Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilVolumes15Dossier thématique : « Conservati...“Baboons on the road again”: Surv...

Dossier thématique : « Conservation » et « coexistence » en primatologie : antagonismes et recoupements

“Baboons on the road again”: Survey of vehicle occupants on a road crossing a national park in Uganda

“Baboons on the road again” : Enquête auprès des automobilistes sur une route traversant un parc national en Ouganda
Jovia Nabuule, Fantine Benoit, Louise Robinet, Peter Isingoma, David Mwesigye Tumusiime, Harold Rugonge, Sabrina Krief, Odile Petit et Audrey Maille

Résumés

Les infrastructures telles que les routes ou les voies ferrées fragmentent les forêts, mais ce sont aussi des lieux de rencontre entre les humains et les animaux qui peuplent ces forêts. Certaines populations de primates, en particulier les macaques et les babouins, sont régulièrement observées sur les routes. Comme ces primates sont également impliqués dans des conflits avec les humains pour l'accès à l'espace et à la nourriture, il est particulièrement important de comprendre l'attitude des automobilistes et autres usagers de la route à l'égard de ces primates. Pour cette étude exploratoire, nous avons interrogé 383 conducteurs ou passagers de véhicules circulant sur une route asphaltée traversant le parc national de Kibale, en Ouganda, afin d'évaluer leur perception des babouins olive (Papio anubis) qui sont régulièrement présents sur la route et des réglementations routières visant à les protéger (ainsi que d'autres espèces animales). Nous avons également inspecté quotidiennement les bas-côtés de la route afin de répertorier les restes de nourriture d'origine anthropique et nous avons recensé les véhicules qui passaient sur la route. La plupart des personnes interrogées n'ont pas exprimé d'attitude négative à l'égard des babouins, bien que ces primates visitent régulièrement les champs et les jardins pour se nourrir des récoltes dans cette région. Peu de personnes se sont montrées préoccupées par la réglementation "ne pas jeter vos détritus". Même si les usagers de la route les nourrissent rarement, il semble que les babouins restent attirés par la route car les déchets alimentaires y sont très fréquents. Nous recommandons de sensibiliser les usagers de la route aux risques accrus d’accidents quand les babouins sont attirés sur la route par la présence de nourriture d’origine anthropique.

Haut de page

Notes de la rédaction

Received 30/05/2024, accepted after revisions 18/11/2024, published online 23/01/2025 in the context of the special issue: “Conservation” and “coexistence” in primatology: antagonisms and overlaps. (2024)
A translated version, in French, is available online in the “Attachments” section.
Une version, traduite en français, est disponible en ligne en annexe.

Texte intégral

1 Introduction

1Pressures on ecosystems are intensifying at an alarming rate and with increasingly diverse human activities such as deforestation, urbanization, agriculture or infrastructure construction, leaving less and less space for wildlife (Newbold et al., 2015; Venter et al., 2016). All these modifications and anthropogenic activities have accidental or deliberate consequences on biodiversity and ecosystems, affecting all ecological scales: species abundance, distribution, richness and interactions (Doherty et al., 2021). Encounters between humans and wild animals are increasing, leading to more regular interactions, which in turn affect animal behaviour and ecology (Gaynor et al., 2024).

2Development of infrastructures, such as roads or railways, results in fragmentation of landscapes (Benítez-López et al., 2010). Overall, roads have a predominantly negative effect on animal populations, creating barriers to gene flow, increasing wildlife mortality due to collisions, and leading to biodiversity loss (Fahrig & Rytwinski, 2009; Singh et al., 2011). Many species avoid road areas, which results in a reduced home range and possibly dispersal capacity (Benítez-López et al., 2010, Ascensão et al., 2022). There is a paucity of data on non-human primate deaths due to vehicle collisions, which has been attributed not only to the rarity of such incidents, but also to a geographical bias in reporting these deaths (Martin et al., 2012). Primate foraging strategies can be modified in environments crossed by roads, which can result in changes in the distribution of daily activities and consequently in population dynamics and social structure, as revealed in Moor macaques (Morrow et al., 2019). Some populations of macaques (Pragatheesh, 2011; Riley et al., 2021) and baboons (Maille et al., 2017; Kitegile et al., 2022) forage on the road sides and beg for food from vehicle occupants. Roads are places where people litter food scraps, but they are also places where they can encounter and feed wild animals (Ilham, 2024).

3In a variety of contexts, conflicts over access to food and space occur between humans and primates. Primates can feed on crops, sometimes strongly impacting the income of farmers through crop loss and damage (Hill, 2017). Crop-eating primates are then considered pests or vermin (Costa et al., 2020) because people must devote time and energy to protect their fields (Hill, 2000; Findlay & Hill, 2020). These conflicts can physically hurt humans, who may suffer from bites or injuries when defending their crops against primates, sometimes resulting in death (Hockings et al., 2010). Conflicts of this kind are also observed in urban areas, where some primates assault tourists at sites, but may also enter buildings, homes, and invade gardens (McCarthy et al., 2009; Mormile & Hill, 2017; Mazué et al., 2023).

4Primate conservation policies can impose indirect costs to local people when they reduce their ability to protect themselves from wildlife invasions (Hill, 2000). These policies may also outlaw their ancestral practices, such as hunting for meat consumption, medicine or rituals (Kansky et al., 2016). In many cases, local populations are unaware of or disagree with the reasons for these conservation measures, but they may also oppose them because they are in conflict with the conservation authorities in the region (Madden, 2004; Redpath et al., 2013). In sum, the quality and frequency of interactions between non-human primates and humans, but also between humans themselves, will influence people’s perception of primates and how they will act towards them (Narat et al., 2017).

5This study focused on how people travelling on a high-traffic asphalt road crossing a protected area, Kibale National Park, perceive olive baboons (Papio anubis) that are regularly present on the road (Maille et al., 2017). Olive baboons are one of the widely spread species of baboons around the equator in Africa. They inhabit both savannah and rainforests with a highly adaptive and flexible behaviour, allowing them to inhabit areas of intense human activity (Hill & Winder, 2019). Amongst primates in Africa, baboons are cited as a major source of human wildlife conflicts (Hill, 2017; Kyokuhaire et al., 2023).

6Our study area, the asphalted road that crosses the forest of Kibale National Park from the east to the west for approximately four kilometers, is two lanes wide and represents a high risk of collision with wildlife. More than 150 vehicles per hour pass along this road and, even though the legal speed limit inside the park is 40km/h, most drivers overspeed (80km/h – 120km/h; Krief et al., 2020). Besides, this road section has a number of curves and slopes of different intensities (ranging from 3.2% to 11.3%), which, combined with excessive speed, increases the risk of accidents when animals cross the road (Cibot et al., 2015). A record of 48 large animals killed due to collisions, among which five baboons, have been reported during weekly patrols carried out on this road section from 2012 to 2014 (Cibot et al., 2015) and 2017 to 2019 (Krief et al., 2020). In addition, two plastic collection surveys, conducted at four months interval, revealed an important littering rate (2406 plastic soda and water bottles were collected in the second survey, which represents a littering rate of 18 bottles a day; Krief et al., 2020).

7This road section is part of the Kampala - Fort Portal highway, the main road that connects Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It was renovated and enlarged between 2017 and 2019, being widened from 13m to 20 m including the grass borders (Cibot et al., 2015; Krief et al., 2020). In 2020, various equipment was installed on the road by the Uganda National Roads Authority, in collaboration with the Sebitoli Chimpanzee Project and the Uganda Wildlife Authority, to reduce the impact of renovation work and the risks to drivers and wildlife (Krief et al., 2020). Road bumps were installed to regulate the speed of vehicles inside the park. In addition, the Sebitoli Chimpanzee Project has set up signposts along the roadside specifying the rules to be observed in the park. Descriptive pictures were included in the signposts to make them understandable to non-literate people.

8The main objective of this exploratory study was to assess the perception of road users about animal species that can be encountered on the road while crossing the national park, especially baboons, and of the road regulations aiming to protect them. We daily monitored the road sides in order to record leftovers of anthropogenic food and animals killed by collisions with vehicles, and we regularly censused the vehicles passing through the park. We also recorded baboon presence and their location alongside the road to have a broader overview of the context of their encounters with people on the road.

2 Material and methods

2.1 Study site

9Kibale National Park (0˚13’-0˚41’N and 30˚19’-30˚32’E) is located in Western Uganda and covers approximatively 795km². The altitude varies between 1590m in the north to 1110m in the south. Kibale National Park hosts a medium-altitude tropical forest where the climate is composed of dry and rainy seasons with a bimodal distribution across years (Chapman & Lambert, 2000). The Park is a biodiversity hot spot where endangered species are present, such as the two species of elephants (Loxodonta africana and L. cyclotis) and their hybrids (Bonnald et al., 2021), chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and African golden cats (Caracal aurata), and a high diversity of primates, including olive baboons (Papio anubis).

10This study focused on the asphalted road section of 4.6 km that crosses the Northern part of Kibale National Park, called Sebitoli area (Sebitoli is a village neighboring the north-west border of the park). Numerous studies have been conducted in this area in the context of the Sebitoli chimpanzee project (Directors: Sabrina Krief, MNHN, and Jean-Michel Krief, PCGS) in the framework of a Memorandum of Understanding with Uganda wildlife Authority and Makerere University (SJ 445-12).

Figure 1

Figure 1

Pictures of signposts set along the road crossing Kibale National Park. Top row: The three signposts showing an “Animal crossing” message with various animals depicted (left: mosaic of chimpanzee, antelopes and elephant; middle: elephant; right: chimpanzee). Bottom row: Signposts showing road regulations (left and right: “Do not feed the wildlife”, middle: “Do not litter”.

11On this road, bumps and signposts aim to favour the cohabitation of wildlife and road users (Figure 1). These signposts are well visible and were cleaned before the study began. They remind vehicle occupants that animals are likely to cross the road and that they should not feed the animals, litter, or overspeed. The 4.6km road portion includes four points with bumps and 11 with signposts that are located on each side of the road, for a total of 22 signposts that include “Do not litter” (eight signposts), “Do not feed wildlife” (six), “Do not overspeed” (two) and “Animals crossing” (six, among which two signposts have elephant drawings, two have chimpanzees and there are two signposts with a mosaic of antelopes, chimpanzees and elephants at the borders of the national park). Location of the bumps and signposts is mapped in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Maps showing the location of research station, road signs and bumps along the road crossing Kibale National Park, together with marks depicting presence of baboons, food remains/leftovers and road deaths (dead animals). GPS points recorded during period 1 (22/01 to 06/04/2023: A) and period 2 (from 08/04 to 31/05/2023: B) are presented separately for clarity, to avoid overlapping of the many landmarks depicted. Map made with OpenStreetMap in QGIS.

2.2 Data collection

12The survey was carried out between January and May 2023 by a team of two or three research assistants (January – March= period 1: F. Benoit, J. Nabuule, P. Isingoma; April – May= period 2: J. Nabuule, P. Isingoma). A total of 109 days was spent on the road, organized as follows: six days a week (Thursday being off), six hours a day, alternating morning (7:00 AM - 1:00 PM) and afternoon observations (1:00 PM - 7:00 PM). The first three weeks of observations (from 20/01/2023 to 12/02/2023) were dedicated to training the research assistants in data collection and identification of the groups of baboons that used the road, i.e., those that did not just crossed the road but stayed on it for periods of at least 15 minutes.

2.2.1 General situation on the road

13Each day, the research team walked along the road from the research station to the eastern border of the park to locate the baboons. At the same time, food leftovers (i.e., food scraps discarded by humans on the road) were recorded to monitor the diversity and amount of food available for the baboons. In addition, throughout the study, dead animals found on the road tarmac or road sides were recorded.

14Traffic census was carried out seven times per day on average (minimum= 2; maximum= 16) with a balanced distribution on each side of the road. Traffic census was carried out using the Cybertracker application for Android (version 3.528). Each traffic census lasted five minutes and was repeated with a minimum interval of 15 minutes. If baboons were present, their observation was done simultaneously to traffic census. When baboons were not on the road, traffic censuses were performed as a control. These traffic censuses enabled us to count the number of pedestrians and vehicles passing by in either one direction (east to west or west to east).

15Within the research team, one person conducted traffic censuses, another interviewed road users and, when baboons were observed on the road, a third person recorded their location and identified group composition through direct observation with binoculars (Nikon Prostaff 3S, 10x42). Thus, when the baboons were present on the road, the location of the traffic census and interviews depended on their position. We used individual cues in order to identity them. Each individual was allocated to an age-sex class among six age-sex classes that were determined from the criteria of Wallace & Hill (2016): adults (fully grown individuals), subadults (sex is identified but not fully grown), juveniles (unidentified sex, begin to be independent but still small) and infants (small and dependant, maintaining high proximity with their mother).

16We recorded GPS points using Garmin GPSmap 64s to locate food leftovers, dead animals and baboon troops encountered on the road. Locations were then mapped using QGIS (version 3.16.11).

2.2.2 Interviews with road users

17The research team stopped vehicles coming from the west and east sides of the road to get a balanced number of each road direction, and asked drivers and passengers some questions.

18We used a questionnaire in English; however, it was conducted in two other languages, Luganda (J. Nabuule) and Rutoro (P. Isingoma), with respondents who were not comfortable using English. Target respondents were at least 15 years old.

19A complete version of the questionnaire is presented in Table 1. The questionnaire was a mix of both open and closed questions and was designed to collect information about:

20Profile of respondents: age group, country of origin, region of origin for Ugandans (West, East, Central, and North), the reason for using the road, the frequency at which people see domestic and wild animals (mentioning the animals they see);

21Perceptions of baboons: identification of the animals they have seen on the road, whether they have fed the baboons (if so, identifying the food they had given to the baboons, expectation to feeding the baboons, reason for feeding the baboons), knowledge of baboon diet, three words referring to baboons;

22Perception of road regulations: ability to identify and interpret signposts with animal information, knowledge about the speed limit in a national park, park rules they are willing to observe on their next trip (respondents were presented with stickers of signposts and they were asked to rank the road rules depicted according to their given importance; they were then allowed to choose and keep one sticker).

23In addition, after completing the interview, we recorded information about the vehicle (type, direction of travelling), the respondent (sex and whether driver or passenger) and the number and age of passengers in the vehicle.

24Completion of the questionnaire lasted from four to seven minutes. The questionnaire was deployed on KoboToolbox application (https://www.kobotoolbox.org/​) for Android, and ran on a smartphone. Data were saved and extracted from KoboTool box website.

25We chose the location of the interviews according to the location of the baboons. We also considered the safety of road users, avoiding curvy road portions and spots where the road sides were narrow. To maximise the chances of respondents having seen the baboons, surveys were conducted 150 metres east of the baboons for vehicles travelling west-east, and 150 metres west of the baboons for vehicles travelling east-west.

26We assessed differences in number of respondents using Binomial tests, Chi-square tests of independence and chi-square tests for Goodness-of-fit, with a significance threshold set at 0.05, using R software (version 4.3.3). The statistical analyses are not predictive because, as part of an exploratory study, we had no preconceived ideas about the perceptions of the people interviewed. Furthermore, no hypothesis could be inspired by previous studies since, to our knowledge, no other study has addressed road users' perceptions of biodiversity.

Table 1

Table 1

Questionnaire used for data collection.

2.3 Ethics

27The framework of the study was explained to each participant before starting the interview (Table 1). Only individuals that gave oral consent to answer the questions were interviewed. In order to guarantee anonymity, no personal information was collected, except age and geographic origin. People under 15 were not interviewed, and we stopped the interview for those under 18 if they were not accompanied by at least one of their parents. Research in Kibale National Park was approved by Uganda Wildlife Authority on the 3rd of January 2023 (reference number: COD/96/05).

3 Results

3.1 General situation on the road

28At the time of the study, we counted a total of 4493 motorized vehicles out of which the most frequent were cars (36%), then motorbikes (29%), big trucks (12%), minibuses (10%), small trucks (10%) and large buses (3%). We also recorded 36 pedestrians and 31 bicycles. Regular traffic censuses showed an intense traffic of 2.7 ± 1.2 vehicles per minute (162 vehicles per hour on average), which remained constant throughout the day and the study period.

29We mapped the location of food leftovers and dead animals recorded alongside the road (Figure 2). We recorded a total number of 1093 anthropogenic food items with an average of 11.5 ± 4.7 food leftovers per half-day. They consisted of 55% raw fruits, vegetables and seeds; 37% beverages (bottles of juice or alcohol); 3% sweets (candy and honey); 2% cooked foods; 2% meat. We found 30 dead animals along the road: 12 reptiles (including 11 snakes and one chameleon), 10 birds, five mammals (including three rodents, one genet and one baboon) and three amphibians.

30Two social groups of olive baboons were regularly observed on different parts of the road. One group, called “the roadies”, was quite widespread on the road (Figure 2). This group has varied from 27 to 31 individuals, with two individuals (one juvenile and one infant) observed during the habituation period that died before the onset of data collection. At the end of data collection, we observed a total of 29 individuals: 11 adult females, five adult males, three sub-adult females, five juveniles and five infants. In the course of the study, two males joined the group successively, two infants were born, and six immatures (five infants and one juvenile) died including two of them because of a collision with a car. The second group, called “the campers”, was composed of 20 individuals, which split in two sub-groups, one going to the road next to the research station, and the other staying in the forest near the station. The sub-group found on the road was always composed of the five same individuals: three adult females, one adult male and one juvenile. Because “the campers” were not so many on the road, we focused on the larger group “the roadies” during the study period. The “roadies” group was observed on the road 56 days out of 95 days of observations, six days a week. When they were on the road, they remained on the road tarmac or sides for an average of 89.5 ± 69 minutes (mean ± SE). During the study, two accidents with motorbikes were witnessed, one involving an adult male from “the campers” group and the other one an adult male from “the roadies” group, but none was injured.

3.2 Interviews with road users

31A total of 383 interviews was achieved. The maximum number of surveys conducted in a day was 12 and the minimum was one (with a median of 3.5 and a mean of 4.3). A total number of 195 respondents (51%) were traveling from the eastern side of the road and 188 respondents (49%) were travelling from the western side. Because of the spatial distribution of baboons during the study, the surveys were carried out mostly at the eastern border of the national park.

32Most of the people surveyed were riding a motorbike (181), followed by drivers/passengers of cars (74), big trucks (44), small trucks (52), pedestrians (31) and large buses (1). Considering that the number of vehicle types recorded in the traffic census was not balanced (Figure 3), we tested whether the proportion of respondents travelling in each vehicle type differed from the actual proportion of vehicles observed passing by the road. We found an over-representation of people riding motorbikes or pedestrians while there was an under-representation of users of cars, bicycles, mini and large buses in our survey as compared to the actual number of vehicles driving along the road (Chi-square test of goodness-of-fit: χ² = 35.10, df = 7, P < 0.001; Figure 3).

Figure 3

Figure 3

Distribution of vehicle types for the people interviewed (red) as compared to the actual road traffic (blue).

33Out of the 383 people interviewed, 111 surveys (29%) were carried out in the presence of baboons and 272 surveys (71%) were carried out when the baboons were not seen on the road.

3.2.1 Profile of respondents

34Out of the 383 respondents, a majority were men (371 men and 12 women). The respondents included both drivers and passengers, but a majority of respondents were drivers (277). Sometimes both passengers and drivers answered together (67) while passengers answering alone occurred even more rarely (39). The age range of the respondents was between 15 to +66; most participants were aged between 26-35 years (155), followed by those aged between 15-25 (96), 36-45 (95), 46-55 (23), 56-65 (12) + 66 (2); as such our sample of respondents was not balanced in age (chi-square test of goodness-of-fit: χ² = 289.75, df = 5, P < 0.001; Table 2).

Table 2

Table 2

Number of respondents according to their age group and Ugandan region of origin.

35The respondents came from different African countries that included mostly Uganda (376), followed by Kenya (5), Nigeria (1) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (1). Although some vehicles transporting non-African tourists (mostly European and North-American) were regularly seen passing by, few stopped for interviews and when they did, only the Ugandan driver responded. Among the respondents from Uganda, most were from the Western region (291), followed by the Central region (45), then East (27) and North (13). The proportions of respondents in each age group followed the same trend regardless of which region of Uganda the participants came from (chi-square test of independence: χ² = 9.15, df = 12, P = 0.690; we excluded data from participants older than 66 years old because of a too small sample size; Table 2).

36Most of the respondents used the road for work (289= 75%), followed by the category “other” (53) which possibly included school visits, burials, shopping, study trips and nature walks. The remaining respondents were visiting family (29) or tourists (12). Thus, reasons for traveling on the road were not balanced in our sample of respondents (chi-square test of goodness-of-fit: χ² = 528.91, df = 3, P < 0.001).

37Most of the respondents (350 = 91%) stated that they often see both wild and domestic animals. Few respondents said that they only get to see wild animals (19) or domestic animals (7) and some declared seeing neither wild nor domestic animals in their daily lives (7). The respondents were asked to name the animals that they often see in their daily life, along the road and in other places they dwell in: baboons were cited by almost half of the respondents (49%). Baboons were the most cited wild animal (188 citations), followed by elephants (182), monkeys (97; generic term used in Uganda to refer to primates that have a tail), chimpanzees (28) and other animal species (the number of citations of each animal taxon is shown in Figure 4). The most often cited domestic animals were cows (285), goats (114) and dogs (53).

Figure 4

Figure 4

Most often seen domestic and wild animals reported by respondents (N= 383).

3.2.2 Perception of baboons

38During interviews carried out in the presence of baboons, almost all respondents (104 out of 111) reported having seen the baboons in the past few minutes, which confirms that baboons are usually witnessed by road users. 14% of the respondents (39 out of 272) reported having seen baboons around when the research team was not aware of their presence. Some respondents declared that, before being stopped by the research team, they had seen other animal species including chimpanzee (4), monkey (5) and elephant (3).

39Only two respondents reported provisioning the baboons with food, and both fed them with bananas. When the 383 respondents were asked to name food items as part of the baboon diet, 69% (264) reported anthropogenic foods, which included bananas (111), maize (31), sweet potatoes (10), bread (3), cassava (6), chicken (2) and mangoes (2). Noteworthy, 31% (119) of the respondents mentioned natural food items such as grass (52), tree leaves (33), forest fruits (12), small insects (8), flowers (1) and figs (1), showing accurate knowledge of forest baboon diet.

40The respondents were asked to mention three words that came to their mind about baboons. Most of the respondents agreed to mention at least one word (331 out of 383), but only a few of them mentioned a second word (122) and even less a third word (22). We classified the words in six categories: “baboons as source of happiness”, “baboons eliciting compassion because of apparent hunger”, “baboons having similarities with humans in body anatomy and behaviour”, “baboons eliciting a feeling of insecurity”, “baboons being disgusting” (baboons being nasty or having ugly body features) and “baboons as a tourism attraction” (baboons being a source of income for Uganda). The number of times each category of words was mentioned as first, second and third thoughts is presented in Table 3.

Table 3

Table 3

Number of respondents who cited words from each of the six categories: “baboons as source of happiness”, “baboons as a tourism attraction”, “baboons having similarities with humans”, “baboons eliciting a feeling of insecurity” “baboons eliciting compassion”, “baboons being disgusting”. The values correspond to quotations as first, second and third word. Categories are presented by rank of importance (from the greatest to the lowest number of respondents) for the first word cited.

41Of the respondents who agreed to quote at least one word, 60% (200 out of 331) mentioned words that referred to baboons as a source of happiness as their first thought. Some even expressed compassion for the baboons (12). The first word of the other respondents referred to baboons as having physical or behavioural similarities with humans for 11% of the respondents (37), or baboons as eliciting a feeling of insecurity for 8% of the respondents (27) or being disgusting for 2% of the respondents (7). Words related to “tourism” were mentioned by 12% of the respondents (42) as their first thought. The last 7% of respondents (6) cited words that we did not manage to classify into the six categories.

42This distribution of the six categories of words differed for respondents that accepted to cite a second word with less words referring to baboons as source of happiness and more words related to tourism (chi-square test of goodness-of-fit: χ² = 107.03, df = 5, P < 0.001), while the proportion of other categories of words remained stable. The number of respondents citing a third word was too low for running proper analyses.

43Of the words that we did not manage to classify, some were related to religion (i.e., “baboons are goodness of God”, “cultural importance”) and others were associated with ecological concepts (i.e., “baboons are part of the food web”, “adaptation”, “unity”, “way of life”). Interestingly, some people regarded baboons as a source of pride (i.e., “patriotism”, “beauty of my country”) whereas others despised them (i.e., “they are dustbin feeders”, “they do not like people”, “they misuse human space”). Five respondents talked about research, probably because of the context in which the interview was performed.

3.2.2 Perception of road regulations

44Out of all the interviewees, 98% (377 out of 383) confirmed that they were able to see some signposts along the road. However, depending on the location where the interview occurred, the number of signposts they were able to see during their travel strongly differed. Indeed, only respondents coming from the west and who were interviewed at the eastern border of the park (when they were exiting Kibale national park) were able to see all the signposts in the few minutes before the interview. The other respondents had not yet seen any signposts because they were just entering the park (they were coming from the East and interviewed at the eastern border) or they had not been able to see all the signposts yet (they were interviewed in more central road sections inside the park). Consequently, the following analyses on memory retention of signposts are restricted to the 122 respondents who were interviewed at the eastern border of the national park while they were travelling west to east.

45The most cited signpost message was “Animals crossing” (61 responses), followed by “Do not feed the animals” (61), “Do not overspeed” (33), and “Do not litter” (31). We collected more responses (186) than respondents (122) because people were asked to cite as many signs as they could remember. Only one respondent was not able to identify the road signs he had seen. Considering that the number of signposts displaying each message was also not balanced (i.e., 8 signposts “Do not litter”, 6 “Animal Crossing”, 6 “Do not feed the animals”, and 2 “Do not overspeed”), we tested whether the proportion of citations of the four types of signposts from the respondents differed from the actual proportion of each type of sign post along the road (Table 4). We found an over-representation of “Do not overspeed” and an under-representation of “Do not litter” in the citations as compared to the number of signposts set on the road (Chi-square test of goodness-of-fit: χ² = 35.10, df = 3, P < 0.001).

Table 4

Table 4

Citations of each type of sign post: observed values (percentages and number of responses) and expected values (percentages and number of each type of sign post on the road).

46The most cited animals drawn on the signs were elephants (73 responses), chimpanzees (22) and antelopes (9), but eleven respondents were not able to identify any of the drawings. Considering that the number of signposts was unbalanced between animals (i.e., ten signposts displaying chimpanzees, four displaying elephants and two displaying antelopes), we tested whether the proportion of citations of the three types of animals from the respondents differed from the actual proportion of each type of sign post along the road. There was an over-representation of elephants and an under-representation of chimpanzees in the number of citations as compared to the actual number of signposts (chi-square test of goodness-of-fit: χ² = 114.5, df = 2, P < 0.001).

47The respondents were asked to rank the rules they would be willing to respect on their next trip on the road. “I do not overspeed” was ranked number one by 50% of the respondents (190), followed by “I do not feed the animals” (130) and finally “I do not litter” (63). Details about ranking can be found in Table 5.

Table 5

Table 5

Choice of rules to be observed on the respondent’s next trip. Values are first, second and third choice.

48Respondents who completed the survey were awarded a sticker of their choice. There were three types of stickers: “I do not feed wildlife”, “I do not overspeed”, and “I do not throw my garbage”. We got the same ordering between the three rules as the highest number of stickers taken was “I do not overspeed” (140 = 37%), followed by “I do not feed wildlife” (125 = 33%) and “I do not throw my garbage” (93 = 24%). Few respondents decided not to take any sticker (24 = 6% respondents).

49To assess the knowledge of respondents about speed regulations, we asked them about the speed limit in the national park. The majority of respondents (81%, n = 311) replied that the speed limit was less or equal to 40 km/h and 17% replied that the speed limit was over 40 km/h (Binomial test: P < 0.001). Six respondents did not reply. The maximum speed limit mentioned was 100 km/h while the minimum speed limit mentioned was 0 km/h (this was mentioned by four pedestrians who told us they had no knowledge about speed measurement of vehicles and motorbikes).

4 Discussion

50This exploratory study was conducted on a high-traffic road crossing a National Park in Uganda with the aim to investigate the knowledge and perception of people about baboons they eventually encountered on this road. Many respondents reported that they often see wild animals on the road, and the animals seen the most were the baboons. This is consistent with the high baboon presence that we witnessed on this road section. Indeed, baboons were observed on the road very often (60% of all half-days of monitoring). A previous study carried out in Mikumi National Park, Tanzania, showed that savannah baboons, which mainly travel through heterogeneous landscapes (Strandburg-Peshkin et al., 2017), tend to use human-made roads to commute to their sleeping sites and exhibit goal directed movements to or away from habitat features (Kitegile et al., 2022). Groups of Moor macaques in Indonesia (Riley & Priston, 2010; Morrow et al., 2019) and rhesus macaques in India (Pragatheesh, 2011) are mainly attracted to the road by food leftovers that are regularly discarded by road users. To understand the motivation of baboons to come to the road that crosses the northern part of Kibale National Park, further investigation of the temporal and spatial pattern of baboon presence on the road is needed.

51The great majority of respondents told us that the baboon diet is composed of food crops like bananas, maize, cassava, and sweet potatoes as these are the crops they most frequently see the baboons feeding on. Several studies reported crop foraging in baboons, including some conducted in Kibale National Park in Uganda (Naughton-Treves et al., 1998; Lacroux et al., 2019; Kyokuhaire et al., 2023). Regular crop foraging in baboons may explain why the local people think that food crops are part of the baboon diet. A study in Wollo Ethiopia, performed through surveys of local people’s knowledge, indicated that baboons visited a number of crops, many being cereals like sorghum and maize (Kifle, 2021), while surveys conducted in Uganda, in Budongo Forest Reserve and in Kibale National Park, indicated that baboons preferred maize and cassava to other crops in that area (Hill, 2000; Lacroux et al., 2019). Because baboons forage on a wide range of crop species (Hill, 2017), the variation in cultivated crops according to regional sites could explain why the respondents identified bananas as the main item in the baboon diet in the Kibale region.

52A wide range of studies investigating local attitudes toward primates highlighted negative perceptions of species regularly involved in crop-foraging, which are usually referred to as “pests” (e.g., orangutans in Northern Sumatra: Campbell-Smith et al., 2010; chimpanzees in Guinea-Bissau: Costa et al., 2020; macaques and langurs in Sri Lanka: Dittus et al., 2019; macaques in Sulawesi: Riley & Priston, 2010; Hardwick et al., 2017). As baboons regularly visit crops in every region of Uganda (Kibale area: Lacroux et al., 2019; Kyokuhaire et al., 2023; Lake Mburo area: Kagoro-Rugunda, 2004) we might expect a negative perception of these primates from most of the respondents. And yet, only 10% of the respondents cited words referring to baboons as eliciting a feeling of insecurity or being disgusting when they were asked to give three words about them. Some of the respondents told us baboons were annoying because they destroyed crops, others stated that baboons were either ugly or dirty animals, and a few of them reported that baboons misuse human space which made them hate the baboons. One person pointed out the dangerousness of baboons, declaring they could be deadly when disturbed. In contrast, a majority of people reported baboons as a source of happiness because they felt a sense of joy whenever they saw them. We suspect that these people were delighted to see wild animals in a situation where they were not in conflict with them, as these types of encounters are becoming increasingly rare. However, this interpretation must be considered with caution because of the general context in which the interviews occurred. Firstly, people might have been afraid of being judged and punished as we introduced ourselves as researchers working in collaboration with Uganda Wildlife Authority, which is the organization responsible for enforcing the regulations in national parks. Secondly, as those who agreed to participate could not devote more than a few minutes to the interview, the time spent with each person during the survey may have been too short for them to feel confident. Third, even if most participants were from the Western region, responses may differ between local people farming next to the park boundary and those living further away. To counteract these biases in a future study, it would be interesting to use a more detailed questionnaire and to record whether the people are involved in farming or not (Leblan, 2011; Setchell et al., 2017).

53Words related to empathy were also cited by some respondents, and this was basically because they thought that the baboons often come on the road to beg for food because they lack resources in the forest (which is not the case, as revealed by the monthly phenology monitoring of the Sebitoli Chimpanzee Project). Alternatively, one respondent said he felt some empathy for them because he thought they feel pain as a result of their red bumps (red colour standed for burnt skin according to him). Other respondents talked about baboons looking like humans. Some were pleasantly surprised by their social life and the way they cared for their infants and juveniles. However, most of the respondents who talked about resemblances to humans said they were muslims, and that they had been taught that baboons were once humans who had been cursed by Allah for disobeying him, which made them have that kind of body structure and look. According to the Koran, God metamorphoses humans for their misconduct and gives them the form of animal species considered to be the most repulsive or ignominious, such as the dog, the pig or the monkey (Benkheira, 2000; Cook, 1999). As such, baboon ressemblances with humans might either be associated with a positive or negative representation depending on the socio-cultural identity. In order to better understand the variations in perception of baboons across religions and beliefs, it would be interesting in a future study to document more precisely the religious community with which each person identifies himself.

54Many respondents told us that baboons attract a lot of tourists and are a source of financial income for Uganda. Feeding wildlife is a means of facilitating close observation and interaction with wildlife, including by the tour operators (Orams, 2002). There are assorted reasons as to why humans give food to wild animals, recreation being one of them (Murray et al., 2016). Very few of the interviewees said that they feed the baboons, although the practice appeared to be very common on this road a few years ago (Maille et al., 2017). This decrease in active provisioning of baboons alongside the road is confirmed by data collected during traffic census: we observed only five vehicle occupants giving food to baboons during a total of 18.5 hours of scheduled observations. A few of the people we interviewed attempted to explain the reasons why they had stopped feeding the baboons when meeting them on the road, even though they were used to doing so before. Some reported to us that they have regularly seen the baboons jumping on their cars or motorbikes to get food while they were travelling on the road, and they added baboon aggressions can occur when they try to get food. This allows to understand the claims of some road users about baboon aggressiveness, and the related insecurity when encountering them. In addition to that, several respondents reported that they were not comfortable with the idea of feeding baboons because they always thought that if people kept on feeding them, they would end up being poisoned by people who really hate them. Wild animals may indeed be deliberately killed because of conflicts with people. This motivation may be reinforced if they are used for bushmeat, traditional medicine, ivory, horns or fur (Ogada, 2014). Finally, other road users told us that they had stopped feeding wildlife though they were used to doing it before, and some attributed their behavioural change to the signposts that were put by the road sides.

55To improve biodiversity conservation as well as safety for road users and road cleanliness, signposts were put on the road displaying messages like “Do not overspeed”, “Do not litter” and “Do not feed the animals”. The majority of respondents confirmed they had seen the signposts and that they were able to read and tell what was written or drawn on them. When asked about the road regulation that they would be more motivated to observe on their next trip, not feeding the animals when passing by the road came as people’s second preoccupation. Most were even more aware of the need to reduce their speed when driving through the national park, which could help to decrease the frequency of animal deaths through collisions with vehicles. In addition, the vast majority of the vehicle occupants we surveyed had good knowledge about speed limit in a national park. By contrast, only one in five people made it a priority to stop littering.

56When people were asked to cite the signposts they could remember, very few of them cited “Do not litter”, although these signposts were the most numerous along the road (8 out of 22 signposts). Littering is a general problem in Uganda despite a number of legal provisions against the vice. Such an attitude explains the large number of plastic bottles (Krief et al., 2020) and food leftovers that we recorded on the roadsides. Throughout Africa, baboons are attracted to anthropogenic areas because of rubbish bins (e.g., Mazué et al., 2023, Moy et al., 2023). In Madhya Pradesh, India, some groups of rhesus macaques living in the vicinity of roads are even more attracted to roads during peak tourism, when both food waste and provisioning are higher (Pragatheesh, 2011). One of the approaches of national park’s communication is interpretive signposts aimed at raising visitor awareness (Davis & Thompson, 2011). However, signposts displaying the “Do not litter” message might not be convincing enough, because of the vocabulary used or the drawing displayed on it. Those signposts might also be neglected because they are not directly related to the safety of road users. Indeed, legitimacy of road regulations for road users essentially depends on their ability to effectively diminish the number of deaths and injuries on road. Thus, the less drivers perceive road interventions to be effective in reducing road accidents, the less they are likely to be influenced (Auzoult et al., 2015). Therefore, we recommend raising awareness about higher risks of accidents when baboons are on the road. Sensitization of communities could be based on the fact that baboons are likely to be attracted to roads by anthropogenic food, whether this comes from active feeding or littering.

57This exploratory study provides some intriguing information about practices and perception of people driving, cycling or walking on a road crossing a national park in Uganda. The majority of the people surveyed lived in the region, which gives us insights into local attitudes toward baboons that are the most frequently encountered wild animals on this road and in the neighbouring villages. Most of the respondents did not show a negative attitude toward baboons, although those primates are regularly visiting fields and gardens to forage on crops. In order to better understand the participants' level of knowledge about the baboons, more questions about the ecology and behaviour of the non-human primate species targeted by the study should be added (Sousa et al., 2014). In addition, collecting qualitative data (using unstructured interviews while considering socio-cultural variation; e.g., Waters et al., 2019; Ampumuza & Driessen, 2021) might help to better disentangle factors driving interactions between humans and non-human primates in the context of roads, thus facilitating changes in people’s behaviour in favour of conservation. Finally, in order to better understand how geographical and cultural variations explain differences in attitudes in favour of primates and other wild animals, it would be worthwhile comparing the perceptions of road users in different areas where road signposts have been installed to raise awareness of biodiversity conservation issues.

Acknowledgements

58We are grateful to Uganda Wildlife Authority for giving us the authorization to conduct research in Kibale National Park, Uganda. We deeply thank Jean-Michel Krief, co-director of the Sebitoli Chimpanzee Project, Eric Okwir, coordinator of SCP, and field assistants for their work in KNP. This project was funded by a fellowship “Prix de la recherche au Musée de l’Homme” from Fondation Engie awarded to S. Krief and A. Maille. Sebitoli Chimpanzee Project received support from Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial, Fondation Prince Albert II during this survey. We wish like to thank Vincent Leblan, Brice Lefaux, Victor Narat, Papa Ibnou Ndiaye and an anonymous reviewer for their suggestions on how to improve the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

59We declare that there is no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, preparation of the manuscript and decision to submit this publication.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Ampumuza C, Driessen C. 2021. Gorilla habituation and the role of animal agency in conservation and tourism development at Bwindi, South Western Uganda. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 4(4): 1601–1621.

Ascensão F, D’Amico M, Barrientos R. 2022. No Planet for Apes? Assessing Global Priority Areas and Species Affected by Linear Infrastructures. International Journal of Primatology 43(1): 57–73.

Auzoult L, Lheureux F, Hardy-Massard S, Minary JP, Charlois C. 2015. The perceived effectiveness of road safety interventions: Regulation of drivers’ behavioral intentions and self-consciousness. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 34: 29-40.

Benítez-López A, Alkemade R, Verweij, PA. 2010. The impacts of roads and other infrastructure on mammal and bird populations: A meta-analysis. Biological Conservation 143(6): 1307–1316.

Benkheira MH. 2000. Islâm et interdits alimentaires. Juguler l’animalité. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

Bonnald J, Utge J, Kuhner MK, Wasser SK, Asalu E, Okimat JP, Krief S. 2021. Who are the elephants living in the hybridization zone? How genetics may guide conservation to better protect endangered elephants. Global Ecology and Conservation 32: e01917.

Campbell-Smith G, Simanjorang HVP, Leader-Williams N, Linkie M. 2010. Local attitudes and perceptions toward crop-raiding by orangutans (Pongo abelii) and other nonhuman primates in northern Sumatra, Indonesia. American Journal of Primatology 72(10): 866–876.

Chapman CA, Lambert JE. 2000. Habitat alteration and the conservation of African primates: Case study of Kibale National Park, Uganda. American Journal of Primatology 50(3): 169–185.

Cibot M, Bortolamiol S, Seguya A, Krief S. 2015. Chimpanzees facing a dangerous situation: A high-traffic asphalted road in the Sebitoli area of Kibale National Park, Uganda. American Journal of Primatology 77(8): 890–900.

Cook M. 1999. Ibn Qutayba and the monkeys. Studia Islamica 89: 43–74.

Costa SG, Casanova C., Lee P. 2020. Sociozoological scales: Human’s perceptions on non- humans through a conservation perspective. In AC Roque, C Brito & C Veracini (Eds.), Peoples, Nature and Environments: Learning to Live Together (pp. 114-128). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Davis SK, Thompson JL. 2011. Investigating the Impact of Interpretive Signs at Neighborhood Natural Areas. Journal of Interpretation Research 16(2): 55–66.

Dittus WPJ, Gunathilake S, Felder M. 2019. Assessing Public Perceptions and Solutions to Human-Monkey Conflict from 50 Years in Sri Lanka. Folia Primatologica 90(2): 89–108.

Doherty TS, Hays GC, Driscoll DA. 2021. Human disturbance causes widespread disruption of animal movement. Nature Ecology & Evolution 5(4): 513–519.

Fahrig L, Rytwinski T. 2009. Effects of Roads on Animal Abundance: An Empirical Review and Synthesis. Ecology and Society 14(1).

Findlay L, Hill R. 2020. Field Guarding as a Crop Protection Method: Preliminary Implications for Improving Field Guarding. Human–Wildlife Interactions 14(3).

Gaynor KM, Abrahms B, Manlove KR, Oestreich WK, Smith JA. 2024. Anthropogenic impacts at the interface of animal spatial and social behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 379: 20220527.

Hardwick JL, Priston NEC, Martin TE, Tosh DG, Mustari AH, Abernethy KE. 2017. Community Perceptions of the Crop-Feeding Buton Macaque (Macaca ochreata brunnescens): An Ethnoprimatological Study on Buton Island, Sulawesi. International Journal of Primatology 38(6): 1102–1119.

Hill CM. 2000. Conflict of Interest Between People and Baboons: Crop Raiding in Uganda. International Journal of Primatology 21(2): 299–315.

Hill CM. 2017. Primate Crop Feeding Behavior, Crop Protection, and Conservation. International Journal of Primatology 38(2): 385–400.

Hill SE, Winder IC. 2019. Predicting the impacts of climate change on Papio baboon biogeography: Are widespread, generalist primates ‘safe’? Journal of Biogeography 46(7): 1380–1405.

Hockings KJ, Yamakoshi G, Kabasawa A, Matsuzawa T. 2010. Attacks on local persons by chimpanzees in Bossou, Republic of Guinea: Long-term perspectives. American Journal of Primatology 72(10): 887–896.

Ilham K. 2024. Roadside provisioning threatens both humans and monkeys. Animal Conservation 27(2): 146–147.

Kagoro‐Rugunda G. 2004. Crop raiding around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. African Journal of Ecology 42(1): 32-41.

Kansky R, Kidd M, Knight AT. 2016. A wildlife tolerance model and case study for understanding human wildlife conflicts. Biological Conservation 201: 137–145.

Kifle Z. 2021. Human-olive baboon (Papio anubis) conflict in the human-modified landscape, Wollo, Ethiopia. Global Ecology and Conservation 31: e01820.

Kitegile A, Hassan SN, Norton GW. 2022. A road traversing a protected area has little effect on feeding and foraging behaviour of yellow baboons. Ecology and Evolution 12(12): e9405.

Krief S, Iglesias-González A, Appenzeller BMR, Okimat JP, Fini J-B, Demeneix B, Vaslin-Reimann S, Lardy-Fontan S, Guma N, Spirhanzlova P. 2020. Road impact in a protected area with rich biodiversity: The case of the Sebitoli road in Kibale National Park, Uganda. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27(22): 27914–27925.

Kyokuhaire AM, Chapman CA, Omeja PA, Tumusiime DM, Abwoli BY, Lawes MJ. 2023. Mitigating crop raiding by forest elephants and baboons at Kibale National Park. African Journal of Ecology 61(1): 129–140.

Lacroux C, Guma N, Krief S. 2019. Facial dysplasia in wild forest olive baboons (Papio anubis) in Sebitoli, Kibale National Park, Uganda: Use of camera traps to detect health defects. Journal of Medical Primatology 48(3): 143–153.

Leblan V. 2011. Les rendez-vous manqués de l’ethnologie et de la primatologie de terrain (1960-2010). Revue de primatologie 3.

Madden F. 2004. Creating Coexistence between Humans and Wildlife: Global Perspectives on Local Efforts to Address Human–Wildlife Conflict. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9(4): 247–257.

Maille A, Rataud A, Krief S, Sewuh Ndimbe M, Seguya A. 2017. Behaviours Used by Olive Baboons to Raid Food on an Asphalted Road Crossing Sebitoli Area, Kibale National Park, Uganda. Folia Primatologica 88: 132.

Martin LJ, Blossey B, Ellis CE. 2012. Mapping Where Ecologists Work: Biases in the Global Distribution of Terrestrial Ecological Observations. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 10: 195-201.

Mazué F, Guerbois C, Fritz H, Rebout N, Petit O. 2023. Less bins, less baboons: Reducing access to anthropogenic food effectively decreases the urban foraging behavior of a troop of chacma baboons (Papio hamadryas ursinus) in a peri-urban area. Primates 64(1): 91–103.

McCarthy MS, Matheson MD, Lester JD, Sheeran LK, Li J-H, Wagner RS. 2009. Sequences of Tibetan Macaque (Macaca thibetana) and Tourist Behaviors at Mt. Huangshan, China. Primate Conservation 24(1): 145–151.

Mormile JE, Hill CM. 2017. Living With Urban Baboons: Exploring Attitudes and Their Implications for Local Baboon Conservation and Management in Knysna, South Africa. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 22(2): 99–109.

Morrow KS, Glanz H, Ngakan PO, Riley EP. 2019. Interactions with humans are jointly influenced by life history stage and social network factors and reduce group cohesion in moor macaques (Macaca maura). Scientific Reports 9(1): 1–12.

Moy M, Diakiw L, Amato KR. 2023. Human-influenced diets affect the gut microbiome of wild baboons. Scientific Reports 13(1): 11886.

Murray MH, Becker DJ, Hall RJ, Hernandez SM. 2016. Wildlife health and supplemental feeding: A review and management recommendations. Biological Conservation 204: 163–174.

Narat V, Alcayna-Stevens L, Rupp S, Giles-Vernick T. 2017. Rethinking Human–Nonhuman Primate Contact and Pathogenic Disease Spillover. EcoHealth 14(4): 840–850.

Naughton-Treves L, Treves A, Chapman C, Wrangham R. 1998. Temporal patterns of crop-raiding by primates: Linking food availability in croplands and adjacent forest. Journal of Applied Ecology 35(4): 596–606.

Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SLL, et al. 2015. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520(7545): 45–50.

Ogada DL. 2014. The power of poison: Pesticide poisoning of Africa’s wildlife. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1322(1): 1–20.

Orams MB. 2002. Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction: A review of issues and impacts. Tourism Management 23(3): 281–293.

Pragatheesh A. 2011. Effect of human feeding on the road mortality of Rhesus Macaques on National Highway—7 routed along Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 1656–1662.

Redpath SM, Young J, Evely A, et al. 2013. Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28(2): 100–109.

Riley EP, Priston NEC. 2010. Macaques in farms and folklore: Exploring the human–nonhuman primate interface in Sulawesi, Indonesia. American Journal of Primatology 72(10): 848–854.

Riley EP, Shaffer CA, Trinidad JS, Morrow KS, Sagnotti C, Carosi M, Ngakan PO. 2021. Roadside monkeys: Anthropogenic effects on moor macaque (Macaca maura) ranging behavior in Bantimurung Bulusaraung National Park, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Primates 62(3): 477–489.

Setchell JM, Fairet E, Shutt K, Waters S, Bell S. 2017. Biosocial Conservation: Integrating Biological and Ethnographic Methods to Study Human–Primate Interactions. International Journal of Primatology 38(2): 401–426.

Singh M, Erinjery JJ, Kavana TS, Roy K, Singh M. 2011. Drastic population decline and conservation prospects of roadside dark-bellied bonnet macaques (Macaca radiata radiata) of southern India. Primates 52(2): 149–154.

Sousa J, Vicente L, Gippoliti S, Casanova C, Sousa C. 2014. Local knowledge and perceptions of chimpanzees in Cantanhez National Park, Guinea-Bissau. American Journal of Primatology 76: 122-134.

Strandburg-Peshkin A, Farine DR, Crofoot MC, Couzin ID. 2017. Habitat and social factors shape individual decisions and emergent group structure during baboon collective movement. eLife 6: e19505.

Venter O, Sanderson EW, Magrach A, et al. 2016. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nature Communications 7(1): 12558.

Wallace G, Hill C. 2016. Deterring Crop-Foraging Wildlife. Lessons from farms in north-western Uganda. Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.

Waters S, El Harrad A, Bell S, Setchell JM. 2019. Interpreting People’s Behavior Toward Primates Using Qualitative Data: A Case Study from North Morocco. International Journal of Primatology 40(3): 316–330.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1
Légende Pictures of signposts set along the road crossing Kibale National Park. Top row: The three signposts showing an “Animal crossing” message with various animals depicted (left: mosaic of chimpanzee, antelopes and elephant; middle: elephant; right: chimpanzee). Bottom row: Signposts showing road regulations (left and right: “Do not feed the wildlife”, middle: “Do not litter”.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/primatologie/docannexe/image/23404/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 18M
Titre Figure 2
Légende Maps showing the location of research station, road signs and bumps along the road crossing Kibale National Park, together with marks depicting presence of baboons, food remains/leftovers and road deaths (dead animals). GPS points recorded during period 1 (22/01 to 06/04/2023: A) and period 2 (from 08/04 to 31/05/2023: B) are presented separately for clarity, to avoid overlapping of the many landmarks depicted. Map made with OpenStreetMap in QGIS.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/primatologie/docannexe/image/23404/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 780k
Titre Table 1
Légende Questionnaire used for data collection.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/primatologie/docannexe/image/23404/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 437k
Titre Figure 3
Légende Distribution of vehicle types for the people interviewed (red) as compared to the actual road traffic (blue).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/primatologie/docannexe/image/23404/img-4.png
Fichier image/png, 17k
Titre Table 2
Légende Number of respondents according to their age group and Ugandan region of origin.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/primatologie/docannexe/image/23404/img-5.png
Fichier image/png, 45k
Titre Figure 4
Légende Most often seen domestic and wild animals reported by respondents (N= 383).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/primatologie/docannexe/image/23404/img-6.png
Fichier image/png, 34k
Titre Table 3
Légende Number of respondents who cited words from each of the six categories: “baboons as source of happiness”, “baboons as a tourism attraction”, “baboons having similarities with humans”, “baboons eliciting a feeling of insecurity” “baboons eliciting compassion”, “baboons being disgusting”. The values correspond to quotations as first, second and third word. Categories are presented by rank of importance (from the greatest to the lowest number of respondents) for the first word cited.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/primatologie/docannexe/image/23404/img-7.png
Fichier image/png, 63k
Titre Table 4
Légende Citations of each type of sign post: observed values (percentages and number of responses) and expected values (percentages and number of each type of sign post on the road).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/primatologie/docannexe/image/23404/img-8.png
Fichier image/png, 65k
Titre Table 5
Légende Choice of rules to be observed on the respondent’s next trip. Values are first, second and third choice.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/primatologie/docannexe/image/23404/img-9.png
Fichier image/png, 39k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Jovia Nabuule, Fantine Benoit, Louise Robinet, Peter Isingoma, David Mwesigye Tumusiime, Harold Rugonge, Sabrina Krief, Odile Petit et Audrey Maille, « “Baboons on the road again”: Survey of vehicle occupants on a road crossing a national park in Uganda »Revue de primatologie [En ligne], 15 | 2024, mis en ligne le 23 janvier 2025, consulté le 25 mars 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/primatologie/23404 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/13563

Haut de page

Auteurs

Jovia Nabuule

Sebitoli Chimpanzee Project / Projet pour la Conservation des Grands Singes, Sebitoli, Kibale National Park, Fort Portal, Uganda

Fantine Benoit

Laboratoire d’Eco-anthropologie, UMR 7206 MNHN-CNRS-Université Paris Cité, Paris, France

Louise Robinet

Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive, UMR 6024 CNRS-Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France ; Laboratoire d’Eco-anthropologie, UMR 7206 MNHN-CNRS-Université Paris Cité, Paris, France 

Peter Isingoma

Sebitoli Chimpanzee Project / Projet pour la Conservation des Grands Singes, Sebitoli, Kibale National Park, Fort Portal, Uganda

David Mwesigye Tumusiime

Makerere University Biological Field Station, Fort Portal, Uganda; Department of Environmental Management, Makerere University, Uganda

Harold Rugonge

Sebitoli Chimpanzee Project / Projet pour la Conservation des Grands Singes, Sebitoli, Kibale National Park, Fort Portal, Uganda 

Sabrina Krief

Laboratoire d’Eco-anthropologie, UMR 7206 MNHN-CNRS-Université Paris Cité, Paris, France ; Sebitoli Chimpanzee Project / Projet pour la Conservation des Grands Singes, Sebitoli, Kibale National Park, Fort Portal, Uganda

Articles du même auteur

Odile Petit

Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive, UMR 6024 CNRS -Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France

Articles du même auteur

Audrey Maille

Laboratoire d’Eco-anthropologie, UMR 7206 MNHN-CNRS-Université Paris Cité, Paris, France ; Pôle parcs zoologiques, Direction des Jardins, Musées, Zoos, MNHN, Paris, France.
Corresponding author: audrey.maille@mnhn.fr

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search