers reported that LTM feeds on 26 different crops, in which durian (82.4%), banana (68.6%) cacao (58.2%) were the most frequently consumed or damaged by the LTM. Farmers also indicated that LTM damaged these fruit crops at various stages of growth (Flower, young fruit, and mature fruits). Peanuts (1.1%), watermelon (1.65%) and sweet potato (2.2%) were rarely reported to be consumed by LTM (Table. 2). Across the study sites, farmers expressed that damage for durian, cacao, and bitter beans to be serious issue as these fruits were important cash crops for them.
Perception on factors affecting crop feeding LTM and protection measures
The opinion of farmers regarding factors that cause crop feeding, LTM significantly varied between sites (χ2 = 35.40, df = 3, p < 0.001). Farmers expressed that crop availability (61.6%) and farm location (17.2%) were the leading causes the LTM engaged feed on crops in the protected sites. On the other hand, farmers in the unprotected sites claimed crop feeding occurs because of natural food shortage (44.8%) as well as crops availability (38.4%), respectively (Fig. 3a). All farmers (100.0%) in the two study site stated that they had used varieties of traditional deterrent methods to protect their crops from being damaged by LTM (Fig. 3b). The most common methods used were human guarding (56.8%), followed by dog guarding (47.4%), putting metal in the trees (33.4%), covering fruits (32.2%), setting scarecrows (16.3%), and setting wood fence (13.6%). Nearly all farmers in both sites (94%) perceived their current methods used as ineffective. In comparison, only 6.0% stated their protection methods were effective in certain condition, especially human guarding (Fig. 3c). This perception was common among farmers in both sites (χ2 = 9.30, df = 2, p = 0.090). Across the study sites, killing the LTM were mentioned; of which 18.0% farmers said they did kill the macaques (Fig. 3d). Those farmers stated that they killed two or three individual’s macaques in a given chance by using air gun. There was a significant difference in the number of farmers killed the LTM between study sites (χ2 = 15.20, df = 1, p < 0.001), retribution killing were much higher in protected site (25.0%) than unprotected sites (7.5%)
“Figure 3(a,b,c,d) should appear around here”
Attitudes of tolerance and conservation towards macaques
Over half (52.0%) of farmers expressed that they were not able to accept crop damage caused by the LTM. While others farmers (48%) expressed they could tolerate but wished crop damage could be reduced. The attitudes of tolerance towards crop feeding LTM significantly differ between sites (χ2 = 5.30, df = 1, p = 0.020). Many farmers from protected sites were likely less tolerable (64.0%); by contrast, more than half (65.0%) of farmers from unprotected sites were likely to tolerate crop damage caused by LTM (Fig. 4a). In terms of conservation, nearly three-fourth (74.0%) of farmers willing to conserve the LTM, and around 26.0% were not. No significant difference was found in terms of conservation support of the macaque between study sites (χ2 = 0.03, df = 1, p = 0.95): more than half of farmers at both sites (protected: 66.7% and unprotected: 66.2%) stated that protecting the macaques is important (Fig. 4b). More than half of farmers thought that the LTM have the right to live (67.8%), and 19.7% of farmers stated that the macaque plays an essential role in the ecosystem, and 12.4% thought that the LTM need to be protected due to religious/cultural reasons (Fig. 4c). The reasons for protecting LTM given by farmers did not significantly differ between sites (χ2 = 4.30, df = 2, p = 0.09). They were primarily driven by "empathy" in that farmers stated that the macaques have the right to live.
“Figure 4(a,b,c,d) should appears around here”
We asked farmers about their opinion on best way to reduce financial loss due to crop damage caused by LTM and the perception significantly varied between sites (χ2 = 16.4, df = 3, p < 0.001). At protected sites majority of farmers suggested compensation of losses from the government (50.8%), followed by eradication of the macaques through reducing population or translocation (25.0%), developing an effective crop protection measure (19.1%) and education programs that aimed to increase their awareness towards crop feeding LTM (5.0%). While, majority of farmers in the unprotected sites also suggested compensation of losses from the government (60.0%), followed by develop prevention strategy (26.2%), eradication (7.5%), and education (6.2%). However, as overall compensation was the most requested by majority of farmers in both sites (Fig. 4d).
Factor influencing farmers’ attitudes towards coexistences and conservation
Model selection based on delta AIC revealed that a best model was one containing gender, age, education, main source of income, land owned, income, and negative experience with the LTM as factors (Table 3). The results of the logistic regression analysis showed that human-macaque coexistence was strongly affected by the experience (Table 4), with those farmers who have direct experience with macaques crop feeding were less likely to tolerate damage caused by the macaques than farmers who had no problem with crop feeding (β = -1.47 [SE 0.586], p = 0.012). The chi-square test indicated that the experience factor predicting the attitude of coexistence fits the data well (Likelihood Ratio Test = 7.58, df = 1, p < 0.001).
Table 3
Model characteristic and selection used stepwise backward elimination based on Akaike's information criterion (AIC) for (a) coexistences and (b) conservation. Bold indicated the best model based on the lowest Delta AIC value.
Model Selection | K | AICc | Delta AICc |
Models | (a) Willingness of coexistences | | | |
1 | Sex + Age + Education + Mainsource + Landowned + Experience + Income | 8 | 247.48 | 0 |
2 | Sex + Age + Education + Mainsource + Landowned + Experience | 7 | 248.31 | 0.82 |
7 | Sex | 2 | 252.72 | 5.24 |
5 | Sex + Age + Education | 4 | 260.92 | 13.44 |
6 | Sex + Age | 3 | 262.96 | 15.48 |
4 | Sex + Age + Education + Mainsource | 4 | 265.01 | 17.53 |
3 | Sex + Age + Education + Mainsource + Landowned | 5 | 266.5 | 19.02 |
| (b) Support for conservation | | | |
3 | Sex + Age + Education + Mainsource + Landowned | 6 | 240.13 | 0 |
4 | Sex + Age + Education + Main-source | 5 | 242.19 | 2.05 |
1 | Sex + Age + Education + Main-source + Land-owned + Experience + Income | 8 | 243.94 | 3.8 |
2 | Sex + Age + Education + Main-source + Land-owned + Experience | 7 | 244.27 | 4.13 |
5 | Sex + Age + Education | 4 | 245.02 | 4.88 |
6 | Sex + Age | 3 | 246.06 | 5.93 |
7 | Sex | 2 | 246.92 | 6.79 |
“Table 3should appear around here”
For the attitude towards supporting the conservation of the LTM, model selection based on delta AIC indicated that a best model was one containing sex, age, education, main source of income, and land ownership (Table 3). Logistic regression analysis found that age and education significantly affected attitudes toward conservation (Table 4). More specifically, young farmers were less likely to support conservation than old farmers (β = -1.5779 [SE 0.5579], p = 0.004). Similarly, non-educated farmers were also less likely to support the conservation of the LTM than educated farmers (β = -0.8346 [SE 0.3970], p = 0.031). The chi-square test indicated that the age and education factors that explained the conservation attitudes of farmers fit the data well (Likelihood Ratio Test = 3.38, df = 2, p = 0.018).
Table 4
Summarize the result logistic regression model showing significant factors that influencing farmers’ attitude towards (a) coexistence, and (b) conservation of crop feeding long-tailed macaques in Padang West Sumatra. Bold and asterisks indicates significances (**p < 0.001, *p < 0.05).
Fixed factors | B | SE | χ2 | OR | p |
(a) Coexistence | | | | |
(Intercept) | 2.11074 | 0.98855 | 2.135 | 8.254 | 0.0327 |
Sex-Male | -0.18815 | 0.50365 | -0.374 | 0.828 | 0.7087 |
Age-Young | -0.13468 | 0.51601 | -0.261 | 0.873 | 0.7941 |
Education-None | -0.58734 | 0.33178 | -1.77 | 0.555 | 0.0767 |
Main source of income-Others | -0.436 | 0.40706 | -1.071 | 0.646 | 0.2841 |
Land owned-Yes | -0.01166 | 0.66673 | -0.017 | 0.988 | 0.9861 |
Experience-Yes | -1.62069 | 0.63764 | -2.542 | 0.197 | 0.0110 * |
Income-Less than 2.5Juta | -0.6395 | 0.38613 | -1.656 | 0.527 | 0.0977 |
(b) Conservation | | | | |
(Intercept) | 0.1594 | 0.803 | 0.198 | 2.039 | 0.84267 |
Sex-Male | 0.194 | 0.5064 | 0.383 | 0.654 | 0.70159 |
Age-Young | -1.5779 | 0.5579 | -2.828 | 1.068 | 0.00468 ** |
Education-None | -0.8346 | 0.397 | -2.102 | 0.559 | 0.03552 * |
Main source of income-Others | 0.8335 | 0.485 | 1.718 | 0.783 | 0.08572 |
Land owned-Yes | 1.2134 | 0.6736 | 1.801 | 0.91 | 0.07165 |
“Table 4should appear around here”