ORI GIN AL PA PER Role of local culture, religion, and human attitudes in the conservation of sacred populations of a threatened ‘pest’ species Lynne R. Baker • Oluseun S. Olubode • Adebowale A. Tanimola • David L. Garshelis Received: 15 January 2014 / Revised: 27 March 2014 / Accepted: 3 April 2014 / Published online: 26 April 2014 � Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract Indigenous belief systems and informal institutions that result in the conser- vation of wild species or sites exemplify biocultural conservation. The erosion of cultural beliefs and practices can have adverse, often severe, consequences for biodiversity. We explored the relationships among informal institutions, religion, and human attitudes toward sacred populations of a threatened, endemic species, Sclater’s monkey (Cercopi- thecus sclateri), in two communities in southeastern Nigeria. Due to habitat loss and hunting pressure across the species’ range, monkeys in these two sites live alongside people, raid farms and gardens, and are commonly viewed as pests. Using structured (n = 410) and semi-structured (n = 21) interviews, we examined factors influencing residents’ views of the monkeys, mechanisms affecting adherence to social taboos against Communicated by Dirk Sven Schmeller. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10531-014-0694-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. L. R. Baker (&) Department of Natural and Environmental Sciences, American University of Nigeria, Yola, Adamawa State, Nigeria e-mail: lynne.baker@aun.edu.ng; sclateri@yahoo.com L. R. Baker � D. L. Garshelis Conservation Biology Program, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA O. S. Olubode Department of Crop Protection and Environmental Biology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria A. A. Tanimola Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria D. L. Garshelis Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Grand Rapids, MN 55744, USA 123 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:1895–1909 DOI 10.1007/s10531-014-0694-6 UNIV ERSIT Y O F IB ADAN L IB RARY http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0694-6 harming monkeys, and implications for conservation. Our analyses revealed that most residents, particularly those from one community, women, and farmers, held negative opinions of the monkeys. Crop and garden raiding by monkeys had the most adverse effect on people’s attitudes. Although the adoption of Christianity weakened residents’ views regarding the no-killing taboos, continued adherence to the taboos was particularly influenced by supernatural retribution in one site and community disapproval in the other. Only one community widely conferred symbolic importance on the monkeys. Such site differences illustrate the value of local cultural understanding in conservation. Pre-inter- vention studies of this nature allow for the development of locally and culturally sensitive conservation programs, as well as better-informed assessments of what interventions are most likely to be effective. Keywords Cercopithecus sclateri � Crop raiding � Human-wildlife conflict � Nigeria � Primate � Taboo Introduction Although the field of biocultural diversity—which encompasses biological, cultural, and linguistic diversity and their interconnections—took hold in the 1990s (Maffi 2005), bio- cultural conservation has recently received greater focus and attention (e.g. Pretty et al. 2009; Maffi and Woodley 2010; Pungetti et al. 2012; Pilgrim and Pretty 2013). Efforts to conserve biocultural diversity have generally focused on or developed from within indigenous societies and local communities (Oviedo et al. 2000; Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2010; Maffi and Woodley 2010). The link between nature and culture is often illustrated using examples from these societies, such as local belief systems that confer protection on wild species through social taboos or social norms (Colding and Folke 1997; Saj et al. 2006; Jones et al. 2008; Kideghesho 2008). Changes in local belief systems and the subsequent waning of associated taboos and practices can negatively affect biodiversity. New religions whose doctrines differ from a society’s indigenous beliefs may influence customs and attitudes toward culturally protected species and sites. The adoption of Christianity by indigenous societies has been often cited as leading to the erosion or loss of environmentally friendly beliefs and practices associated with local religions, such as the protection of sacred streams and forests or species through hunting taboos (e.g. Anoliefo et al. 2003; Fowler 2003). In some cases, though, sacred species and sites linked to indigenous beliefs persist even after widespread adoption of new, usually Western, faiths (Baker et al. 2009; Dudley et al. 2009). There is consequently a need for community-level case studies that elucidate the local relationships among environment, cultural values, beliefs, and institutions, as well as factors that erode or strengthen these relationships (Maffi and Woodley 2010). Conservation programs are more likely to be successful when they account for local culture, which herein denotes a group of people’s shared values and institutions, including informal institutions such as social taboos and norms, community pride, and customs (Waylen et al. 2010). We investigated the connections among informal institutions, religion, and human attitudes toward two culturally protected populations of Sclater’s monkey (Cercopithecus sclateri) in the Igbo-speaking region of Nigeria (Igboland). Sclater’s monkey is endemic to southeastern Nigeria, with Igboland comprising a large portion of its entire distribution 1896 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:1895–1909 123 UNIV ERSIT Y O F IB ADAN L IB RARY (Baker and Olubode 2008). It is listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN (Oates et al. 2008) and does not occur in any official protected areas, such as national parks. In two Igbo com- munities, social taboos protect Sclater’s monkey from being killed or eaten; these taboos are linked to indigenous religious beliefs and local folklore (Baker 2013). Because Igbo- land is human-dense and mostly deforested, culturally protected plants and animals are particularly important for the conservation of rare or endemic species in this region. Cultural safeguards may not last, however. Populations protected in this way are often considered under threat due to religious conversion (e.g. Anoliefo et al. 2003), and, in the case of Sclater’s monkey, frequent raiding of people’s crops and gardens (Oates et al. 1992; Tooze 1994). Crop damage by sacred species can diminish public opinion of these animals. Crop raiding by rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) in India, for example, has led to growing condemnation of these culturally revered primates (Southwick and Siddiqi 1998; Srivastava and Begum 2005). We thus expected that both crop raiding and religious change would negatively affect people’s opinions of the monkeys and may result in increased persecution in the future. Given the importance of these populations to the conservation of Sclater’s monkey, we examined demographic factors influencing opinions about the monkeys and mechanisms affecting the continued widespread observance of the taboos against harming them. In addition, we show how differences between two similar communities reinforce the need for local cultural understanding in developing site-relevant conservation interventions. Methods Study area We collected data in Akpugoeze (Enugu State) and Lagwa (Imo State) in the Igbo- speaking region of southeastern Nigeria. In these communities, remaining natural forest is primarily found within small patches, often protected as sacred tree groves (averaging 2 ha in Akpugoeze and 0.5 ha in Lagwa; Baker et al. 2009). Land in both communities is widely cultivated and dominated by oil palm (Elaeis guineensis), although forest cover (including sacred groves and other forest) is greater in the more-expansive Akpugoeze. Given the limited amount of mostly degraded forest, particularly in Lagwa, monkey groups boldly range in and around people’s homes and gardens (two video clips that illustrate how closely monkeys live with residents in Lagwa are provided as supplementary material). Their food-raiding activities have led to human-monkey conflict and thus their widespread reputation as pests (Oates et al. 1992; Tooze 1994). In Akpugoeze, monkeys are protected because they are considered the property of two local deities. In Lagwa, monkeys are also associated with a deity, and they are well represented in local folklore (Baker 2013). Deities are usually connected to a shrine maintained by a shrine priest. In Lagwa, shrines may be physical structures (small buildings or altars) within or near a sacred grove; many have been demolished or aban- doned, including the shrine associated with the monkeys. Most shrine forests in Akpugoeze do not contain physical structures. Igbo communities are autonomous political units that include a number of contiguous villages, which in turn consist of different lineages or kindreds (Meek 1970). At the time of our study, the community of Akpugoeze was in the process of dividing into three auton- omous communities, comprising seven villages. Only two of these villages historically considered monkeys sacred (Baker 2013). Adherence to the taboo against harming Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:1895–1909 1897 123 UNIV ERSIT Y O F IB ADAN L IB RARY monkeys is not strictly defined along village lines, however, and monkeys are also gen- erally unharmed anywhere when found in sacred groves. Lagwa currently comprises seven villages; one contiguous autonomous community, Umunokwu, was formerly a village of Lagwa. The entirety of Lagwa–Umunokwu (‘Lagwa’ herein) does not harm monkeys. Several primate species historically would have occurred in these sites, but only Sclater’s monkey is now common. This is likely due to a combination of factors, including doctrines of the local belief systems (i.e. greater protection may have been conferred on one species), habitat type (i.e. species better adapted to rainforest and increasing forest loss and fragmentation would be more likely to persist), and interspecific competition (i.e. certain primate species outcompeted others) (Baker et al. 2009). Mona monkeys (Cerco- pithecus mona) have been observed on the periphery of Akpugoeze, and a single tantalus monkey (Chlorocebus tantalus) has been recorded in Lagwa (Baker et al. 2014). Sampling design We surveyed residents of both communities during two months in 2005 and three months in 2006. As we were interested in the characteristics of individuals who expressed certain opinions, we used probabilistic methods to obtain a representative sample for question- naire-based interviews (Bernard 2006). Using similar questionnaires for Lagwa and Ak- pugoeze (administered only in the two villages that strictly protect monkeys), we conducted face-to-face structured interviews with 410 randomly sampled residents C12 years old (n = 208, Lagwa; n = 202, Akpugoeze). We also conducted semi-struc- tured interviews with community leaders and elders (n = 14) and shrine priests (n = 7) and made direct observations. Questionnaires included both fixed-response (yes/no) and open-ended questions. All interviews were held at respondents’ homes and conducted in English, which is widely spoken in the region; a local translator was always present. The number of interviews conducted per village in each community was proportionate to each village’s estimated number of households. We rarely interviewed female household members when husbands or male heads-of-household were present to avoid potentially biased responses (Korieh 2006). Analyses We examined interview responses in relation to two key questions: (1) whether the person preferred having monkeys in their community (‘‘preference’’ question), and (2) whether he or she considered monkeys an important part of their community (‘‘importance’’ question) (Table 1). We allowed respondents to interpret importance without further explanation. Some community members had previously expressed pride, for example, noting that the monkeys made their community famous, while others held no such beliefs. We were interested in whether people assigned any importance to monkeys and, if so, why. For each key question, we present results for all respondents combined and then note, where rele- vant, any key differences between the communities. Explanatory (open-ended) comments provided in response to these and other yes/no questions (Table 1) enabled us to substantiate and further illuminate fixed-answer responses. Comments were evaluated for common themes and grouped into categories. We calculated frequency distributions for these categories and compared results between communities and, for certain data, between males and females. Because several respon- dents discussed more than one category, percentage totals exceeded 100 % in some cases. 1898 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:1895–1909 123 UNIV ERSIT Y O F IB ADAN L IB RARY For tests of 2 9 2 contingency tables, we used Yates’ continuity-corrected v2 statistic, otherwise we used the Pearson v2 statistic. We ran two sets of logistic-regression models using binary responses to our two key questions as the dependent variables. We excluded ‘‘don’t know’’ responses and answers from people who were primarily living outside the community at the time of our study. Final samples were n = 399 for the importance model (n = 204, Lagwa; n = 195, Ak- pugoeze) and n = 402 for the preference model (n = 207, Lagwa; n = 195, Akpugoeze) and all other statistical tests, including cross-tabulations and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Predictor variables included demographics (age, gender, primary income source, education, household size), religious data (religion, relationship to shrine priest, visits to shrine priest, presence of household shrine, churchgoing frequency), residency status (indigene/non-indigene), and frequency of visits to major towns or cities. We initially conducted individual logistic-regression analyses to determine which variables were significant on their own and checked for correlations or redundancy among predictors. We excluded religion because only eight respondents claimed to be adherents of the traditional religion and because religion was correlated with other variables, such presence of a household shrine (v2 = 63.18, df = 1, p \ 0.001). We entered all predictors in the model and examined model fit using likelihood-ratio v2 tests. We then used a backward-elimination process to simplify the models and evaluate the influence of each predictor based on change in Akaike’s Information Criterion cor- rected for sample size (AICc) (Burnham and Anderson 2002). We tested for but found little evidence of overdispersion, justifying the use of AICc rather than QAICc. Finally, we used coefficients from our final logistic-regression models to calculate the predicted probabil- ities of preferring the monkeys’ presence or considering them to be important. Results Preference More than half of all respondents (239/402; 59 %) said they would prefer not having monkeys in their community, although 62 % of this group would tolerate monkeys and even prefer having them around if monkeys were no longer destructive to their crops, Table 1 Fixed-response (yes/no) questions Do you prefer or not prefer monkeys to be present in your community?a,b Are monkeys an important part of your community?a Do you know why monkeys are not harmed in this community? Are there any advantages/disadvantages to having monkeys in this community? Are there any consequences for killing a monkey intentionally? Does any situation exist in which it is acceptable to kill a monkey in this community? Would you personally kill a monkey? Do you remember the last time a monkey was killed in this community? a Responses used as dependent variables in logistic-regression analyses b This question was asked with the clarification ‘‘under current circumstances.’’ Some respondents said they would prefer monkeys if they were ‘‘kept in a cage,’’ ‘‘no longer destructive,’’ etc. These conditions were recorded, but were differentiated from ‘‘under current circumstances’’ responses Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:1895–1909 1899 123 UNIV ERSIT Y O F IB ADAN L IB RARY fruits, and rooftops. Anti-monkey responses were more common in Akpugoeze (73 %) than Lagwa (46 %). The odds of preferring the presence of monkeys was thus greater for Lagwa residents, as well as for males, residents with household shrines, people from larger households, and people who more often visited major cities and towns (Table 2a). Model- based probabilities suggested that 92 % of males who have a household shrine in Lagwa prefer the monkeys’ presence versus 74 % in Akpugoeze (Table 3). We found no effect of age on people’s views. Three individually significant predictors were not in the final model—primary source of income, churchgoing frequency, and indigene—owing to correlations with community or gender. Lagwa residents attended church services significantly less often than Akpugoeze residents. Primary income source was correlated with community; half of Akpugoeze’s residents derived the bulk of their income from farming, whereas trading was the largest income source for one-third of Lagwa’s residents. Income source and indigene were also correlated with gender, as women were more likely to be farmers and traders, and men were more often skill-based workers. Of the 115 non-indigenes interviewed, only one was male. Based on the individually significant models, the odds of preferring the presence of monkeys was lower for non-indigenes, residents who attended more church services, and residents who received most of their income from farming (Table 2b). Model-based probabilities of preferring the presence of monkeys were 32 % for non-indigenes versus Table 2 Maximum-likelihood estimates of logistic-regression parameters for the preference model with the lowest AICc score 95 % CI for odds ratio Variable ba SE Wald df p Odds ratio Lower Upper a. Final model Intercept -0.340 0.565 0.362 1 0.547 Community (Lagwa) 1.363 0.237 33.170 1 0.000 3.908 2.458 6.215 Gender (male) 0.940 0.234 16.192 1 0.000 2.561 1.620 4.049 Household shrine (no) -1.804 0.528 11.667 1 0.001 0.165 0.058 0.463 # Household members 0.064 0.040 2.532 1 0.112 1.066 0.985 1.153 # Visits monthly to major city 0.111 0.055 4.149 1 0.042 1.118 1.004 1.244 b. Individually significant logistic-regression variables not in the final model Intercept -0.245 0.119 4.247 1 0.039 Non-indigene -0.501 0.232 4.642 1 0.031 0.606 0.384 0.956 Intercept -0.033 0.161 0.043 1 0.836 # Church services weekly -0.123 0.045 7.470 1 0.006 0.884 0.809 0.966 Intercept -0.938 0.197 22.779 1 0.000 Incomeb (skill-based) 1.078 0.292 13.610 1 0.000 2.939 1.658 5.211 Incomeb (none) 0.191 0.450 0.180 1 0.671 1.211 0.501 2.924 Incomeb (trading) 0.721 0.296 5.939 1 0.015 2.056 1.152 3.669 Incomeb (student) 0.756 0.302 6.278 1 0.012 2.130 1.179 3.847 a Reference is 0 (not prefer). Parameter estimates refer to the likelihood that respondents prefer having monkeys in their community b Reference is farming, so category is compared to farming 1900 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:1895–1909 123 UNIV ERSIT Y O F IB ADAN L IB RARY 44 % for indigenes, and 29 % for people who attended church daily versus 46 % for those who attended once weekly. Probabilities were lowest for people who received most of their income from farming: 28 % for farmers versus 45 % for traders and 53 % for skill-based professions. Except for people who were supported by others and were not students (often elderly residents), the difference between farmers and each group (traders, skill-based workers, and students) was significant (Table 2b). Occupation also affected travel to major cities. On average, traders and skill-based workers visited cities more often than farmers (ANOVA: F2,294 = 4.39, p = 0.013). Importance Less than half of all respondents (184/399; 46 %) associated some type of importance with the monkeys, although this sentiment was considerably more prevalent in Lagwa (64 %) than Akpugoeze (27 %). The odds of believing that monkeys were important followed the same pattern and included the same variables as the preference model (Table 4a), as did model-based probabilities for these variables (Table 5). Primary income source and church attendance were individually significant predicators of residents’ views of the importance of monkeys in their community, but these variables were excluded in the final model, again due to correlations with other variables. The odds of considering monkeys important was lower for residents who attended more church services weekly and residents whose income relied on farming (Table 4b). Model-based probabilities of believing monkeys were important were lowest for farmers compared to Table 3 Model-based probabilities of people preferring the presence of monkeys based on community, gender, presence of a household shrine, household size, and monthly city visits 1st and 9th deciles Variables held constanta # Household membersb # City visits monthlyc Variable 1 9 0 3 Akpugoeze M ?HHS 0.74 0.85 1.00 0.71 0.98 F ?HHS 0.52 0.69 1.00 0.49 0.95 M -HHS 0.32 0.48 1.00 0.29 0.89 F -HHS 0.15 0.27 1.00 0.14 0.76 Lagwa M ?HHS 0.92 0.96 1.00 0.91 0.99 F ?HHS 0.81 0.90 1.00 0.79 0.99 M -HHS 0.65 0.78 1.00 0.61 0.97 F -HHS 0.42 0.59 1.00 0.38 0.93 Probabilities for continuous variables are shown at the 1st and 9th deciles M male, F female, ?HHS has household shrine, -HHS no household shrine a Two continuous variables were held constant at their means (number of household members = 4.76; number of visits to major cities monthly = 1.22) b Probabilities for combinations of categorical variables, with number of visits to major cities monthly held constant at its mean (1.22) c Probabilities for combinations of categorical variables, with number of household members held constant at its mean (4.76) Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:1895–1909 1901 123 UNIV ERSIT Y O F IB ADAN L IB RARY other professions: 29 % for farmers versus 55 % for traders and 57 % for skill-based professions. Probabilities for churchgoers decreased from 51 % for those who attended once a week to 35 % for people who attended church daily. Why monkeys are not harmed Most people we interviewed (346/402; 86 %) provided reasons for why monkeys were not killed or harmed in their community. The three most frequently cited reasons were: monkeys are owned by or associated with a shrine (174/346; 50 %); it is the custom or culture of the community (145/346; 42 %); and monkeys are closely related to people (ancestors, relatives, or human-like) (41/346; 12 %). Residents of Akpugoeze noted the monkeys’ association with shrines significantly more often than Lagwa residents (v2 = 195.58, df = 1, p \ 0.001), while the latter group more frequently cited the two other reasons. Advantages/disadvantages of monkeys One-third of residents (132/402) listed advantages to the monkeys’ presence in their community; significantly more were from Lagwa (v2 = 44.89, df = 1, p \ 0.001) and male (v2 = 25.58, df = 1, p \ 0.001). The most commonly cited advantages were: monkeys are fun to watch (68/132; 52 %); they attract visitors (36 %); they are a symbol of the community (provide identity and fame) (30 %); and their presence maintains tradition (9 %). Table 4 Maximum-likelihood estimates of logistic-regression parameters for the importance model with the lowest AICc score 95 % CI for odds ratio Variable ba SE Wald df p Odds ratio Lower Upper a. Final model Intercept -1.000 0.551 3.288 1 0.070 Community (Lagwa) 1.742 0.239 53.272 1 0.000 5.709 3.576 9.114 Gender (male) 0.859 0.238 13.013 1 0.000 2.361 1.480 3.765 Household shrine (no) -1.140 0.502 5.145 1 0.023 0.320 0.120 0.857 # Household members 0.092 0.042 4.836 1 0.028 1.096 1.010 1.189 # Visits monthly to major city 0.113 0.059 3.681 1 0.055 1.120 0.998 1.257 b. Individually significant logistic-regression variables not in the final model Intercept 0.157 0.160 0.963 1 0.326 # Church services weekly -0.109 0.044 6.176 1 0.013 0.897 0.823 0.977 Intercept -0.889 0.195 20.718 1 0.000 Incomeb (skill-based) 1.170 0.293 15.991 1 0.000 3.221 1.816 5.715 Incomeb (none) 0.514 0.438 1.380 1 0.240 1.672 0.709 3.943 Incomeb (trading) 1.085 0.296 13.462 1 0.000 2.958 1.657 5.281 Incomeb (student) 1.071 0.301 12.677 1 0.000 2.919 1.619 5.264 a Reference is 0 (not important). Parameter estimates refer to the likelihood that respondents believe monkeys are an important part of their community b Reference is farming, so category is compared to farming 1902 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:1895–1909 123 UNIV ERSIT Y O F IB ADAN L IB RARY Nearly everyone (376/402; 94 %) reported disadvantages; this feeling was stronger among women than men (v2 = 4.04, df = 1, p = 0.044). Of the eight disadvantages noted, destruction of crops and fruits was most commonly mentioned (372/376; 99 %). We were told (and also observed ourselves) that monkeys entered households, usually to take food, when residents were away. Thirteen percent of people also attributed the destruction of roofing sheets to monkeys. Consequences for killing monkeys Nearly two-thirds of respondents (260/402) said there were adverse consequences for people who intentionally killed monkeys; 25 % said there were none, and 11 % did not know. Akpugoeze residents reported consequences more often than Lagwa residents (v2 = 11.87, df = 1, p \ 0.001). The most frequently mentioned consequence was being obligated to organize and pay for a burial for the monkey (142/260; 55 %), possibly formally, such as done for humans, or informally, such as simply placing the dead monkey in a hole in the ground. Burial ceremonies were usually conducted to appease the deities and could be costly. Several people noted that formal burials were very rare today; we never witnessed such an event. Being harassed, shunned, or ostracized by others was the next most mentioned conse- quence of killing a monkey (35 %). Some residents also talked about having to pay a monetary fine and being beaten by community members. Several people noted spiritual (shrine-related) repercussions, such as being killed by the shrine, becoming mad or ill, or Table 5 Model-based probabilities of people believing that monkeys are important based on community, gender, presence of a household shrine, household size, and monthly city visits 1st and 9th deciles Variables held constanta # Household membersb # City visits monthlyc Variable 1 9 0 3 Akpugoeze M ?HHS 0.61 0.73 1.00 0.57 0.96 F ?HHS 0.40 0.53 1.00 0.36 0.92 M -HHS 0.33 0.46 1.00 0.30 0.90 F -HHS 0.17 0.27 1.00 0.15 0.79 Lagwa M ?HHS 0.90 0.94 1.00 0.88 0.99 F ?HHS 0.79 0.87 1.00 0.77 0.98 M -HHS 0.74 0.83 1.00 0.71 0.98 F -HHS 0.54 0.68 1.00 0.51 0.95 Probabilities for continuous variables are shown at the 1st and 9th deciles M male, F female, ?HHS has household shrine, -HHS no household shrine a Two continuous variables were held constant at their means (number of household members = 4.76; number of visits to major cities monthly = 1.22) b Probabilities for combinations of categorical variables, with number of visits to major cities monthly held constant at its mean (1.22) c Probabilities for combinations of categorical variables, with number of household members held constant at its mean (4.76) Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:1895–1909 1903 123 UNIV ERSIT Y O F IB ADAN L IB RARY having to appease the gods (e.g. consulting a shrine priest and making sacrifices). Supernatural retribution was mentioned more frequently by residents of Akpugoeze than Lagwa residents: killed by the shrine (v2 = 14.82, df = 1, p \ 0.001) and other spiritual repercussions (v2 = 20.14, df = 1, p \ 0.001). In Lagwa, people were more fearful of community condemnation (v2 = 27.09, df = 1, p \ 0.001). It was noted, however, that people were often forgiven by simply apologizing and citing the monkeys’ destructiveness in their defense. There was general agreement among respondents (361/402; 90 %) that no situation existed in which it was acceptable to kill monkeys in their community. Those who said that it was acceptable to kill monkeys in some circumstances (29/402; 7 %) cited such reasons as a belief in Christianity (i.e. monkeys were associated with or protected by traditional deities, and these people were enlightened through Christianity and no longer believed in the deities); permission from shrine priests, elders, or the community in general; and destruction of crops. Of the people we interviewed, 14 % admitted they would personally kill a monkey. Given the monkeys’ reputation as nuisances, we were not surprised to learn that they were sometimes killed, although usually not openly. Some residents had invited hunters from other communities to eliminate problem monkeys. Where it was perceived that no societal or supernatural harm came to those involved, others had begun advocating the killing of monkeys. Discussion The informal institutions that protect Sclater’s monkey populations in Nigeria are currently the sole safeguard for the species, yet these institutions are susceptible to several eroding forces. In particular, residents of Lagwa and Akpugoeze widely consider monkeys to be pests and often commented that monkeys deprived them of income they would have received from selling food that was damaged or consumed by monkeys. This is not a recent development. In a 1994 study in Akpugoeze, 96 % of residents had the same complaint, with 62 % noting they ‘‘did not like having monkeys around’’ due to destruction of crops and fruits (Tooze 1994). Life with monkeys clearly has an impact on peoples’ livelihoods, and this is further complicated by other factors such as religious change, travel, and work opportunities. In this context, it is relevant to examine these factors and how they influence human attitudes toward monkeys. We assumed that those who indicated a preference for having monkeys in their community and saw them as important in some way would be more likely to adhere to the taboo against harming them. Household size Because crop raiding may have a more significant economic effect on larger families with more mouths to feed, people from larger households might have less tolerance for mon- keys. Increasing household size, however, positively affected people’s preference and perceived importance of monkeys in our study sites. Possibly, the more people present in a family compound, the less likely monkeys are to visit. Larger households not only are more likely to see monkeys, but also have more people available to chase off monkeys. Larger families may also have greater economic opportunities, with potentially more income- 1904 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:1895–1909 123 UNIV ERSIT Y O F IB ADAN L IB RARY earners and diverse revenue sources. Consequently, bigger households may experience fewer economic consequences from crop and fruit damage than smaller households. City visits It has been suggested that urbanization (and associated modernization) negatively affect local religious beliefs and practices among the Igbo (Anoliefo et al. 2003). Egboh (1971) noted that urbanized Igbo more readily abandoned local beliefs in favor of Christianity, which was considered progressive and modern compared to the village deities. Others, however, have found a close connection between city migrants and their rural home (Gugler 1991; Chukwuezi 2001), suggesting enduring respect for local (community-based) beliefs and informal institutions by some urban dwellers. We found that the number of number of city visits was positively associated with people’s opinions. More frequent travelers may be less likely to witness the destructive nature of monkeys than those who stay mainly within the community and regularly encounter monkeys. People who visit cities may even experience a sense of pride when they meet others who claim to know of their village because of the monkeys. In addition, people who traveled more frequently were usually traders and those in skill-based jobs; thus, they relied less on farming for their livelihoods. Primary income source Although farmers were the least tolerant of monkeys, most residents in both communities have fruit trees around their homes and at least one farm plot. For people whose livelihoods depend primarily on crop and fruit yields, the raiding behavior of free-roaming monkeys translated into particularly hostile feelings. A few residents branded monkeys as ‘‘thieves’’ and ‘‘criminals’’ and expressed frustration at having to constantly watch over their crops and gardens (Baker 2009). Gender and indigenous status In Igboland, participation by women in agricultural production increased with the wide- spread adoption of cassava (Manihot esculenta) (Korieh 2007) and the growing involve- ment of men in non-farm employment (Ezumah and DiDomenico 1995). Among the three major tribes in Nigeria (Yoruba, Hausa, and Igbo), Adekanye (1984) found that Igbo women were most often farmers. It thus follows that men would hold more favorable views of monkeys. While this was true, women in our study were not exclusively farmers and were frequently engaged in trading; farming was also the second largest income source for men. Women’s opinions were likely influenced by additional factors. Some noted that monkeys were less fearful of women and more likely to visit house- holds when men were away. Other studies have similarly found that crop-raiding primates were more afraid of adult men than women or children (Strum 1994; Hill 1997). Women in this study expressed frustration at trying to deter monkeys that ignored or ‘‘mocked’’ them (Baker 2009). In addition, nearly all of the non-indigenes we interviewed were women, and non-indigenes responded more negatively to the preference question. Igbo women gen- erally marry outside their natal community or village. Non-indigenous women comprised 39 % of the Lagwa and 17 % of the Akpugoeze sample populations. Only a handful of women who married into these communities were raised with a worldview that conferred Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:1895–1909 1905 123 UNIV ERSIT Y O F IB ADAN L IB RARY special status on monkeys, although 42 % said their native village had a sacred animal. These were often snakes, tortoises, or cryptic or extirpated species such as leopards. The destructive nature of monkeys, which must have seemed comparatively high, was thus a unique problem for them. Non-native residents felt little or no loyalty to the taboo pro- tecting monkeys, but adhered to it generally out of respect for their conjugal village. Religion and informal institutions Nigeria’s Igbo population is overwhelmingly Christian (Johnson 2007), yet the protection of nature linked to indigenous worldviews is not uncommon in the region (e.g. Nzegbule and Meregini 1999; Okpoko 2001; Anoliefo et al. 2003; Baker et al. 2009). Similarly, in Lagwa and Akpugoeze, also largely Christianized, the monkeys’ association with local deities was negatively perceived by most residents, some of whom expressed a desire to eradicate ‘‘primitive’’ ways, and yet traditional beliefs have remained influential. Adher- ence to the taboo against harming or killing monkeys can be related to perceived conse- quences, some of which are spiritual. Continued belief in the deities’ power often signified fear of supernatural punishment. This situation reflects the nature of the Igbo traditional religion or worldview, which was historically an integral part of Igbo daily life (Ejizu 1984). Various religious aspects and customary social practices persisted after the missionary impact on Igboland and remain active, yet often in adapted or diluted forms, resulting in an overlapping or amalgamation of belief systems (Isichei 1970; Ejizu 1984; Okorocha 1987). Such syn- cretism remains common throughout Igboland (Udoye 2011). Several shrine priests said that residents still consulted them, although often in secret, and an Igbo community leader told us, ‘‘Nobody here is a full Christian.’’ Another important factor maintaining support for the taboo was that community-wide consensus was generally considered necessary before anyone could kill monkeys; residents were often unwilling to defy the community. Nonetheless, we found that official support for the continued presence of monkeys was relatively weak in Akpugoeze. Local people reported that some community members recently approved the killing of monkeys at village meetings. Conservation implications Conservation interventions must address monkey crop and garden raiding, which signifi- cantly influenced human attitudes in both Lagwa and Akpugoeze. Engagement with farmers and women should be prioritized. Crop raiding not only affects livelihoods, but also strains intra-community relations; human-wildlife conflict usually involves human– human conflict given the disparate values, attitudes, feelings, and socioeconomic positions held by people (Madden 2004). Tensions exist over how to deal with the ‘‘monkey problem,’’ which affects some people far more than others. Strict Christians justify the removal of monkeys due to their association with deities, while farmers and lower-income households point to financial losses. On the other hand, traditional shrine priests, some community leaders, and certain wealthier (sometimes urban-based) residents support the continued presence of monkeys, although usually for different reasons (to avoid retaliation from the shrines, maintain tradition, develop the community through tourism, etc.). Political divisions exacerbate this already sensitive situation. Here, differences between Lagwa and Akpugoeze become especially germane. In Lagwa, social norms have been important in discouraging the killing of monkeys owing to 1906 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:1895–1909 123 UNIV ERSIT Y O F IB ADAN L IB RARY fear of social disapproval. These mechanisms are weakened, however, by the monkeys’ destructiveness. Educational efforts and engagement with community leaders and groups could help reinforce established social norms without any need for formal mechanisms of taboo enforcement. Such norms are less influential in Akpugoeze, but could become important if educational programs lead to increased social pressure supporting the no- killing taboo. Fernandes (2005) found that although taboos that once protected the fish Arapaima gigas among the Makushi in Guyana had broken down, environmental education led to a change in human attitudes and, in turn, social pressure that was more effective than formal mechanisms in enforcing a harvesting ban on this species. In Akpugoeze, fear of supernatural retribution appears significant in maintaining the no- killing taboo. That about only one-quarter of the Akpugoeze residents we interviewed considered monkeys important to their community—down from 55 % in 1994 (Tooze 1994)—suggests the taboo is eroding there. The 1994 Akpugoeze study also indicated less support for monkeys among younger people (15–25 years old), which would predict a continuing trend toward dissolution of the taboo. However, we did not find the same result. Even if some killing does occur, the level must be relatively low, as monkey populations in both communities appear to be increasing based on recent censuses (Baker et al. 2014). This increasing trend, though, likely brings with it more crop raiding by monkeys and commensurate frustration among local residents, which could reach a tipping point. Another key difference between the communities relates to the symbolic importance of monkeys. Lagwa has received some recognition from the state government as a haven for this endemic species, and monkeys there are generally considered a community icon and even a source of pride. A Lagwa folktale, although not widely known, associates monkeys with good deeds toward the founders of the community and in turn provides a secular basis for the no-killing taboo (Baker 2013). The monkeys’ ‘‘likability’’ is also greater in Lagwa, where residents often identified ‘‘watching monkeys’’ as an advantage. Lagwa’s lower monkey densities (Baker et al. 2014) and smaller proportion of farmers may contribute to such favorable feelings. In Akpugoeze, monkeys are intimately tied to two deities, and most residents recog- nized few other reasons to justify the monkeys’ presence. Here, educational and pride- building campaigns, focusing on the uniqueness of Sclater’s monkey, may be effective. The monkeys’ totemic affiliation with Lagwa provides them relative security; if a similar affiliation could be developed in Akpugoeze, it may work to offset the monkeys’ negative association with the shrines. Such efforts have been initiated in both communities by documenting and publishing local monkey folklore (Baker 2013). Conservation interventions should also respect changes in local beliefs and attempt to work within these channels, including reaching out to church leaders and congregations to encourage a dialogue on the Christian principle of environmental stewardship. Residents struggling with the monkey-deity association may respond positively to faith-based con- servation programs and find alternative justification for protecting monkeys and other wildlife, sacred groves and streams, and other natural areas. Partnerships with faith groups can be powerful alliances for conservation and development (Bhagwat et al. 2011). Even so, it will be important to maintain sensitivity to and respect for the holders of traditional beliefs and practices (e.g. shrine priests). The need to tailor conservation interventions to local culture may be easier to recognize than implement (Waylen et al. 2010). Nonetheless, case studies such as this provide evidence of the value of understanding the cultural context of local communities—par- ticularly when culture plays an intimate role in the protection of threatened species or sites, as is clearly the case for Sclater’s monkey. Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:1895–1909 1907 123 UNIV ERSIT Y O F IB ADAN L IB RARY Acknowledgments Many thanks to the leaders and residents of Lagwa, Umunokwu, Akpugoeze, Ak- pugoeze–Ugwu, and Akpugoeze–Agbada. Financial support was provided by CENSHARE at the University of Minnesota (UMN), Doctoral Dissertation International Research Grant (UMN Graduate School), Inter- disciplinary Center for the Study of Global Change (UMN), National Science Foundation, and Rufford Small Grants Foundation. In Nigeria, we are grateful to Glory Ajah, Chief Assam Assam, Rose Bassey, CERCOPAN, Jennifer Seale, and Zena Tooze. References Adekanye TO (1984) Women in agriculture in Nigeria: problems and policies for development. Women Stud Int Forum 7:423–431 Anoliefo GO, Isikhuemhen OS, Ochije NR (2003) Environmental implications of the erosion of cultural taboo practices in Awka-South Local Government Area of Anambra State, Nigeria: 1. Forests, trees, and water resource preservation. J Agric Environ Ethics 16:281–296 Baker LR (2009) Sclater’s guenon in Nigeria: outlook good or just hanging on? Ecological and human dimensions of hunted and sacred populations. PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis Baker LR (2013) Links between local folklore and the conservation of Sclater’s monkey (Cercopithecus sclateri) in Nigeria. Afr Primates 8:17–24 Baker LR, Olubode OS (2008) Correlates with the distribution and abundance of endangered Sclater’s monkeys (Cercopithecus sclateri) in southern Nigeria. Afr J Ecol 46:365–373 Baker LR, Tanimola AA, Olubode OS, Garshelis DL (2009) Distribution and abundance of sacred monkeys in Igboland, southern Nigeria. Am J Primatol 71:574–586 Baker LR, Tanimola AA, Olubode OS (2014) Sacred populations of Cercopithecus sclateri: analysis of apparent population increases from census counts. Am J Primatol 76:303–312 Bernard HR (2006) Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches, 4th edn. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD Bhagwat SA, Dudley N, Harrop SR (2011) Religious following in biodiversity hotspots: challenges and opportunities for conservation and development. Conserv Lett 4:234–240 Borrini-Feyerabend G, Lassen B, Stevens S, Martin G, de la Peña JCR, Ráez-Luna EF, Taghi Farvar M (2010) Bio-cultural diversity conserved by indigenous peoples and local communities–examples and analysis. ICCA Consortium and Cenesta for GEF SGP, GTZ, IIED, and IUCN/CEESP, Tehran Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information- theoretic approach. Springer, New York Chukwuezi B (2001) Through thick and thin: Igbo rural-urban circularity, identity, and investment. J Contemp Afr Stud 19:55–66 Colding J, Folke C (1997) The relations among threatened species, their protection, and taboos. Conserv Ecol 1. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol1/iss1/art6 Dudley N, Higgins-Zogib L, Mansourian S (2009) The links between protected areas, faiths, and sacred natural sites. Conserv Biol 23:568–577 Egboh EO (1971) The beginning of the end of traditional religion in Iboland. West Afr Relig 9:1–12 Ejizu CI (1984) Continuity and discontinuity in African traditional religion: the case of the Igbo of Nigeria. Cah Relig Afr 18:197–214 Ezumah NN, DiDomenico CM (1995) Enhancing the role of women in crop production: a case study of Igbo women in Nigeria. World Dev 23:1731–1744 Fernandes D (2005) ‘More eyes watching’: lessons from the community-based management of a giant fish, Arapaima gigas, in central Guyana. MSc thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Fowler CT (2003) The ecological implications of ancestral religion and reciprocal exchange in a sacred forest in Karendi (Sumba, Indonesia). Worldviews Environ Cult Relig 7:303–329 Gugler J (1991) Life in a dual system revisited: urban-rural ties in Enugu, Nigeria, 1961–87. World Dev 19:399–409 Hill CM (1997) Crop-raiding by wild vertebrates: the farmer’s perspective in an agricultural community in western Uganda. Int J Pest Manag 43:77–84 Isichei E (1970) Seven varieties of ambiguity: some patterns of Igbo response to Christian missions. J Relig Afr 3:209–227 Johnson TM (ed) (2007) World Christian database. Brill, Leiden/Boston. http://worldchristiandatabase.org. Accessed July 2013 1908 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:1895–1909 123 UNIV ERSIT Y O F IB ADAN L IB RARY http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol1/iss1/art6 http://worldchristiandatabase.org Jones JPG, Andriamarovololona MM, Hockley N (2008) The importance of taboos and social norms to conservation in Madagascar. Conserv Biol 22:976–986 Kideghesho JR (2008) Co-existence between the traditional societies and wildlife in western Serengeti, Tanzania: its relevancy in contemporary wildlife conservation efforts. Biodivers Conserv 17:1861–1881 Korieh CJ (2006) Voices from within and without: sources, methods, and problematics in the recovery of the agrarian history of the Igbo (southeastern Nigeria). Hist Afr 33:231–253 Korieh CJ (2007) Yam is king! But cassava is the mother of all crops: farming, culture, and identity in Igbo agrarian economy. Dialect Anthropol 31:221–232 Madden F (2004) Creating coexistence between humans and wildlife: global perspectives on local efforts to address human–wildlife conflict. Hum Dimens Wildl 9:247–257 Maffi L (2005) Linguistic, cultural, and biological diversity. Annu Rev Anthropol 29:599–617 Maffi L, Woodley E (eds) (2010) Biocultural diversity conservation: a global sourcebook. Earthscan, London Meek CK (1970) Law and authority in a Nigerian tribe: a study in indirect rule. Barnes & Noble Inc., New York Nzegbule EC, Meregini AOA (1999) Applying indigenous knowledge in conserving biodiversity in Okigwe South, Imo State, Nigeria. J Sustain Agric Environ 1:95–100 Oates JF, Anadu PA, Gadsby EL, Werre JL (1992) Sclater’s guenon—a rare Nigerian monkey threatened by deforestation. Natl Geogr Res Explor 8:476–491 Oates JF, Baker LR, Tooze ZJ (2008) Cercopithecus sclateri. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/4229. Accessed Jan 2014 Okorocha CC (1987) The meaning of religious conversion in Africa: the case of the Igbo of Nigeria. Avebury-Gower Publishing Co., Ltd., Aldershot, UK Okpoko PU (2001) Harnessing the tourism potentials of sacred groves and shrines in southeast Nigeria. West Afr J Archaeol 31:93–114 Oviedo G, Maffi L, Larsen PB (2000) Indigenous and traditional peoples of the world and ecoregion conservation: an integrated approach to conserving the world’s biological and cultural diversity. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland Pilgrim S, Pretty J (eds) (2013) Nature and culture: rebuilding lost connections. Routledge, New York Pretty J, Adams B, Berkes F, de Athayde SF, Dudley N, Hunn E, Maffi L, Milton K, Rapport D, Robbins P, Sterling E, Stolton S, Tsing A, Vintinner E, Pilgrim S (2009) The intersections of biological diversity and cultural diversity: towards integration. Conserv Soc 7:100–112 Pungetti G, Oviedo G, Hooke D (eds) (2012) Sacred species and sites: advances in biocultural conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Saj TL, Mather C, Sicotte P (2006) Traditional taboos in biological conservation: the case of Colobus vellerosus at the Boabeng-Fiema Monkey Sanctuary, Central Ghana. Soc Sci Inform 45:285–310 Southwick C, Siddiqi MF (1998) The rhesus monkey’s fall from grace. In: Ciochon RL, Nisbett RA (eds) The primate anthology. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, pp 211–218 Srivastava A, Begum F (2005) City monkeys (Macaca mulatta): a study of human attitudes. In: Paterson JD, Wallis J (eds) Commensalism and conflict: the human-primate interface. American Society of Pri- matologists, Norman, OK, pp 258–269 Strum SC (1994) Prospects for management of primate pests. Rev Ecol (Terre Vie) 49:295–306 Tooze Z (1994) Does sacred mean secure? Investigation of a sacred population of Sclater’s guenon (Cer- copithecus sclateri) in southeast Nigeria. Report to the Wildlife Conservation Society, New York Udoye EA (2011) Resolving the prevailing conflicts between Christianity and African (Igbo) traditional religion through inculturation. LIT Verlag, Zurich Waylen KA, Fischer A, McGowan PJK, Thirgood SJ, Milner-Gulland EJ (2010) Effect of local cultural context on the success of community-based conservation interventions. Conserv Biol 24:1119–1129 Biodivers Conserv (2014) 23:1895–1909 1909 123 UNIV ERSIT Y O F IB ADAN L IB RARY http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/4229 Role of local culture, religion, and human attitudes in the conservation of sacred populations of a threatened ‘pest’ species Abstract Introduction Methods Study area Sampling design Analyses Results Preference Importance Why monkeys are not harmed Advantages/disadvantages of monkeys Consequences for killing monkeys Discussion Household size City visits Primary income source Gender and indigenous status Religion and informal institutions Conservation implications Acknowledgments References