Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background and Research Aims

Human-orangutan conflicts are a growing problem in the tropical rainforests of Sumatra. Habitat degradation and fragmentation can drive orangutans to move on to agroforestry plantations and into conflict with farmers. This research examines farmers’ awareness of the roles that Tapanuli orangutans play, their attitudes towards orangutans when they come on their land and the broader political-economic factors which influence interactions between smallholders and orangutans.

Methods

We used a mixed methods approach of quantitative surveys with 275 farmers and qualitative in-depth interviews with 22 key informants from 11 villages on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia.

Results

We found that while many farmers had negative encounters with orangutans eating their crops, their responses differed. Some tolerated the orangutans; others chased them away. The difference stemmed from cultural beliefs about orangutans and their relationship to humans. Some communities hold them as neighbours, others fear them, but in both cases would not harm them. Most farmers do not perceive them as significant threats but as hunger-driven neighbours. Rather than blaming the orang-utans per se, they argue that habitat loss caused by expanding extractive activities is the driving factor of this conflict. They want to see limits on the expansion of extractive industry, alternative income sources and compensation for their orangutan losses.

Conclusion

The study concludes by highlighting five aspects that need consideration for reducing human-orangutan conflicts and with a broader discussion on the need to include the socio-cultural context of the human populations in conservation initiatives.

Implications for Conservation

The study underscores the imperative of integrating local farmers’ perspectives in conserving critically endangered Tapanuli orangutans. It advocates coexistence through crop loss mitigation, deforestation prevention, and compensation strategies, emphasizing the need for holistic, sustainable conservation measures encompassing ecological, social, and economic facets within the region.

Keywords

ecosystem services forest conservation human-orangutan conflict smallholder farmer Tapanuli orangutans

Introduction

In 2017, Tapanuli orangutans (Pongo tapanuliensis) were confirmed as a separate species from Sumatran orangutans (Nater et al., 2017). Since then, efforts have been made to save these critically endangered great apes from a range of threats to their population (Laurance et al., 2020; Wich et al., 2019). Habitat loss and fragmentation, hunting, conflict killing, limited immunity to disease and extractive industries such as gold mining and power generation from geothermal and hydro energy all pose significant threats to the survival of Tapanuli orangutans (Meijaard et al., 2021; Laurance et al., 2020; Sherman et al., 2021). Tapanuli orangutans have increasingly been observed outside of protected areas, leading to heightened conflicts with local farmers (Kuswanda et al., 2021a; Nasution et al., 2018). Even when Tapanuli orangutans remain within protected areas, the encroachment of farmers into those areas can lead to competition for resources and conflict (Harahap et al., 2022). Despite being the most recent great ape discovered in the 21st century, Tapanuli orangutans risk becoming the next great ape to go extinct (Wich et al., 2019).

Human-wildlife conflict continues to be a major issue in tropical countries, where the convergence of biodiversity-rich ecosystems and expanding human populations often leads to clashes between human interests and conservation goals. In the African tropics, human-elephant (Loxodonta spp.) conflicts are prevalent as livelihoods expand and elephants raid crops (Kiffner et al., 2021; Montgomery et al., 2021). Similarly, in Nepal, interactions between humans and large carnivores like tigers (Panthera tigris) have escalated due to habitat fragmentation and human encroachment into wildlife territories (Dhungana et al., 2018; Sharma & Neupane, 2023). In Indonesia, conflicts with elephants have intensified due to habitat fragmentation and the conversion of forest into agricultural areas. Elephants raid crops, threatening people's livelihoods and posing risks to human safety (Shaffer et al., 2019). Similarly, orangutans are increasingly entering agricultural areas, leading to crop raiding and property damage (Davis et al., 2013; Meijaard et al., 2011). These conflicts have significant socio-economic implications, as they can disrupt agricultural productivity and undermine local support for conservation efforts such as those occurring in the Batang Toru forest.

Research on the Tapanuli orangutans has been conducted to understand various aspects of their biology, ecology, and conservation needs. The remaining Tapanuli orangutans live in three subpopulations in the fragmented forests (Nater et al., 2017). Although orangutans have a long lifespan, their slow birth rate means that just a few deaths each year can threaten the survival of these sub-populations (Marshall et al., 2009). Research has also begun to examine the causes of human-orangutan conflicts (Campbell-Smith et al., 2012; Davis et al., 2013; Meijaard et al., 2011). These include deforestation as land is converted to agriculture, which leads to habitat loss and food scarcity for orangutans, ultimately causing them to feed on agricultural commodities. The existing research concurs that human-orangutan conflict is the major threat to orangutan survival and that a clearer understanding of local people’s attitudes, and social behaviors towards orangutans is needed (Meijaard et al., 2021). Understanding the human side of the human-orangutan conflict is a crucial part of finding solutions to this problem.

This research has the overarching goal of comprehensively investigating human-orangutan interactions through three distinct objectives. Firstly, our primary aim is to assess smallholder farmers’ awareness of the diverse services and disservices provided by Tapanuli orangutans. In this context, ecosystem services, encompassing benefits to human societies from natural ecosystems (Daily et al., 1997), are vital. Orangutan services specifically include provisioning services (such as orangutan meat for consumption), regulation services (facilitating seed dispersal), and cultural services (contributing to cultural value, and aesthetic value). Disservices, representing the adverse impacts of orangutans on human society, such as crop raiding (Wu et al., 2021), will also be thoroughly examined. Secondly, we will delve into understanding the attitudes of smallholder farmers when they encounter Tapanuli orangutans on their land. This objective seeks to uncover the nuanced perspectives and responses of farmers in the face of direct interactions with these primates. Lastly, our research will extend to identifying the broader political-economic systemic factors that exert influence on the complex interactions between smallholder farmers and orangutans. This final objective aims to contextualize the socio-economic and political dimensions that shape and are shaped by these interactions.

Methods

Study Area

Our study focused on local farmers in the Batang Toru Ecosystem (BTE). The BTE is a fragmented forest complex in Sumatra, Indonesia (Figure 1). Administratively, the BTE is spread across three regencies in North Sumatra Province (South Tapanuli, Central Tapanuli and North Tapanuli). This ecosystem comprises lowland to upland forest, ranging from 800 meters to 1781 meters above sea level with steep slopes of 30° to 60° (Fredriksson & Usher, 2013). The forest is home to the critically endangered Tapanuli orangutans, Sumatran tigers, and Sunda pangolins, along with a diverse bird population. Furthermore, the forest is well-known for its rare and endemic plant species, particularly Dipterocarps, Figs, and Rafflesia. These fragmented forests are divided into three main areas, west block, east block, and nature reserve. The Batang Toru landscape spans 249,169 hectares, but the remaining orangutan habitat is approximately 132,040 ha of this (SMILE Batang Toru, 2022). Some 27,906 households live in the Batang Toru Ecosystem (Tarigan et al., 2010) and depend on its ecosystem services for their livelihoods. Many households farm rice or are involved in agroforestry of crops such as durian (Durio zibethinus), petai or bitter bean (Parkia speciosa), and benzoin (Styrax sumatrana). The Batang Toru forest is home to the indigenous Toba Batak, and Angkola Batak people groups, who have sustainably managed forest resources using mixed tree gardens and agroforestry systems.

Figure 1.

Batang Toru Ecosystem Map.

Figure 1 above illustrates the village study, depicting the overlap of all villages with the orangutan habitat. Although Lobu Pining village in the north and Haunatas in the south are situated outside the orangutan habitat, they still constitute integral components of the Batang Toru ecosystem and are recognized as part of the orangutan exploration area. While the maps showcase the orangutan habitat in conjunction with the villages, it's essential to note that the orangutan habitat is also intertwined with local communities' plantations, rice fields, and settlements. This interconnectedness makes encounters between farmers and orangutans inevitable.

Research Design

We employed a mixed-methods research approach to investigate the relationship between smallholder farmers and Tapanuli orangutans' ecosystem services and disservices in the Batang Toru forest. The mixed methods research approach has been employed to investigate instances of human-wildlife conflict across various geographic locations (Buchholtz et al., 2023; Page, 2023). Using structured interviews with closed-ended questions, we gathered data from a representative group of farmers in the study region. A carefully designed questionnaire with multiple-choice questions was administered, and the data underwent comprehensive descriptive statistical analysis, including frequency and percentage calculations and chi-square tests. Additionally, we adopted a combined quantitative and qualitative research strategy to understand how farmers integrate their knowledge and attitudes related to the orangutans into societal values and consider broader political-economic factors influencing their interactions. Qualitative insights were gathered through in-depth interviews with key informants using open-ended questions, followed by thematic analysis to identify common patterns. This mixed-methods design provided a comprehensive and triangulated exploration of farmers' knowledge, attitudes, and contextualization of Tapanuli orangutans' societal values, along with the political-economic factors shaping their interactions with the species.

Data collection

We conducted a quantitative survey with 275 agroforestry farmers and qualitative in-depth interviews with 22 key informants (Table 1). The sample size was established using the Slovin method, a commonly employed technique in research known for its simplicity and straightforward application, especially advantageous when dealing with small sample sizes (Slovin, 1960). We employed purposely sampling to select a cohort of 275 farmers who were actively involved in agroforestry practices, primarily in areas characterized by frequent interactions with orangutans. Quantitative surveys used multiple choices responses and Likert scales. Key informants were purposely selected because they were leaders of the community or of farmers’ organisations who themselves had frequent interactions with orangutans and who were able to share in depth how the local community interacts with Tapanuli orangutans and what values society attributes to the orangutans.

Table 1.

Distribution of samples by district, villages and forest block.

District	Village	Forest Block	Respondents	Key informant
North Tapanuli	Lobu Pining	East Block	30	2
North Tapanuli	Sidua Bahal	West Block	15	1
North Tapanuli	Sitolu Bahal	West Block	15	1
North Tapanuli	Siandor-andor	West Block	25	2
North Tapanuli	Banuaji IV	West Block	25	2
North Tapanuli	Simardangiang	West Block	25	3
North Tapanuli	Dolok Sanggul	East Block, Dolok Sipirok NR	25	2
Central Tapanuli	Huta gurgur	West Block	30	2
South Tapanuli	Simaninggir	West Block	30	2
South Tapanuli	Aek Nabara	West Block, Sibual-buali NR	30	2
South Tapanuli	Haunatas	West Block, Sibual-buali NR	25	3
Total			275	22

Before commencing interviews, we conducted a pilot study involving farmers who were not part of our research but who were knowledgeable about the Tapanuli orangutans. This pilot was designed to evaluate the clarity of questions and uncover potential issues with the research approach. It also helped us to refine our study to a key set of meaningful variables. Interviews were conducted between 2020 and 2022. Prior to the interview, permission was granted by village authorities and the interviewees themselves. A short briefing explained the context and purpose of the research, how the results would be used and that the respondents were free to decline to answer any question. Interviews typically lasted 30-45 minutes and were conducted in the native Batak language of respondents.

Our comprehensive questionnaire, designed to investigate the interaction between smallholder farmers and Tapanuli orangutans, encompasses seven sections. These sections cover the following aspects: (1) Demographics: Gathering essential information such as age, gender, education, occupation, and farming experience to establish context. (2) Ecosystem Services Knowledge: Assessing farmers' comprehension of Tapanuli orangutans' ecological contributions, encompassing awareness, services provided, and perceived benefits. (3) Attitudes Toward Encounters: Exploring emotional responses during interactions with Tapanuli orangutans, perceptions of their impact, and reactions to crop raids. (4) Losses and Benefits Perception: Evaluating how respondents perceive crop losses, assess the trade-off between benefits and losses, and understand the role of Tapanuli orangutans in this context. (5) Cultural and Economic Values: Investigating cultural practices involving Tapanuli orangutans and examining economic opportunities. (6) Political-Economic Factors: Exploring factors that influence this relationship, such as governmental policies, support for mitigating crop losses, and the involvement of external entities. (7) Overall Perspective: Capturing respondents' overarching opinions, thoughts, and concerns. The quantitative survey was centered on sections 1 through 6, comprising quantifiable queries suitable for statistical analysis, utilizing a Likert 5-point scale. In contrast, sections 7 were designed to elicit qualitative perspectives, thereby enriching our comprehension of farmers' viewpoints.

Data Analysis

Quantitative data were analysed descriptively using MS Excel as follows: Frequencies and percentages were calculated to summarize and analyze the survey data related to farmers' knowledge about the services and disservices of the Tapanuli orangutans, as well as their attitudes toward encounters with the species. Quantitative data pertaining to farmers' knowledge and attitude were analyzed using Chi-square tests in SPSS. For qualitative data, thematic and content analyses were used as follows: Qualitative data were transcribed and coded to identify common themes and patterns related to farmers' behaviors, practices, beliefs, and contextualization of the Tapanuli orangutans's societal values, as well as the political-economic systemic factors that influenced their interactions with the species. The software NVivo was used to assist with this analysis.

Results

Farmers Perceptions of the ‘Roles’ of Orangutans

Farmers identified six ‘roles’ of orangutans that impacted them; seed dispersal, research and education, cultural value, aesthetic value, crop raiding, and meat consumption (Figure 2). Crop raiding was perceived to be the most prominent role, with 74% of farmers acknowledging this activity. Farmers reported that encounters with orangutans in their fields were uncommon, generally restricted to the harvest season of crops such as durian and petai. To allow the fruits to ripen, farmers often leave them on the trees for several days, providing an opportunity for orangutans to forage and feed on them. The farmers highlighted that during these fruiting seasons, they are aware of the potential risks associated with encountering this protected species in their fields. They face a dilemma between protecting their crops and managing the orangutans. They often attempt to expel the primates from their fields by using scare tactics or even inflicting harm, although this can be difficult and risky, given the fact that this species is protected by the Government.

Figure 2.

Orangutan roles according to local farmers.

Aesthetic value, which refers to the appreciation of orangutans as a part of the local biodiversity and natural heritage, was also considered significant, with 25% of the farmers acknowledging this role. This highlights the cultural significance of orangutans and their role in shaping local perceptions of the forest ecosystem with farmers in several villages seeing the orangutan as a charismatic animal. Some farmers were aware that the Tapanuli orangutan was newly classified as a separate species, critically endangered, and needing protection. For example, the village head in Simardangiang said:

“I think around 2018, there has been a surge in news coverage and campaigns focused on the Tapanuli orangutans. Following this period, an increasing influx of individuals has been drawn to our village with the sole intent of inquiring about or conducting surveys on the Tapanuli orangutans. These individuals include photographers, biologists, representatives from NGOs, corporations, and even government officials. Naturally, this phenomenon has prompted us to question the underlying reasons for this collective concern regarding this specific orangutan species. Reflecting on the various visits and discussions, I have arrived at the conclusion that, without a doubt, this species is under the watchful observation of multiple entities.” (T.S, 52 years old).

Another 63-year-old farmer from Simaninggir said:

“We’re proud to live alongside the newly identified species - Tapanuli orangutans. Our village has famous waterfalls and dense forests, and if the government promoted our village as a place to see this iconic species, we could protect the species and attract as many tourists as other popular Orangutan spots like Kalimantan and Langkat. Just for your information, none of the villages around the Batang Toru forest are established for Orangutan ecotourism”.

Comments like these showed that farmers in these villages understand the importance of conserving the Tapanuli orangutans as an endangered species and see the potential for ecotourism.

The presence of orangutans stimulated research and education, and this was an important contribution according to 23% of farmers. Orangutans have been studied extensively by researchers for their behavioral, ecological, and evolutionary characteristics (Ancrenaz et al., 2006; Marshall et al., 2009; Nater et al., 2017; Sloan et al., 2018). Furthermore, orangutans are also considered to have educational value, as they are often used as flagship species for conservation education and awareness programs either by the government or NGOs in Tapanuli. Cultural values, which refers to the role of orangutans in local customs, beliefs, and traditions, was acknowledged by 12% of the farmers. Orangutans have cultural significance among local communities, as they are often considered as sacred animals or have cultural myths and stories associated with them. We studied this phenomenon in several villages (Simardangiang, Haunatas, and Dolok Sanggul) where farmers hold unique beliefs regarding the treatment and perception of orangutans compared to other animals such as macaques. In Simardangiang, for example, orangutans are considered neighbors; some farmers like having them around while others do not. However, harming them is not condoned. In Dolok Sanggul, orangutans are not treated poorly due to their distinct appearance and larger size compared to other animals. The physical depiction of orangutans is believed to instill fear in the community, preventing harm to them as they are seen to possess certain powers and are best avoided. Meanwhile, in Haunatas, orangutans are referred to as animals with spirits, and thus, hurting them is deemed an immoral act. Although orangutans are known to disperse seeds of various plant species through their feeding behavior, contributing to forest regeneration and biodiversity (Ancrenaz et al., 2006; Nielsen et al., 2011), only 9% of farmers recognized seed dispersal as an important role.

Meat consumption, which refers to orangutans being a source of food for farmers, was acknowledged by 5% of respondents, however orangutans are not actively hunted like wild boar or deer, and the last occurrence of one being eaten was more than ten years ago. To illustrate, in North Tapanuli, orangutans have been stranded in farmers' fields and farmers attempted to drive them away. Because they remained in the fields, and farmers perceived them to be defenseless, they resorted to hunting them for their meat. It's noteworthy that this practice is not pursued individually; instead, the meat is shared among the farmers. In recent years, rather than being killed and eaten, orangutans have been rescued by NGOs or government bodies.

In summary, farmers in Batang Toru Forest reported that orangutans were perceived to play multiple roles, with crop raiding, aesthetic value, research and education, and cultural value being considered as significant.

Farmers Attitudes When Orangutans Enter Their Land

Fifty-one percent of durian farmers in the Batang Toru forest tolerated the presence of Tapanuli orangutans on their land, albeit with some reservations (Table 2). A quarter of farmers chased them away by throwing sticks and stones at them, with some using an air rifle. Most durian farmers reported losses because of crop raiding by orangutans with more than 90% of farmers in Lobu Pining and Simaninggir experiencing this. In seven villages (Sidua bahal, Sitolu bahal, Dolok Sanggul, Lobu pining, Huta Gurgur, Simaninggir, and Aek nabara) we found a significant association between durian loss and repellence – farmers became less tolerant towards orangutans as they lost more durian. However, in the remaining four villages (Banuaji IV, Siandor-andor, Simardangiang and Haunatas) we found a significant association between durian loss and tolerance attitudes towards orangutans. This implies that as durian losses occurred, farmers tended to exhibit greater tolerance rather than repellence in their attitudes towards orangutans. The in-depth interviews explained that in these four villages orangutans were tolerated because they were viewed as neighbours. One respondent in Simardangiang explained this concept like this:

“For us in Simardangiang, orangutans are our neighbours with whom we live side by side. When a hungry orangutan comes to raid durian fruit, other animals are usually not present there because the orangutan has already taken over the area. So, for us, it is like sharing the durian fruit with our neighbour, even though many farmers have their own objections based on their own experiences. However, when encountering an orangutan on a durian tree, we do not harm them but usually say, ‘Take your share, but don't take too much. Leave some for me’. It has been proven that they will take their share, and there is still plenty left for the farmers.” (T.S, 52 years old).

Table 2.

Farmer’s Tolerance and Repellence in Response to Crop Loss Caused by Tapanuli Orangutans.

Village	Reported crops loss		Farmers tolerant with orangutan (n, %)	Farmers repellent with orangutan (n, %)	Association between durian loss and tolerance with orang-utan	Association between durian loss and repellence with orang-utan
Village	Durian (n, %)	Bitter bean (n, %)			p	p
Banuaji IV	14, 56	4, 16	11, 44	7, 28	0.006	0.748
Siandor-andor	16, 64	15, 60	13, 52	7, 28	0.019	0.135
Simardangiang	21, 84	12, 48	10, 40	8, 32	0.017	0.145
Sidua bahal	7, 47	3, 20	9, 60	3, 20	0.114	0.038
Sitolu bahal	9, 60	5, 33	7, 47	4, 27	0.101	0.025
Dolok Sanggul	22, 88	11, 44	16, 64	8, 32	0.205	0.01
Lobu Pining	28, 93	10, 33	23, 77	9, 30	0.338	0.073
Huta gurgur	26, 87	11, 37	18, 60	8, 27	0.195	0.004
Simaninggir	27, 90	8, 27	12, 40	4, 13	0.474	0.009
Aek Nabara	26, 87	9, 30	10, 33	6, 20	0.283	0.002
Haunatas	11, 44	7, 28	11, 44	4, 16	0.008	0.15
Mean	19, 73	9, 34	13, 51	6, 25

Other ‘tolerant’ responses demonstrated that conserving the forest was a part of the village identity. In Haunatas, E.S (47 years old) said:

“We in Haunatas are very knowledgeable in how to handle orangutans when they come to our land without harming them. Some let them be and usually report to me, and I can forward it to the authorities, NGOs, or the government. This is strengthened by the education and awareness, especially our identity as Haunatas communities that has been closely linked to conservation, for instance in 2020, we received an award from the Indonesian government for our forest conservation efforts, which made us known as a wildlife-friendly community and it becomes part of our village identity here.”

Socio-Economic and Political Attributes to the Tapanuli Orangutans

Orangutan sightings on agricultural land are becoming more common in most villages (Table 3). Most farmers (68%) reported an increasing frequency of orangutans on their land and suffered ‘very significant’ losses (73%). Approximately 25% of the surveyed farmers asserted that they possess practical expertise in employing tools, including machetes, stones, wood, and air rifles, to deter orangutans. This proactive measure is undertaken due to the perceived disadvantage farmers experience when encountering these primates on their agricultural lands. Most farmers attributed this to an expansion of the extractive industry (84%) with a minority identifying farm expansion as the driving factor (12%). MS (52 years old) from Sidua Bahal stated that the large-scale opening of land for gold mining, power plants, and geothermal plants in the last ten years has pushed orangutans on to farmers' land and increased famers’ losses. He also mentioned that there is currently no clear solution to minimize these losses for the farmers, neither from the government nor the companies operating in the Batang Toru forest area. This aligns with our findings about participants' perspectives concerning the prevailing orangutan mitigation scheme where most farmers (59%) strongly disagreed that their interests were reflected by the scheme exhibited a pronounced diversity of opinions.

Table 3.

Influences of Socio-economic and Political Factors on Farmers' Concerns in Mitigating Human-Orangutan Conflicts.

Question	Response	Participants for this Query	%
The frequency of orangutans coming to my land to eat my crops has been increasing for the last 10 years.	■ Strongly Agree	187	68
	■ Agree	31	11
	■ Neutral	19	7
	■ Disagree	23	8
	■ Strongly disagree	15	6
Total Participants		275	100%
The presence of orangutans on my land is detrimental to my crops and income.	Very significant	201	73
	Fairly significant	21	8
	Significant	25	9
	Slightly significant	22	8
	Not at all significant	6	2
Total Participants		275	100%
I have experience in deterring orangutans using tools such as machetes, stones, wood, and air rifles because encountering them on my land puts me at a disadvantage.	Yes	69	25
	No	206	75
Total Participants		275	100%
Causes of more frequent orangutan stranding on my land	Extractive Industry	231	84
	Unsustainable and expansion of farm	32	12
	Farmers activities in the forest	5	2
	I do not know	7	2
Total Participants		275	100%
The current orangutan mitigation scheme reflects the interests of farmers.	■ Strongly Agree	9	3
	■ Agree	16	6
	■ Neutral	17	6
	■ Disagree	72	26
	■ Strongly disagree	161	59
Total Participants		275	100%
Efforts need to be taken to reduce the negative impact of orangutan encounters on my farm and my income in the future.	■ Compensation for crop losses to farmers	84	31
	■ Stopping industrial deforestation and putting the extractive industry in charge	102	37
	■ Monitoring and patrol programs authorized by the Government	19	7
	■ Developing alternative sources of income for farmers such as sustainable ecotourism or agroforestry enrichment	61	22
	■ There is no action that can be taken for it	9	3
Total Participants		275	100%

In some cases, interventions are needed, for example, in Siandor-andor, an orangutan was discovered stranded and starving in 2020, prompting the locals to report the incident to the authorities. However, in most cases, orangutans leave agricultural land and return to their natural habitat unaided.

Farmers recognise that something needs to be done to reduce the negative impact of orangutan encounters on their farms and income in the future. They endorsed a range of different mitigation approaches including cessation of industrial deforestation (37%), compensation for crop losses (31%) and alternative income sources (22%). Only 3% felt that there were no solutions.

In summary, the findings suggest that farmers in the region face increased human-orangutan conflict, caused by an expansion of extractive industries and agricultural practices. Effective mitigation measures must be developed in collaboration with farmers, which lead to sustainable solutions for conservation and development in the region.

Discussion

Orangutan Roles, Farmers Perceptions, and Conservation Challenges

Several previous studies highlight the positive ecology role of orangutans as ecosystem engineers (Jones et al. (1994) or in seed dispersal (Nielsen et al., 2011; Tarszisz, 2016; Tarszisz et al., 2018b, 2018a) and germination (Ancrenaz, 2007; Nielsen et al., 2011 (Tarszisz et al., 2018b). However, only a minority of respondents comprehend the nuanced role of orangutans as ecosystem engineers. Other studies emphasize the economic benefits of orangutans in generating revenue through tourism (Zander et al. (2014) Susilawati et al. (2019) or their cultural role, revered as sacred animals in some communities (Wadley et al., 1997; Wadley & Colfer, 2004). Local beliefs about orangutans’ treatment and status were studied in Simardangiang, Haunatas, and Dolok Sanggul villages. In Simardangiang, they are seen as neighbors, and harming them is discouraged; instead, farmers share durian fruit with them. In Dolok Sanggul, orangutans are viewed with fear due to their perceived energies. Haunatas regards them as animals with spirits and opposes harm. Similar cultural values were observed in Sentarum Lake, where killing orangutans is illegal, and Dayak communities consider them ancestors, believing they taught important life lessons. Some Batak communities in Tapanuli see orangutans as animals rather than ancestors. Local knowledge is essential for effective conservation, emphasizing cooperation with farmers (Boafo et al., 2016; Whyte, 2013; Yuliani et al., 2018). A small number of farmers also highlight orangutans' importance in research and education, especially for conservation. Orangutans are focal points in conservation awareness campaigns due to their endangered status, as supported by Knott et al., (2021). Their unique traits enhance our understanding of ecosystems. Local farmers value wildlife for education, emphasizing biodiversity conservation and habitat preservation. Tailored environmental education for communities and inclusivity, incorporating diverse perspectives, is crucial (Brias-Guinart et al., 2022).

While a minority of farmers we surveyed recognised these positive roles, most farmers in the Batang Toru forest highlighted the orangutan’s negative contribution, as a crop raider. This aligns with other studies (Ango et al., 2017; Marchal & Hill, 2009; Mc Guinness & Taylor, 2014; Priston, 2008). Local farmers' perceptions of orangutans influence their reactions to crop raiding. Some tolerate them as hungry neighbours, while others fear or revere them as animals with spirits. Understanding these beliefs is crucial for effective conservation. Local farmers view orangutans as crop raiders, leading to economic losses and sometimes using repellents like stones and wood. Some villages have negative attitudes, resulting in harm to orangutans (MoEF, 2020; Mongabay, 2013, 2019). Studies by Siregar et al., (2020) and Hsiao et al., (2013) emphasize the economic importance of agriculture and negative farmer attitudes towards wildlife. Our study reveals nuanced perceptions of orangutan crop raiding, highlighting the need for peaceful conflict resolution (Ancrenaz et al., 2007; Campbell-Smith et al., 2012). In terms of meat consumption, while a few farmers admitted to consuming orangutans in the past, hunting incidents have not occurred in over a decade. Stranded orangutans are now rescued and rehabilitated by NGOs or governmental agencies. As a result, conservation initiatives should not only target hunting and eating bushmeat, but also the socioeconomic and cultural factors that contribute to these behaviours (Bowen-Jones & Pendry, 1999; Cawthorn & Hoffman, 2015; Morsello et al., 2015; Rose, 1996).

The Complexities of Human-Orangutan Conflict and Conservation Strategies

Human-orangutan conflict arises from resource competition exacerbated by extractive industries, habitat loss, and food source depletion (Meijaard & Wich, 2013; Oram et al., 2022). These conflicts, characterized by repeated encounters between Tapanuli orangutans and farmers in adjacent villages, stem from forest clearance and limited food access. The situation is worsened by nest-building in durian gardens, with such incidents, including the discovery of baby orangutans, concentrated in the Western Block of the Batang Toru forest, where extractive businesses like hydro dam electric, gold mining, and geothermal plantations operate. For example, Mongabay.co.id, (2022) has reported that encounters between Tapanuli orangutans and durian plantations are linked to the Batang Toru hydroelectric power plant project.

The strategies proposed by farmers to mitigate adverse impacts align with established conservation practices. These strategies encompass providing compensation to farmers for crop losses, halting industrial deforestation while entrusting the extractive industry with this responsibility, promoting alternative income sources for farmers, such as sustainable ecotourism or agroforestry enrichment, and implementing monitoring and patrols programs. These farmer-endorsed strategies are consistent with recognized conservation measures, which include cessation of deforestation, involvement of local community leaders, integration of conflict mitigation into forest management, creation of biological corridors, and population monitoring (Campbell-Smith et al., 2012; Kuswanda et al., 2021b, 2021a; Meijaard et al., 2021; USAID, 2017; Wich et al., 2019).

Our study emphasizes the significance of fostering trust and collaboration among government agencies, conservation organizations, and local farmers to formulate conservation measures that align with the cultural and social context of the region. Addressing this intricate issue demands a comprehensive outlook that acknowledges its connections to deforestation and land conversion, necessitating cooperation from all stakeholders (Meijaard et al., 2012; Wich et al., 2012). Such collaborative efforts are paramount for the effective execution of conservation initiatives (Carter & Gronow, 2005; Desmiwati, 2017).

Implications for Conservation

Our study delves into the intricate attitudes of local farmers towards Tapanuli orangutans residing in the Batang Toru forest area, offering a nuanced perspective on the potential for coexistence. Despite acknowledging orangutans as crop raiders, farmers demonstrate a level of tolerance that suggests the possibility of harmonious cohabitation. Given the complexity of this problem we propose incorporating the following elements into future strategies:

1. Understand how farmers in a given context view orangutans. Our study highlights how differently farmers view orangutans according to deeply-held beliefs, many of which are handed down from their ancestors. Peaceful resolution of human-orangutan conflict and conservation needs to take account of the specific culture and beliefs of the human actors (Ancrenaz et al., 2007; Campbell-Smith et al., 2011).

2. Include farmers in conservation. Because farmers are the ones experiencing the loss from crop-raiding they need to be part of the solution when it comes to designing conservation efforts. This can lead to the long-term sustainability of conservation initiatives (Boafo et al., 2016; Parrotta & Agnoletti, 2007; Whyte, 2013).

3. Specific conservation interventions need to reflect how locals view orangutans. If orangutans are perceived simply as an economic threat, interventions could, for example; (a) raise awareness of the value orangutans bring through tourism, (b) consider reallocating some of those tourist benefits to farmers through a levy which compensates for their losses and (c) identify alternative income generating opportunities.

4. Biological corridors. Building biological corridors to connect and reconnect the Batang Toru forest blocks and agroforests are one example of how businesses can systematically reduce conflict (Kuswanda et al., 2021c; Wich et al., 2019).

5. Halting deforestation. Ultimately the previous four elements will be unsuccessful if the forest available to orangutans continues to shrink. Orangutan habitat loss must be halted and this will be the most effective approach at reducing human-orangutan conflict (Meijaard et al., 2021; Wich et al., 2019).

In tandem with these five aspects, successful conservation strategies protecting great apes, like those implemented in the Congo Basin and West Africa, encompass legislation, law enforcement, protected area management, community-based conservation, economic alternatives to bushmeat consumption and trade, ecotourism, education, and capacity building (Schoneveld-de Lange et al., 2016; Boesch et al., 2021).

In conclusion, our work contributes to a better understanding of human-wildlife conflicts by highlighting how the culture and context of specific human communities determines their responses to orangutan crop raiding. Combining these socio-cultural influences with other economic and ecological elements will ensure that conservation efforts are both comprehensive and sustainable.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the farmers in Tapanuli for their willingness to share their knowledge. We would like to thank the IUCN Academy and IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management for their assistance in enhancing this publication.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We appreciate the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education in the Republic of Indonesia for their generous funding support through the Program Magister Menuju Doktor Sarjana Unggul (PMDSU), an accelerated Ph.D. program.

ORCID iDs

Hamid Arrum Harahap

Yonariza

Endrizal Ridwan

Yuerlita

References

Ancrenaz

Dabek

O’Neil

(2007). The costs of exclusion: Recognizing a role for local communities in biodiversity conservation. PLoS Biology, 5(11), 2443–2448. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050289

Ancrenaz

Lackman-Ancrenaz

Elahan

(2006). Seed Spitting and Seed Swallowing By Wild Orang-Utans (Pongo Pygmaeus Morion) In Sabah, Malaysia. Journal of Tropical Biology and Conservation, 2(1).

Ango

T. G.

Börjeson

Senbeta

(2017). Crop raiding by wild mammals in Ethiopia: Impacts on the livelihoods of smallholders in an agriculture-forest mosaic landscape. Oryx, 51(3), 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316000028

Boafo

Y. A.

Saito

Kato

Kamiyama

Takeuchi

Nakahara

(2016). The role of traditional ecological knowledge in ecosystem services management: the case of four rural communities in Northern Ghana. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management, 12(1–2), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2015.1124454

Boesch

Gotanegre

Hillers

Kouassi

Boesch

Kizila

Normand

(2021). Lessons learned while protecting wild chimpanzees in West Africa. American Journal of Primatology, 83(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23209

Bowen-Jones

Pendry

(1999). The threat to primates and other mammals from the bushmeat trade in Africa, and how this threat could be diminished. ORYX, 33(3), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3008.1999.00066.x

Brias-Guinart

Korhonen-Kurki

Cabeza

(2022). Typifying conservation practitioners’ views on the role of education. Conservation Biology, 36(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13893

Buchholtz

E. K.

McDaniels

McCulloch

Songhurst

Stronza

(2023). A mixed-methods assessment of human-elephant conflict in the Western Okavango Panhandle, Botswana. People and Nature, 5(2), 557–571. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10443

Campbell-Smith

Singleton

Linkie

(2011). Apes in space: Saving an imperilled orangutan population in Sumatra. PLoS ONE, 6(2), 5. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017210

10.

Campbell-Smith

Sembiring

Linkie

(2012). Evaluating the effectiveness of human-orangutan conflict mitigation strategies in Sumatra. Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(2), 367–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02109.x

11.

Carter

Gronow

(2005). Recent Experience in Collaborative Forest Management.

12.

Cawthorn

D. M.

Hoffman

L. C.

(2015). The bushmeat and food security nexus: A global account of the contributions, conundrums and ethical collisions. Food Research International, 76(P4), 906–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.03.025

13.

Daily

Alexander

Ehrlich

Goulder

Lubhenco

Matson

P. A.

Mooney

H. A.

Postel

Scheneider

S. H.

Tilman

Woodwell

G. M.

(1997). Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems. Ecology, 2(January 1997), 11. https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/ForestEconomics/Economics-Daily97.pdf

14.

Davis

J. T.

Mengersen

Abram

N. K.

Ancrenaz

Wells

J. A.

Meijaard

(2013). It’s Not Just Conflict That Motivates Killing of Orangutans. PLoS ONE, 8(10), 13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075373

15.

Desmiwati . (2017). Collaborative Forest Management in Indonesia: A Review. International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research (IJSBAR) International Journal of Sciences: Basic and Applied Research, 36(8), 166–177. https://gssrr.org/index.php?journal=JournalOfBasicAndApplied

16.

Dhungana

Savini

Karki

J. B.

Dhakal

Lamichhane

B. R.

Bumrungsri

(2018). Living with tigers Panthera tigris: Patterns, correlates, and contexts of human-tiger conflict in Chitwan National Park, Nepal. ORYX, 52(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001587

17.

Fredriksson

G. M.

Usher

(2013). Toward Sustainable Management of Batang Toru Forest. Yayasan Ekosistem Lestari/PanEco.

18.

Harahap

H. A.

Yonariza Ridwan

(2022). Assessing the local farmer’s perspective on Tapanuli Orangutan in Agroforest Landscape of Batang Toru Ecosystem, Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1115(1), 115. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1115/1/012021

19.

Hsiao

S. S.

Ross

Hill

C. M.

Wallace

G. E.

(2013). Crop-raiding deterrents around Budongo Forest Reserve: An evaluation through farmer actions and perceptions. Oryx, 47(4), 569–577. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605312000853

20.

Jones

C. G.

Lawton

J. H.

Shachak

(1994). Organisms as ecosystem engineers. Oikos, 69(3), 373–386.

21.

Kiffner

Schaal

Cass

Peirce

Sussman

Grueser

Wachtel

Adams

Clark

König

H. J.

Kioko

(2021). Perceptions and realities of elephant crop raiding and mitigation methods. Conservation Science and Practice, 3(3), 3. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.372

22.

Knott

C. D.

Kane

E. E.

Achmad

Barrow

E. J.

Bastian

M. L.

Beck

Blackburn

Breeden

T. L.

Brittain

N. L. C.

Brousseau

J. J.

Brown

E. R.

Brown

Brubaker-Wittman

L. A.

Campbell-Smith

G. A.

de Sousa

DiGiorgio

A. L.

Freund

C. A.

Gehrke

V. I.

Granados

Susanto

T. W.

(2021). The Gunung Palung Orangutan Project: Twenty-five years at the intersection of research and conservation in a critical landscape in Indonesia. Biological Conservation, 255, 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108856

23.

Kuswanda

Harahap

R. H.

Alikodra

H. S.

Sibarani

(2021a). Causal factors and models of human-Tapanuli orangutan conflict in Batang Toru landscape, North Sumatra, Indonesia. Agriculture and Natural Resources, 55(3), 377–386. https://doi.org/10.34044/j.anres.2021.55.3.07

24.

Kuswanda

Harahap

R. H.

Alikodra

H. S.

Sibarani

(2021b). Characteristics and community perception on mitigation of Human-Tapanuli Orangutans conflict around Dolok Sipirok Natural Reserve, South Tapanuli. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 713(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/713/1/012006

25.

Kuswanda

Harahap

R. H.

Alikodra

H. S.

Sibarani

(2021c). Characteristics of the Tapanuli Orangutan Habitat in the Conflict Area of Batang Toru Landscape, North Sumatra, Indonesia. Forest and Society, 5(April), 90–108. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v5i1.11155

26.

Laurance

W. F.

Wich

S. A.

Onrizal

Fredriksson

Usher

Santika

Byler

Mittermeier

Kormos

Williamson

E. A.

Meijaard

(2020). Tapanuli orangutan endangered by Sumatran hydropower scheme. In Nature Ecology and Evolution (Vol. 4, Issue 11, pp. 1438–1439). Nature Research. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1263-x

27.

Marchal

Hill

(2009). Primate crop-raiding: A study of local perceptions in four villages in North Sumatra, Indonesia. Primate Conservation, 24(1), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.1896/052.024.0109

28.

Marshall

A. J.

Lacy

Ancrenaz

Byers

Husson

S. J.

Leighton

Meijaard

Rosen

Singleton

Stephens

Traylor-Holzer

Utami Atmoko

S. S.

Van Schaik

C. P.

Wich

S. A.

(2009). Orangutan population biology, life history, and conservation: Perspectives from population viability analysis models. Orangutans: Geographic Variation in Behavioral Ecology and Conservation, 1, 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199213276.003.0022

29.

Mc Guinness

Taylor

(2014). Farmers’ Perceptions and Actions to Decrease Crop Raiding by Forest-Dwelling Primates Around a Rwandan Forest Fragment. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 19(2), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2014.853330

30.

Meijaard

Buchori

Hadiprakarsa

Utami-Atmoko

S. S.

Nurcahyo

Tjiu

Prasetyo

Nardiyono Christie

Ancrenaz

Abadi

Antoni

I. N. G.

Armayadi

Dinato

Ella Gumelar

Indrawan

T. P.

Kussaritano Munajat

Mengersen

(2011). Quantifying killing of orangutans and human-orangutan conflict in Kalimantan, Indonesia. PLoS ONE, 6(11), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027491

31.

Meijaard

Ni’matullah

Dennis

Sherman

Onrizal Wich

S. A.

(2021). The historical range and drivers of decline of the Tapanuli orangutan. PLoS ONE, 16(1 January), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238087

32.

Meijaard

Wich

(2013). Extractive industries and orangutans (Occasional paper for State of the Apes: Extractive Industries and Ape Conservation).

33.

Meijaard

Wich

Ancrenaz

Marshall

A. J.

(2012). Not by science alone: Why orangutan conservationists must think outside the box. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06288.x

34.

MoEF . (2020). Penanganan Konflik Orangutan di Adiankoting Sumatera Utara. https://ksdae.menlhk.go.id/info/7489/penanganan-konflik-orangutan-di-adiankoting-sumatera-utara.html

35.

Mongabay . (2013, November 22). Dijerat Pemburu di Tapsel, Orangutan Penuh Luka Berbelatung. Mongabay.Co.Id. https://www.mongabay.co.id/2013/11/22/dijerat-pemburu-di-tapsel-orangutan-penuh-luka-berbelatung/

36.

Mongabay . (2019, September 28). Terjebak di Kebun Warga, Orangutan Tapanuli Ditemukan Luka-luka. Mongabay.co.id. https://www.mongabay.co.id/2019/09/28/terjebak-di-kebun-warga-orangutan-tapanuli-ditemukan-luka-luka/

37.

Mongabay.co.id . (2022, December 15). Tapanuli Orangutans Increasingly Appearing in Residents’ Gardens. Mongabay.Co.Id.

38.

Montgomery

R. A.

Raupp

Mukhwana

Greenleaf

Mudumba

Muruthi

(2021). The efficacy of interventions to protect crops from raiding elephants. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280

39.

Morsello

Yagüe

Beltreschi

van Vliet

Adams

Schor

Quiceno-Mesa

M. P.

Cruz

(2015). Cultural attitudes are stronger predictors of bushmeat consumption and preference than economic factors among urban amazonians from brazil and colombia. Ecology and Society, 20(4), 34. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07771-200421

40.

Nasution

Perwitasari-Farajallah

Utami-Atmoko

S. S.

(2018). Nesting Characteristics of the Tapanuli Orangutan (Pongo tapanuliensis) in Two Unprotected Forests of Batang Toru, North Sumatra. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 197(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/197/1/012027

41.

Nater

Mattle-Greminger

M. P.

Nurcahyo

Nowak

M. G.

de Manuel

Desai

Groves

Pybus

Sonay

T. B.

Roos

Lameira

A. R.

Wich

S. A.

Askew

Davila-Ross

Fredriksson

de Valles

Casals

Prado-Martinez

Goossens

Krützen

(2017). Morphometric, Behavioral, and Genomic Evidence for a New Orangutan Species. Current Biology, 27(22), 3487-3498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.09.047

42.

Nielsen

N. H.

Jacobsen

M. W.

Graham

L. L. L. B.

Morrogh-Bernard

H. C.

D’Arcy

L. J.

Harrison

M. E.

(2011). Successful germination of seeds following passage through orang-utan guts. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 27(4), 433–435. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467411000071

43.

Oram

Kapar

M. D.

Saharon

A. R.

Elahan

Segaran

Poloi

Saidal

Abulani

Lackman

Ancrenaz

(2022). “Engaging the Enemy”: Orangutan (Pongo pygmaeus morio) Conservation in Human Modified Environments in the Kinabatangan floodplain of Sabah, Malaysian Borneo. International Journal of Primatology, 43(6), 1067–1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-022-00288-w

44.

Page

(2023). Human-Wildlife Conflict In Tanzania: A Mixed-Methods Exploration Of A Collaborative, Community-Engaged Approach To Conservation Challenges. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/hon_thesis/3007

45.

Parrotta

J. A.

Agnoletti

(2007). Traditional forest knowledge: Challenges and opportunities. Forest Ecology and Management, 249(1–2), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.05.022

46.

Priston

N. E. C.

(2008). Modelling Primate Crop-Raiding - Perceptions of Risk, Actual Risk and the Implications for Conservation. Management, December, 8 pp. Online.

47.

Rose

A. L.

(1996). The African Great Ape Bushmeat Crisis. Pan Africa News, 3(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5134/143344

48.

Schoneveld-de Lange

Meijaard

Löhr

(2016). South to south learning in great ape conservation. In American Journal of Primatology (Vol. 78, Issue 6, pp. 669–678). John Wiley and Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22531

49.

Shaffer

L. J.

Khadka

K. K.

Van Den Hoek

Naithani

K. J.

(2019). Human-elephant conflict: A review of current management strategies and future directions. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 6(JAN). https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2018.00235

50.

Sharma

Neupane

(2023). Enhancing human-tiger coexistence in forest corridors of Nepal through a socio-ecological approach to conservation. Trees, Forests and People, 13. Online. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2023.100402

51.

Sherman

Unwin

Travis

D. A.

Oram

Wich

S. A.

Jaya

R. L.

Voigt

Santika

Massingham

Seaman

D. J. I.

Meijaard

Ancrenaz

(2021). Disease Risk and Conservation Implications of Orangutan Translocations. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.749547

52.

Siregar

P. G.

Supriatna

Koestoer

R. H.

Harmantyo

(2020). Borneo Orangutan Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus habitat sustainability and its challenges. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 481(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/481/1/012002

53.

Sloan

Supriatna

Campbell

M. J.

Alamgir

Laurance

W. F.

(2018). Newly discovered orangutan species requires urgent habitat protection. Current Biology, 28(11), R650–R651. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2018.04.082

54.

Slovin

Slovin’s Formula for Sampling Technique. 1960. Available online: https://prudencexd.weebly.com/ (accessed on 30 November 2023).

55.

SMILE Batang Toru

2022. Kondisi Sosial Budaya Lansekap. https://www.smilebatangtoru.ipb.ac.id/PageClient/Detail/13 (accessed on 30 December 2022)

56.

Susilawati Fauzi

Kusmana

Santoso

(2019). Valuasi Ekonomi Wisata Konservasi Orangutan Bukit Lawang di Taman Nasional Gunung Leuser Sumatera Utara (pp. 8–19). Bogor, Indonesia: IPB University.

57.

Tarigan

Roshetko

Martini

Ekadinata

(2010). Non-timber forest products as a source of livelihood diversification for local communities in the Batang Toru Orangutan conservation program. 15.

58.

Tarszisz

(2016). The ecophysiology of seed dispersal by Orangutans in Bornean peat swamp forest. 275.

59.

Tarszisz

Tomlinson

Harrison

M. E.

Morrogh-Bernard

H. C.

Munn

A. J.

(2018a). An ecophysiologically informed model of seed dispersal by orangutans: Linking animal movement with gut passage across time and space. Conservation Physiology, 6(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/coy013

60.

Tarszisz

Tomlinson

Harrison

M. E.

Morrogh-Bernard

H. C.

Munn

A. J.

(2018b). Corrigendum: Gardeners of the forest: Effects of seed handling and ingestion by orangutans on germination success of peat forest plants. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 124(2), 278. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/bly037

61.

USAID . (2017). Story from the Field – On the Front Lines of Human-Orangutan Conflict Mitigation. Lestari-Indonesia. https://www.lestari-indonesia.org/en/story-field-front-lines-human-orangutan-conflict-mitigation/

62.

Wadley

Colfer

C. J. P.

Hood

I. G.

(1997). Hunting Primates and Managing Forests: The Case of Iban Forest Farmers in Indonesian Borneo. Human Ecology, 25(2), 243–271.

63.

Wadley

R. L.

Colfer

C. J. P.

(2004). Sacred Forest, Hunting, and Conservation in West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Human Ecology, 32(3). https://www.jstor.org/stable/4603520

64.

Whyte

K. P.

(2013). On the role of traditional ecological knowledge as a collaborative concept: a philosophical study. https://www.ecologicalprocesses.com/content/2/1/7

65.

Wich

S. A.

Fredriksson

Usher

Kühl

H. S.

Nowak

M. G.

(2019). The Tapanuli orangutan: Status, threats, and steps for improved conservation. Conservation Science and Practice, 1(6), e33. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.33

66.

Wich

S. A.

Gaveau

Abram

Ancrenaz

Baccini

Brend

Curran

Delgado

R. A.

Erman

Fredriksson

G. M.

Goossens

Husson

S. J.

Lackman

Marshall

A. J.

Naomi

Molidena

Nardiyono Nurcahyo

Odom

Meijaard

(2012). Understanding the Impacts of Land-Use Policies on a Threatened Species: Is There a Future for the Bornean Orang-utan? PLoS ONE, 7(11), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049142

67.

B. V.

(2021). Classifying ecosystem disservices and valuating their effects - a case study of Beijing, China. Ecological Indicators, 129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107977

68.

Yuliani

E. L.

Adnan

Achdiawan

Bakara

Heri

Sammy

Salim

M. A.

Sunderland

(2018). The roles of traditional knowledge systems in orang-utan Pongo spp. and forest conservation: A case study of Danau Sentarum, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. Oryx, 52(1), 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316000636

69.

Zander

K. K.

Pang

S. T.

Jinam

Tuen

A. A.

Garnett

S. T.

(2014). Wild and valuable? Tourist values for orang-utan conservation in Sarawak. Conservation and Society, 12(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.132126

Our Hungry Neighbor: Self-Reported Data from Farmers’ Perspective on Tapanuli Orangutans in the Batang Toru Forest,Indonesia

Abstract

Background and Research Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Implications for Conservation

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Study Area

Research Design

Data collection

Data Analysis

Results

Farmers Perceptions of the ‘Roles’ of Orangutans

Farmers Attitudes When Orangutans Enter Their Land

Socio-Economic and Political Attributes to the Tapanuli Orangutans

Discussion

Orangutan Roles, Farmers Perceptions, and Conservation Challenges

The Complexities of Human-Orangutan Conflict and Conservation Strategies

Implications for Conservation

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iDs

References