RESEARCH ARTICLE

Local Knowledge and Perceptions of Chimpanzees in Cantanhez NationalPark, Guinea‐Bissau

JOANA SOUSA1,2,3,4,5, LUÍS VICENTE2,4, SPARTACO GIPPOLITI6, CATARINA CASANOVA4,7,8,AND CLÁUDIA SOUSA1,5*1Departamento de Antropologia, Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal2Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal3Anthropology Centre for Conservation, Environment & Development, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK4Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM), Lisbon, Portugal5Centre for Research in Anthropology (CRIA), Lisbon, Portugal6IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland7CAPP, School of Social and Political Sciences, Technical University of Lisbon, Lisboa, Portugal8Unidade de Antropologia, Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas (ISCSP) da Universidade Técnica de Lisboa,Lisboa, Portugal

Our study concerns local knowledge and perceptions of chimpanzees among farming communitieswithinCantanhez National Park, Guinea‐Bissau. We submitted a survey questionnaire to 100 people living infour villages in the Park to enquire about their knowledge of chimpanzee ecology and human–chimpanzee interactions. Local farmers live in close contact with chimpanzees, consider them to bemoresimilar to humans than any other species, and attribute special importance to them primarily due toexpectations of tourism revenue. Interviewees’ responses, as a function of gender, village, and age, wereanalyzed statistically using non‐parametric tests (Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis). Age influencedresponses significantly, while gender and village had no significant effect. Youngsters emphasizedmorphological aspects of human–chimpanzee similarities, while adults emphasized chimpanzeebehavior and narratives about the shared history of humans and chimpanzees. Tourism, conservation,and crop raiding feature prominently in people’s reports about chimpanzees. Local people’s engagementwith conservation and tourism‐related activities is likely to allow them to manage not only the costs butalso the benefits of conservation, and can in turn inform the expectations built upon tourism. Am. J.Primatol. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Key words: Cantanhez National Park; chimpanzee; tourism; local ecological knowledge; localperceptions

INTRODUCTION

Understanding Local Knowledge andPerceptions of Chimpanzees

How people coexist with wildlife, and morespecifically with large primates such as chimpanzees,has been the subject of burgeoning scientific interest[Costa, 2010; Dunnett et al., 1970; Duvall, 2008; Hill,1997; Hockings, 2007; Humle, 2003; McLennan,2008; Naughton‐Treves, 1997]. To improve theadequacy of conservation strategies where chimpan-zees live alongside people, it is essential to under-stand not only chimpanzee behavior and ecology[Hockings, 2007; McLennan & Hill, 2010; Naughton‐Treves, 1998; Tweheyo et al., 2005] but also howpeople perceive chimpanzees and behave towardsthem [Costa, 2010; Hill, 2004; Hill & Webber, 2010;Kohler, 2005; McLennan & Hill, 2012; Nyanganjiet al., 2010]. Recent ethnoprimatological researchhas emphasized the necessary dialogue between the

disciplines of ecology and social anthropology inprimate conservation [Fuentes & Hockings, 2010;Lee, 2010; Sousa & Frazão‐Moreira, 2010]. Under-standing peoples’ knowledge and perceptions about

Contract grant sponsor: Great Ape Conservation Fund fromUSFWS; contract grant number: 98210‐4‐G865/GA‐0155;contract grant sponsor: FCT (Fundação para a Ciência eTecnologia, Portugal); contract grant sponsor: FEDER, throughthe Research and Development Program POCI 2010;contract grant number: POCI/ANT/57434/2004.

�Correspondence to: Cláudia Sousa, Departamento de Antropo-logia, Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, UniversidadeNova de Lisboa, Av. Berna, 26‐C 1069‐061 Lisboa, Portugal.E‐mail: csousa@fcsh.unl.pt

Received 20 March 2013; revised 21 August 2013; revisionaccepted 22 August 2013

DOI: 10.1002/ajp.22215Published online XX Month Year in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com).

American Journal of Primatology

© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

chimpanzees should be the first step towardsconservation. In addition, environmental educationhas been mentioned frequently as an importantcomponent of conservation strategies [e.g., Casanova& Sousa, 2007; IUCN/UNEP/WWF, 1991], given thatthe success of conservation programs depends onlocal people’s ability to implement them [Bonineet al., 2003: 1209].

Where chimpanzees live in proximity to agricul-tural communities, they can raid a large variety ofcrops [Hockings & McLennan, 2012]—a behaviorthat promotes close interactions with humans[Hill, 1997, 2000]. Human–chimpanzee interactionsare described as positive in certain circumstances[Hockings & Sousa, 2012], but negative interactionshave been reported more widely [Costa, 2010;Halloran et al., 2013; Hockings et al., 2009;McLennan, 2008; Richards, 2000]. Deforestation issaid to promote negative interactions between hu-mans and chimpanzees and therefore shape negativeperceptions of chimpanzees [McLennan, 2008].Local perceptions of chimpanzees as “the propertyof researchers” can also generate negative attitudestowards the species [Naughton‐Treves, 1997]. On theother hand, in some African countries, chimpanzeesare generally not seen as food for people, because oftheir status as a human‐like species [McLennan,2008; McLennan & Hill, 2012] and as “human‐like”and “respectful”, but “dangerous”, as described atBudongo forest (Uganda) [Hill & Webber, 2010]. InCantanhez National Park in Guinea‐Bissau, Casanovaet al. [in press], Costa [2010] and Costa et al. [2013]reported that the species is considered “ugly” and“inedible”. It is suggested that aesthetics andedibility might be associated in perceptions of wildlifespecies [Casanova et al., in press].

Coexistence of Chimpanzees and People inCantanhez National Park

In Cantanhez, chimpanzees visit backyards andfarms, cross roads used by people and their vehicles,and sometimes use the same natural springs aspeople [Sousa, 2007]. As a result, close encounterswith people are commonplace. Nevertheless, insouthern Cantanhez, little conflict has been reportedbetween humans and chimpanzees over cashew[Hockings & Sousa, 2012], the country’s main cashcrop [Sousa, 2011] and abundantly cultivated locally.Farmers report that chimpanzees only eat the fleshypart of the fruits, leaving the nuts—the economicallyimportant part—in the orchard [Casanova & Sousa,unpublished data 2005; Hockings & Sousa, 2012;Sousa, 2007]. Contrasting with this scenario ofrelatively peaceful coexistence, the national actionplan for the conservation of chimpanzees in Guinea‐Bissau [Casanova & Sousa, 2007: 17] reports that thespecies’ survival, in Cantanhez National Park, isthreatened in the forest fragments near some villages

(such as Bedanda, Guiledge, Áfia, Sanconha, andCadique Mbitna).

Hunting for pet trade, pest control, and defores-tation are considered themain threats to the survivalof this species in West Africa [Kormos, 2003a].Chimpanzee body parts were also recently found tobe traded due to their medicinal purposes in Guinea‐Bissau [Sá et al., 2012]. Chimpanzees are not huntedfor food in Guinea‐Bissau [Gippoliti et al., 2004].

Tourism has been hailed as a strategy that canpromote human–wildlife coexistence in protectedareas. In some cases tourism based on great apewatching has promoted the support of local commu-nities for conservation [Ancrenaz et al., 2007; Arch-abald & Naughton‐Treves, 2001]. Some authors alsohighlight that where tourism is said to generateincome for local people, local management should beensured and not replaced by private [Horowitz, 1998;Li, 2009] or state management [Laudati, 2010]. Non‐local management can generate local frustration andthus backfire against conservation [Adams & Infield,2003; Drumm & Moore, 2002; Laudati, 2010; Okello,2005]. Oates [1999] suggests that in order to avoidcreating expectations that are not fulfilled, noconnection should be established between conserva-tion and economic development.

The aim of the present study is to understand howthe spatial proximity between chimpanzees andhumans is reflected in people’s perception and knowl-edge. We assessed baseline topics of local ecologicalknowledge of chimpanzees, that is, nest use and feedinghabits, local understanding of the species’ importance,and the perceived similarities between chimpanzeesand other species. This study was developed within thescope of a project for conservation and research onWestAfrican chimpanzees.

METHODSStudy Area

The study was conducted in Guinea‐Bissau, inthe Bedanda sector (1,142 km2), the largest adminis-trative sector of the Tombali region [INEC, 2005].The region also corresponds to the area covered byCantanhez National Park. The park is delimited bythe Balana River in the northeast, Cumbidjã River inthe north, the Cacine River in the south, and theAtlantic Ocean in the West. Preliminary results fromINEC (National Institute of Statistics and Census)for 2010 estimate that 28,301 people live in this sector(INEC preliminary results 2010), which represents ahuman population density below national average[Verjans et al., 2000].

Our study area is the homeland of the Nalupeople, an ethnic group whose members are reportedto have been the first settlers [Carreira, 1962: 231;Casanova, 2012]. Other ethnic groups such asthe Fula, Sussu, Balanta, among others, have also

Am. J. Primatol.

2 / Sousa et al.

migrated to the area [Garcia de Carvalho, 1949]. TheFula invasion and the Sussu immigration led to theIslamization of the animist Nalu in the 20th century[Carreira, 1962; Frazão‐Moreira, 2009]. Nevertheless,the Nalu still maintain some of their animist ceremo-nies and beliefs, often shrouded in secrecy.

Cantanhez is a recently created national park insouthwest Guinea‐Bissau, with the chimpanzee as itsflagship species and one of its main tourismattractions. In 1955 Cantanhez was designated areserve by the Portuguese colonial administration(until the country’s independence in 1973) [Nunes,1955], and was recognized as an area to protect after1980 [Bouju et al., 2001]. Chimpanzees have alsobeen an officially protected species in Guinea‐Bissausince 1980 (Decree by Law 21/80, from May 17“Approving the hunting regulation”, Official Bulletinof Guinea‐Bissau) whose hunting is prohibited. In2002, in Cantanhez, local and international NGOs,local chieftains, and the local State administrationmet with other members of the community andsigned an agreement approving the internal rules forthe management of what was at that time referred toas the “14 forests of Cantanhez” [Mendes & Serra,2002]. These rules forbade hunting with snares andbanned agricultural activities in certain forestedareas of each village’s territory. In 2007, when thisstudy was conducted, Cantanhez was not yetofficially recognized as a national park, but it wasgazetted soon after, in 2008.

Since 2004, local guides have been trained[AD, 2004: 24; AD, 2005: 28], and places of tourist

interest have been identified, including opportunitiesfor wildlife watching [Pinto, 2007]. In 2007, tourismin the region was still rudimentary. Nevertheless,meetings held by conservation projects and localdevelopment organizations with the local communityadvertized possibilities for tourism in the future.

Data Collection

We selected four villages (Fig. 1) representing themain ethnic groups: Caequene and Cadique Nalu(mainly Nalu people), Lautchande (Balanta), andMadina (Fula, Mandinga and Sussu). People living orattending school in those villages participated in thisstudy. TheBalanta people aremostly animists (only afew are Evangelical) and the Nalu, Fula, Mandinga,and Sussu areMuslims, although adherence to Islamvaries and/or may overlap with animist practices andbeliefs.

Religion and culture [Bongoli & Kimura, 2009;Costa, 2010; Nyanganji et al., 2010], gender [Costa,2010; Costa et al., 2008; Costa et al., 2013; McLennan& Hill, 2012; Watkins, 2006], socioeconomic profile[Gillingham & Lee, 1999], and access to naturalresources [Hartter, 2009] have previously been foundto influence people’s perceptions and knowledge ofnature and nature conservation. We followed a quotasampling approach by: (a) village (40 participants inthe CadiqueNalu and 20 in each of the other villages,because the first was considerably larger); (b) gender(50 female and 50 male); and (c) age class (50 adultsand 50 youngsters). Adults were �43� 17 years old

Fig. 1. The villages of Caequene, Cadique Nalu, Lautchande, and Madina in Cantanhez National Park, Guinea‐Bissau.

Am. J. Primatol.

Local Knowledge of Chimpanzees and Tourism / 3

and youngsters were �14� 3 years old. We inter-viewed the students in the classroom after classes.We tried to keep most quotas as balanced as possible.

We collected the data with the help of aquestionnaire between March and May 2007. Partic-ipants were allowed to give more than one answer tothe following open‐ended questions: Q1: How manychimpanzees have you seen together at once?; Q2:Where do chimpanzees live?; Q3: Where do chim-panzees sleep?; Q4: What do chimpanzees eat?; Q5:What are the bad things that are happening tochimpanzees?; Q6: Is there a law or custom againstcapturing or killing chimpanzees? Who created thislaw or custom?; Q7: What do chimpanzees look like?;Q8: Is the chimpanzee important? Why? At the end ofthequestionnairewe also askedpeople to interpret twoposters showing photos and pictorial representationsof chimpanzees: “poster 1”wasmeant to represent freeranging chimpanzees and included several photos ofchimpanzees in their natural habitat, and performingsome of their natural behaviors (e.g., cracking nuts,eatingwild fruits,movingbetween trees),while “poster2” showed chimpanzees in captivity and includedphotos of chimpanzees behind bars, with sad faces, andwearing nappies.

Weused a botanical guidebook forGuinea‐Bissau(which included the local vernacular names alongsidethe scientific names and descriptions of the species) toidentify the tree species that respondents cited[Catarino et al., 2006]. The first author learnedCreole during data collection and etiology remarksrelevant to the focus of this paper are presented asresults.

This research adhered to the laws and permitsgoverning primate research in the Guinea‐Bissauand to the American Society of Primatologists’principles for the ethical treatment of primates.Authorization from local chieftains and respondentswas obtained before distributing any questionnaires.

Data Analysis

We used Pearson’s chi‐square test to assess therelationship between gender, age class, or village.Weused Mann–Whitney statistics to test for differencesin the number of chimpanzee food items identified bymales and females, and by youngsters and adults. AKruskal–Wallis test was used to compare differencesin the number of chimpanzee food items cited amongvillages. Significance was set atP< 0.05.We used thesoftware package SPSS (version 19.0) to perform allstatistical analyses.

RESULTSQ1: How many chimpanzees have you seen

together at once?Both male and female participants described

encounters with chimpanzees and both reported

seeing groups of 2–5 chimpanzees most frequently(48% of respondents, N¼ 100), although male partic-ipants reported seeing larger groups (x2¼ 4.710,df¼ 1, P< 0.05). Adults also reported having seenmore chimpanzees at once than youngsters(x2¼ 6.503, df¼ 1, P< 0.05).

Q2: Where do chimpanzees live?Most participants (94%, N¼ 100 participants)

stated that chimpanzees live in the matu (Creole).This term is often translated as “forest”, when in factit refers to different kinds of vegetation cover(including bush‐like vegetation, dense and openforests, mature and secondary forests, and oil‐palmgroves). However, due to the similarity of the termmata (a type of forest) in Portuguese, it may beunderstood as meaning “forest”. In any case, whenpeople describe chimpanzees as living in the matu,they do not necessarily only mean the dense foreststhat are the focus of the park’s conservation efforts.Also, 4% (N¼ 100) of people say that chimpanzee livein the oil‐palm Elaeis guineensis.

Q3: Where do chimpanzees sleep?A large proportion of people named the oil‐palm

(73%,N¼ 100) as the place where chimpanzees sleep;others cited additional species, such as: Parinariexcelsa (11%), Ceiba pentandra (5%), Dialiumguineense (1%), Spondias mombin (1%), Alstonia sp.(1%), and Anisophyllea laurina (1%, N¼ 100 re-sponses). Several participants stated that chimpan-zees sleep in “trees” (32%) and a few did not knowhowto answer the question (5%, N¼ 100 responses).

Q4: What do chimpanzees eat?Only three participants (N¼ 100 participants)

said they did not know what chimpanzees ate. Theother respondents listed a total of 47 different foodtypes (across 444 responses) including: crops, forestfruits, and flowers (see Table I), water, leaves, honey,crabs, cooked food, bread, and also “everythinghumans eat”.

The majority of interviewees cited up to five foodtypes (82%, N¼ 100 participants), and seven adultscited as many as 8–15 different food types. Adultscited a higher number of food types than youngsters(Mann–Whitney, Z¼�2.615, two‐tailed exact testP< 0.01), andmen cited more food types than women(Mann–Whitney, Z¼�3.096, two‐tailed exact testP< 0.01). There was no significant difference inthe number of chimpanzee food items cited indifferent villages (Kruskal–Wallis, x2¼ 2.134, df¼ 3,P¼ 0.545).

Q5:What are the bad things that are happening tochimpanzees?

Five participants declared that nothing bad ishappening to chimpanzees. Most participants (68%,N¼ 100) cited one or more of 13 different types ofsituations that negatively affect chimpanzees, mostof which were natural (e.g., falling from trees andcontracting diseases, among others), rather thanhuman‐induced (e.g., being shot or being caught in a

Am. J. Primatol.

4 / Sousa et al.

trap; Table II). Fewer women than men cited “badthings” that affect chimpanzees (x2¼ 5.709, df¼ 1,P< 0.05). There were no significant differencesregarding the origin of the “bad things” in terms ofgender (x2¼ 0.115, df¼ 1, P¼ 0.735) and age class(x2¼ 0.540, df¼ 1, P¼ 0.463). However, respondentsfrom theNalu villages of Caequene andCadiqueNalureported more human‐induced negative situationsfor chimpanzees than respondents from other vil-lages (Table II, x2¼ 17.772, df¼ 3, P< 0.01).

Q6: Is there a law or custom against capturing orkilling chimpanzees? Who created this law or custom?

Themajority of participants were knowledgeableabout the law prohibiting capture and/or killing ofchimpanzees (71%, N¼ 100 participants) with nosignificant differences in terms of gender (x2¼ 3.611,

df¼ 1, P¼ 0.057) or age (x2¼ 0.002, df¼ 1, P¼ 0.966).Among the remaining participants, 14% (N¼ 100)said that there is no such law, and 15% (N¼ 100)alleged that they did not know whether it existed ornot. Also, 17% (N¼ 71) of the participants stated theyknew of the law, but did not know who created it. Themajority of participants who referred to the law’sorigin recognized the state (25%N¼ 64, mainly adultmale participants) and the forestry guards (employ-ees of General Office for Forest and Fauna, 33%N¼ 64 participants) as the responsible entities. Bothrefer to state origins, which were overall morefrequently cited than community‐related entities(Table III). Other less frequent responses included“army”, “people from Iemberém [central village ofCantanhez, the headquarters of NGOs, tourists and

TABLE I. Identified Food Items Consumed by Chimpanzees as Reported by Research Participants

Species % WS SCF DF OPG GF CS People

Citrus sinensis (orange) 65 x xCarica papaya (papaya) 55 x xParinari excelsa 31 x x x x xElaeis guineensisa (oil palm) 26 x x x x x xMangifera indica (mango) 23 x xAdansonia digitata (baobab) 19 x xUvaria chamae 17 x x x x xMusa sp. (banana) 16 x xAnacardium occidentale (cashew) 14 x xSpondias mombin 14 x x x x xAnisophyllea laurina 13 x x x xDialium guineense 12 x x x x x xParkia biglobosa 11 x x xCitrus aurantiifolia (“Francis” variety) 9 x xNeocarya macrophylla 9 x x x xSaba senegalensis and Landolphia sp. 9 x x x x xManihot esculenta (cassava) 5 x xBorassus aethiopum (Palmyra palm) 4 x x xCajanus cajan (pigeon pea) 4 x xVitex sp. 4 x x xArachis hypogaea (peanut) 2 x xFicus sp. 2 x x x x xHibiscus sabdariffa (roselle) 2 x x x xMilicia regia or Antiaris toxicaria 2 x x x x xOriza sativa (rice) 2 x xSaccharum officinarum (sugar cane) 2 xAframomum sp. 1 x x xAnanas comosus (pineapple) 1 x xSarcocephalus latifolius 1 x x x x xTreculia africana 1 x x xOthers

Honeyb 4Crabs 2Breadc 1Cooked foodc 3Water 1

Species eaten by people and the habitat they occur are also presented [see Catarino et al., 2006]: WS, woodland savannah; SCF, sparse canopy forest; DF,dense forest; OPG, oil‐palm groves; GF, gallery forests; CS, cultivated species.aFlower, fruit, and leaves’ petiole were described to be eaten by chimpanzees.bBoth wild and traditional artificial beehives.cProbably respect to observations of chimpanzees as pets.

Am. J. Primatol.

Local Knowledge of Chimpanzees and Tourism / 5

researchers]”, the “Portuguese”, the “whites” or the“Bedanda [sector] administration”. There were nosignificant gender differences concerning communityand state‐related answers (x2¼ 0.136, df¼ 1,P¼ 0.712) or age (x2¼ 0.064, df¼ 1, P¼ 0.800).

Q7: What do chimpanzees look like?The majority of participants viewed humans as

the species most similar to chimpanzees (77%,N¼ 100). Wildlife species named as most similar tochimpanzees were the baboon (Papio papio, 10%),king western colobus (Colobus polykomos, 3%),spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta, 1%), an unidentified“forest animal” (2%), and the chimpanzee (meaningthat it is only similar to itself, 2% N¼ 100 partic-ipants). Participants for whom humans were themost similar to chimpanzees invoked morphologicalcharacteristics to explain this resemblance. Female

participants (x2¼ 21.246, df¼ 1, P< 0.01) and young-sters (x2¼ 21.026, df¼ 1, P< 0.01) cited morphologi-cal features more frequently (e.g., face, feet, eyes,nose), while male adults cited behavioral aspectsmore often (e.g., walking on two legs, gestures;Table IV).

Five interviewees (four adults, one youngster)said that the chimpanzee used to be a person, four ofthem mentioning a local narrative that depicts thechimpanzee in the past as a lazy blacksmith whochallenged God and was sent to live in the matu aspunishment. A respondent also related this localnarrative to chimpanzee nesting behavior: “Since theblacksmith was lazy, he arrived late to the construc-tion of his own house and did not learn how to buildwalls. Therefore, he [the chimpanzee] only bends theoil‐palm leaves, and lays down on the top to sleep”

TABLE II. Situations Having a Negative Effect on Chimpanzees Including Both Those of Natural Origin and ThosePerpetrated by People

Caeq Laut Mad Cad Nalu , < Adult Young Total

Nothing 4 0 0 1 5 0 1 4 5 (N1¼ 100)Do not know 5 5 5 12 18 9 15 12 27 (N1¼ 100)Natural origin 71.6% (N2¼116)

Fall from trees 4 7 0 12 11 12 5 18 23Disease 3 4 0 12 8 11 10 9 19Freshwater shortage 0 1 8 3 4 8 11 1 12Hunger 0 0 8 4 3 9 11 1 12Aggression from other animals 2 1 5 3 4 7 4 7 11Natural death 0 3 0 1 2 2 2 2 4Bring hurt in a tree 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1Death of the child 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1Sum 9 17 22 35 33 50 44 39 83

Human origin 28.4% (N2¼116)Being shot 5 0 0 9 4 10 6 8 14Being caught in a trap 4 0 1 5 5 5 4 6 10Being chased from orchards and beehives 1 0 0 3 1 3 2 2 4Caught and taken to sell 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 2 3Deforestation 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 2Sum 11 2 1 19 12 21 15 18 33

N1 is the number of participants; N2 is the number of responses.

TABLE III. Perceived Origin of the Law That Prohibits the Killing and Trapping of Chimpanzees

Caeq Laut Mad Cad Nalu , < Adult Young Total (N¼100)

Community 4 0 0 3 4 3 4 3 7Elders 3 0 2 0 0 5 3 2 5Chieftains 0 0 0 4 3 1 2 2 4Management committees 3 1 2 1 3 4 5 2 7Community forest guards 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 2(community‐related total) (10) (1) (4) (10) (12) (13) (15) (10) (25)State 5 3 0 8 6 10 10 6 16Forestry guards 3 6 4 8 10 11 11 10 21(State‐related total) (8) (9) (4) (16) (16) (21) (21) (16) (37)NGO 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 2Sum 18 10 8 28 28 36 37 27 64

Am. J. Primatol.

6 / Sousa et al.

(Fula man, �78 years old). A different version of thechimpanzee’s origin was recounted once, reported aspart of the Koran: “God said that nobody should gofishing on Saturdays. A “chimpanzee” [the manbefore he turned into a chimpanzee] bought fishfrom Iombo [another man] on a forbidden day. Godpunished the “chimpanzee” and sent him to the forestand punished Iombo who became half‐man half‐fish”(Mandinga man, �42 years old). “Iombo fissá”, inSusu, is the name of a half‐man half‐fish creature. Itmay correspond to the “papi wata” and the “mamiwata” figures that have many different meaningsaround Africa [Molenaar & Santen, 2006] and abroad[Drewal, 2008]. In line with the versions of bothinterviewees, an elder Nalu woman (�60 years old)explained “our elders used to say that chimpanzeesare like us, humans”.

The morphological characteristics that weremost frequently cited to underline similaritiesbetween chimpanzees and humans (N¼ 164 re-sponses) included hands (10.36%), face (12.8%),eyes (6.7%), and feet (6.7%). The absence of a tail,similarities in the nose, mouth, ears, body, fingers,head, legs, posture, or silhouette were also cited,albeit at low frequencies, as was the suggestion that“the female chimpanzee looks like a woman”.

Behavioral attributes (N¼ 164) included the factthat both humans and chimpanzees have bipedallocomotion (7.32%), as well as gestures (2.44%), andthe “way of doing things” (1.22%). Other citedsimilarities include (by one informant each): “scream-ing”, “when a gun is pointed at a chimpanzee, hepoints the finger at another chimpanzee and try torun away”, “carries things on the head”, “lives likepeople”, “cleanliness”, “their habits”, “the way theytake care of their child”, “they do not like people to seetheir rear end”, and “breastfeeds like a human”.Finally, regarding chimpanzee cognition one partici-pant said that the chimpanzee “ubi1 like we do”(0.61%), referring to the similar capacities of under-standing. Also, another participant stated that thechimpanzee has “soul and good thoughts”.

Q8: Is the chimpanzee important? Why?Fifteen percent (N¼ 100 interviewees) of partic-

ipants stated that chimpanzees were not important,5% (N¼ 100) did not know whether the specieswas important or not, while 80% (N¼ 100) statedthat chimpanzees were important. From these, 15

TABLE IV. Morphological and Behavioral Arguments for Human–Chimpanzee Resemblance

Caeq Laut Mad Cad Nalu , < Adult Young Total (N¼ 100)

Morphological 10 11 14 80 67 48 38 77 115Hands 1 3 2 13 9 11 7 13 20Feet 0 1 1 9 9 2 5 6 11Absence of tail 4 0 0 1 3 2 5 0 5Face 5 0 4 12 12 9 5 16 21Silhouette 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1Nose 0 1 0 8 6 3 2 7 9Mouth 0 1 0 6 4 3 0 7 7Ears 0 1 0 9 9 2 3 7 10Eyes 0 1 0 10 7 4 2 9 11Body 0 1 0 4 2 5 2 5 7Fingers 0 1 2 4 5 4 4 5 9Head 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 1 1Legs 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1Posture 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1The female looks like a woman 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1

Behavioral 4 3 10 10 12 15 22 5 27When a gun is pointed at one,that points at a colleague

0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

Screaming 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1Walks in two legs 3 3 2 4 5 7 10 2 12Carries food on the head 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1

Gestures 0 0 4 0 3 1 4 0 4Live like people 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1Hygiene 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1The way of doing things 0 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 2Habitudes 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1Carrying the child 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1Does not like others to see their bottom 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1Breastfeeds like people 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1

1Means “to listen” but can also mean “to understand,” which ishow we interpret it in this context.

Am. J. Primatol.

Local Knowledge of Chimpanzees and Tourism / 7

individuals (19%, n¼ 80), mostly women and young-sters, did not justify their statement. Participantsgave 24 different arguments for chimpanzees’ impor-tance (n¼ 69 responses), which we post‐grouped intocategories. “Tourism” was the most cited category,followed by the species’ morphology and behavior.The possibility of capturing, the crop raiding profile,and the perceived ecological function of chimpanzees,as well as the narrative of a shared history forhumans and chimpanzees were used to explain theimportance of the species during formal question-naires (Table V).

Concerning the two posters, more youngsters thanadults identified differences between them (x2¼ 10.757,df¼ 1, P¼ 0.001), and we found no gender‐relateddifferences (x2¼ 2.235, df¼ 1, P¼ 0.135) amongparticipants that reported difference between thetwo posters. Among the participants who reportedthe two posters as being different (67%, N¼ 100),74.6% (N¼ 67 participants) interpreted the posters

as was envisaged: (i) free ranging chimpanzees,intended to be perceived as “good”, versus (ii)chimpanzees in captivity, intended to be perceivedas “bad”. Five participants (7.5%,N¼ 67) interpretedthe message the other way around, saying thatchimpanzees in captivity were in better conditionbecause they were out of the forest.

DISCUSSION

This study was aimed to gather additionalinformation on local knowledge and perceptions ofchimpanzees in southern Cantanhez National Park,an area with significant chimpanzee density[Casanova & Sousa, 2007; Hockings & Sousa, 2013;Sousa et al., 2011] and close human–chimpanzeeinteractions. The questionnaire approach, combinedwith the conservationist angle of this researchproject, could be considered the main limitations ofthis study since participants might have felt

TABLE V. Reported Importance of Chimpanzees. “n¼80” Refers to the Number of Participants Saying theChimpanzee Is Important

Caeq Laut Mad Cad Nalu , < Adult Young Total

Do not know why chimpanzees are important 2 1 2 10 11 4 4 11 18.8% (n¼80)Tourism 29.0% (ncit¼69)

People come to see it 2 2 1 4 4 5 7 2 9Tourists come, take pictures and film it 1 3 1 1 1 5 2 4 6Tourists come and will bring money 0 0 0 4 0 4 1 3 4We know the Europeans because of it 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1Sum 3 5 2 10 5 15 11 9 20

Morphology and behavior 21.7% (ncit¼69)Similar to humans 6 0 0 1 4 3 6 1 7Live in the forest and does not harm anyone 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3Is large bodied 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1Thinks in a different way of other animals 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1Is different from other animals 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1Screams in the forest and I like it 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 2Sum 6 1 4 4 9 6 10 4 15

Capture 18.9% (ncit¼69)Can be caught to sell 1 3 1 3 6 2 4 4 8Can be caught, raised at home and can learn 0 1 0 4 2 3 3 2 5Sum 1 4 1 7 8 5 7 6 13

Crop raiding profile 11.6% (ncit¼69)Does not produce much damage 2 2 0 1 0 5 2 3 5Does not damage crops 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 2Only damage when it is hungry 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1Sum 3 3 1 1 1 7 4 4 8

Perceived ecological function 5.8% (ncit¼ 69)Chases the baboons 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 2Chases the snakes 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 2Sum 1 0 1 2 1 3 3 1 4

Myths of creation 4.3% (ncit¼ 69)It was created by God 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 2It comes from nature 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1Sum 0 1 0 2 2 1 2 1 3

Others 1 2 1 2 3 3 2 4 8.7% (ncit¼69) 6Sum 1 2 1 2 3 3 2 4 6

“ncit¼ 69” refers to the number of citations given by 65 informants that referred the importance of the chimpanzees (peoplewere allowed to givemoremultipleresponses).

Am. J. Primatol.

8 / Sousa et al.

uncomfortable talking about “bad” or “negative”issues regarding chimpanzees. Despite these limi-tations, it was nonetheless possible to gather relevantinformation on numerous aspects of local people’sknowledge and perceptions of chimpanzees.

Coexistence translates into knowledge

In our study area people live in close contact withchimpanzees andmany exhibited detailed knowledgeof chimpanzee behavior and ecology, describing whatthey eat, where they sleep, and what trees theymainly use. Such knowledge results from a long‐termand relatively close coexistence that allows people toobserve chimpanzees. Sousa et al. [2011] alsoreported that chimpanzees inhabiting southernCantanhez mainly build their nests in oil‐palm trees,as local people have described. Moreover, three ofthe six species of trees (D. guineense, A. laurina,P. excelsa) that people reported as used by chimpan-zees for nesting, were also reported in that study.Therefore, local knowledge concerning which treeschimpanzees in the area use for nesting seems tomatch, at least to a certain extent, scientificinformation. This is not surprising, as local andtraditional knowledge may incorporate elements ofscientific knowledge and vice versa [Ericksen &Woodley et al., 2005: 90]. Local people also say thatchimpanzees sleep in the matu, which is a broadconcept that does not include only the dense forestbut also gallery forests, sparse canopy forests,regeneration forests, and oil‐palm groves. Thisdemonstrates the importance of knowing the mean-ing of local concepts tomore fully understand people’sperceptions of nature and landscape.

Hockings & Sousa [2013] listed the wild fruits ofE. guineensis (oil palm),Borassus aethiopum (Africanfan palm), Phoenix reclinata (wild date palm),P. excelsa, D. guineense, Parkia biglobosa as speciesused by chimpanzees as food. These were alsoreported by people during the inquiries we conductedduring this study. The term “palmera” in Creoleincluded both E. guineensis (oil palm) andP. reclinata, although the latter can be also called“tambra” [André Barata, personal communication].From the crops reported by people as chimpanzeefood, a few were also described by Casanova & Sousa[2007] and Hockings & Sousa [2013], such as cashew,baobab, mango, and orange. However, Hockings &Sousa [2013] describe the cowpea bean (Vignaunguiculata, in Creole “fison‐mankanhe”) as raidedby chimpanzees, while the participants in this studyreported exclusively the pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan, inCreole “fison‐kongo”), a shrub‐like variety also knownlocally as Congo pea or Angola pea [Alpern, 1992].Besides domesticated fruits, chimpanzees, andhumans share a diet involving several wildfruits such as: E. guineensis, Uvaria chamae, Sabasenegalensis, P. excelsa, P. biglobosa, D. guineense,

Neocaryamacrophylla,A. laurina,S.mombin, andB.aethiopum.

The highest number of items cited by interview-ees as chimpanzee food was recorded in the village ofLautchande, which is also part of the forest fragmentwhere the largest number of chimpanzee nests wasfound by Sousa et al. [2011]. The opposite was true forMadina where participants cited the fewest numberof foodstuffs, and the estimated chimpanzee densitywas the lowest [Sousa et al., 2011]. This suggests thatproximity promotes knowledge: people inhabitingvillages located near forest patches with higherchimpanzee densities may gather more knowledgeabout chimpanzees than people whose villagesneighbor low‐density patches.

Chimpanzees “Used to be Humans” and are“not bad” Crop Raiders

The majority of participants said that chimpan-zeeswere closely related to humans. The belief that inthe past chimpanzees were humans who “went backto the forest” is present in other localities acrossthe chimpanzees’ geographic range [Kohler, 2005;Nyanganji et al., 2010]. Adult respondentsmentionedchimpanzees having shared periods in history withhumans. Likewise, older participants were morelikely to describe behavioral similarities, in contrastto younger people who named mainly morphologicalcharacteristics. This suggests that older people are (i)more familiar with the local narratives that thechimpanzee was previously a human and, at thesame time, (ii) better at reporting chimpanzeebehaviors. The latter can result from longer‐termobservation of chimpanzees. Morphological aspectscan be evaluated by quick contact, or emphasized inteaching at school, whereas behavioral descriptionscan only be reproduced orally (including narratives ofa shared past) or by close observation.

In Cantanhez, people use moral judgments whenevaluating chimpanzee behavior, as described else-where [Hill &Webber, 2010;McLennan&Hill, 2012].This is especially true when concerning crop raidingpatterns. Chimpanzees are perceived to follow a cropraiding behavior that minimizes waste, in line withthe local moral economy.

People report several characteristics that arecommon between humans and chimpanzees, placingchimpanzees in a position very close to humans[Bongoli & Kimura, 2009; Kohler, 2005; Nyanganjiet al., 2010]. The conception of boundaries betweenhumans and other species shapes how people“understand justice among humans and animals”,as stated by Howell [2003: 179]. However, therecognized similarity between chimpanzees andhumans by itself does not mean that chimpanzees’conservation is guaranteed. For instance, in Congo‐Brazzaville, “the idea of eating a close relative of theirown species does, however, not seem to bother many

Am. J. Primatol.

Local Knowledge of Chimpanzees and Tourism / 9

Bantu” [Kohler, 2005: 417]. In Guinea‐Bissau, thesimilarity with humans, combined with the percep-tion that chimpanzees used to be humans, are givenas the main reason for not eating this species andhave also contributed to the reported importance ofthe species locally. The idea that chimpanzees had ashared history with humans, locally explained tohave ended as the result of supernatural punishment,is common to Muslims and Animists.

More people mentioned natural threats thanhuman‐induced threats facing chimpanzees. Thiscould reflect the fact that the person conducting theinterviews (J.S.) was involved in a chimpanzeeconservation project. Still, many types of negativescenarios induced by people were also described.These were said to include farmers’ reactions to cropraiding, such as shooting and chasing, and non‐selective hunting practices, such as snares. It isimportant to highlight that while a lot of participantsdescribed human aggressive behaviors towardschimpanzees, this does not mean that these arefrequent: only that people are aware of them.Why more human‐induced episodes were cited inCaequene and Cadique Nalu than in other villages isnot clear.

Chimpanzees are (expected to become) “good”revenue‐generators

A considerable number of participants wereaware of the law prohibiting the capture and killingof chimpanzees. The state and state‐related entitieswere more often recognized as responsible for thatlaw than were community‐related entities, althoughthe latter also accounted for a significant part ofattributed importance. This could be a consequence ofthe chieftains’ acceptance of the “internal rules” forforest conservation in 2002. These norms, althoughthey do not include specific chimpanzee conservationrules, are perceived to be part of the same goal.Although community leaders are not responsible fornational legislation, they are involved in the processof legitimizing conservation locally.

A substantial portion of participants said thatchimpanzees are important, which once more couldbe the result of perceiving this attitude to be theappropriate one in answering the researcher.Regardless of its truthfulness, the importance attrib-uted to the species was mainly grounded in expect-ations of tourism revenue, combined with thepossibility of capturing the chimpanzee to sell or toraise at home. None of these are in line withconservation aims since pet trade and huntingthreaten chimpanzee populations, as stressed bythe conservation plan for West Africa [Kormos,2003b]. However, for a few respondents, a chimpan-zee is in better conditions when raised at home thanwhen living in the forest, as shown by the interpreta-tion that some participants attributed to the two

posters. For these interviewees, the fact that peopleperceive chimpanzees and humans as close speciesalso means similar welfare needs. Similarities ofhumans and chimpanzees have been stressed for thesake of chimpanzee conservation elsewhere; howeverour study shows that it is also important to highlightthe differences between the two species, especiallyregarding their different welfare needs.

The importance attributed to chimpanzeesthrough tourism includes the perceived advantageand positive evaluation of “being visited”. However,some participants refer specifically to the economicbenefits thatwould accompany tourist visits to qualifythis importance, as has been reported at othersites [McLennan & Hill, 2012; Watkins, 2006]. Suchexpectations could have negative consequences if theywere not fulfilled [Belsky, 1999; Blomley et al., 2010;Gillingham & Lee, 1999; Macfie & Williamson, 2010;Spiteri & Nepal, 2008]. Interestingly, for local people,chimpanzees’ importance was more often associatedwith revenues from tourism than to them beingsimilar to humans, while the latter is precisely thefeature thatmakes themattractive to researchers andtourists in the first place.

Once the prospect of tourism succeeds to elicitpeople’s engagement in conservation, transparency,and coherence are needed to avoid inter‐ and intra‐community conflict regarding the sharing of benefits.It is important to take into account the role of thecommunity to manage not only the costs but also thebenefits of conservation [Belsky, 1999; Blomleyet al., 2010; Groom & Harris, 2008; Macfie &Williamson, 2010]. Thus, community empowermentmust be taken into consideration. Mackenzie [2012:99] stresses that, in Uganda, “revenue sharingappears to be themost effective use of funds to benefitlocal communities (…). Local perceptions of theprogram could be further improved by ensuringcommunity involvement in the project decisionmaking process”. This author also mentions theneed to improve transparency. Given the local expect-ations around chimpanzee ecotourism in Cantanhez,it is crucial to engage local people in conservation andtourism initiatives. This engagement should involvenot only the more educated, but also the mostvulnerable people, and foresee a transparent andfair division of the benefits. Stronza & Pêgas [2008:276] stated that this could result in “new feelings ofcapacity (…) and overall social and economic stabili-ty;” these in turn will be likely to provide people withmore accurate views of the expectations that can bebuilt upon chimpanzee‐based ecotourism.

The Multifaceted Character of People’sPerceptions of Chimpanzees in CantanhezNational Park

Costa [2010] and Hill & Webber [2010] discussthe ambivalence and the mutability of people’s

Am. J. Primatol.

10 / Sousa et al.

perceptions of other primate species. In line withthese ideas, in our study the chimpanzee wasdescribed by local people in a complex manner thatincluded contradictory views [Casanova et al., inpress; Costa, 2010; Goldman&Roque de Pinho, 2010;Goldman et al., 2013]. The chimpanzee was describedas a “good crop raider” that minimizes waste, ashappens with the consumption of cashew fruit; at thesame time, it was also referred to in negative termsbecause it feeds heavily on oranges. Likewise, thechimpanzee was reported to be similar to humans(some people even said “chimpanzees are humans”)and therefore it cannot be eaten, while it was alsosuggested that it is tolerable to shoot chimpanzeesto defend orchards. The chimpanzee is importantbecause it is similar to humans and this is oftenassociated with the idea that it can be raised at home;at the same time, it is also important because it can besold and is a source of income through tourism. Someattribute great importance to the law of the state:“there is a law of the state that says that thechimpanzees are like humans and therefore theycannot be killed” (Mandinga man); while othersreport the local custom: “capturing chimpanzees isnot good, the community said that it is forbidden, andthis existed before conservation came” (Nalu man).

Elders and youngsters use different argumentswhen invoking human–chimpanzee resemblance.People’s perceptions of chimpanzees are shaped bynew circumstances. In present day Cantanhez, localdiscourses about chimpanzees have already incorpo-rated elements from tourism and conservation, whichstarted to be developed since the late 20th century.Given the importance that these hold on people’sreports, the way chimpanzee conservation andtourism will be implemented, and the place localpeople will find within these, may determine theplace chimpanzees will be given in local societies andthe long‐term success of any conservation or tourisminitiatives planned for this region.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank field guides Zeca Dju andSaidu Kuiaté, all interviewees who participated inthe research, and the people in the villages understudy. Special thanks are due to Joana Roque dePinho and Matt McLennan for their comments andconstructive suggestions on earlier versions of thispaper. We are also thankful to Ana Luisa Luz,Manuel Bivar and Ricardo Lima for their revisions tothe manuscript. Special thanks are also due to DoraBiro for revising the manuscript. We also acknowl-edge two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions.Acknowledgments are also due to Bissau‐Guineangovernmental institutions such as IBAP (Instituto daBiodiversidade e das Áreas Protegidas) and DGFF(Direcção Geral das Florestas e Fauna). Finally, wethank the Bissau‐Guinean NGO AD (Accão para o

Desenvolvimento). This work was supported byresearch grants to C.S. from the Great Ape Conser-vation Fund from USFWS (98210‐4‐G865/GA‐0155),and fromFCT (Fundação para aCiência e Tecnologia,Portugal) and FEDER, through the Research andDevelopment Program POCI 2010 (POCI/ANT/57434/2004).

REFERENCES

AD. 2004. Relatório de actividades da AD. Bissau, Guiné‐Bissau: Acção e Desenvolvimento.

AD. 2005. Relatório de actividades da AD. Bissau, Guiné‐Bissau: Acção e Desenvolvimento.

Adams WM, Infield M. 2003. Who is on the Gorilla’s payroll?Claims on tourist revenue from a Ugandan National Park.World Dev 31:177–190.

Alpern SB. 1992. The European introduction of crops intoWestAfrica in precolonial times. Hist Afr 19:13–43.

Ancrenaz M, Dabek L, O’Neil S. 2007. The costs of exclusion:recognizing a role for local communities in biodiversityconservation. PLoS Biol 5:2443–2448.

Archabald K, Naughton‐Treves L. 2001. Tourism revenue‐sharing around national parks in Western Uganda: earlyefforts to identify and reward local communities. EnvironConserv 28:135–149.

Belsky JM. 1999. Misrepresenting communities the politics ofcommunity‐based rural ecotourism in Gales Point Manatee,Belize. Rural Sociol 64:641–666.

Blomley T, Namara A, McNeilage A, et al. 2010. Developmentand Gorillas?: assessing fifteen years of integrated conser-vation and development in South‐Western Uganda. London,UK: International Institute for Environment and Develop-ment (IIED).

Bongoli L, Kimura D. 2009. Taboo of eating bonobo among theBomgando people in the Wamba region, Democratic Repub-lic of Congo. Afr Study Monogr 30:209–225.

Bonine K, Reid J, Dalzen R. 2003. Training and education fortropical conservation. Conserv Biol 17:1209–1218.

Bouju S, Catry P, Cordeiro J. 2001. Les aires protégées deGuinée‐Bissau. Propositions pour une stratégie nationale2001–2005. Bissau, Guinea‐Bissau: IUCN—The WorldConservation Union. 50 p.

Carreira A. 1962. População autóctone segundo os recensea-mentos para fins fiscais. Boletim Cultural da GuinéPortuguesa XVII:221–280.

Casanova C. 2012. O papel de Mendes Côrrea enquantoreferência na Antropologia Biológica em Portugal: caminhose percursos. In: Martin A, editor. A E Mendes Côrrea (1888–1960), entre a ciência, a docência e a política. Lisbon,Portugal: ACD Editores. p 85–127.

Casanova C, Sousa C. 2007. National action plan for theconservation of the chimpanzee, red western colobus andblack and white western colobus monkey populations inGuinea‐Bissau Republic. Bissau, Guinea‐Bissau: IBAP—Instituto da Biodiversidade e Áreas Protegidas.

CasanovaC, SousaC, Costa S. in press. Are animals and forestsforever? Perceptions of wildlife at Cantanhez ForestNational Park, Guinea‐Bissau Republic. In: Casanova C,Frias S, editors. Memória (Environmental Anthropology,special issue). Lisboa, Portugal: Sociedade de Geografia deLisboa.

Costa S. 2010. Social perceptions of nonhumans in Tombali(Guinea‐Bissau, West Africa): a contribution to chimpanzee(Pan troglodytes verus) conservation [dissertation]. Stirling,Scotland, UK: University of Stirling. 226p.

Costa S, Casanova C, Sousa C, Lee P. 2013. The good, the badand the ugly: perceptions of wildlife in Tombali (Guinea‐

Am. J. Primatol.

Local Knowledge of Chimpanzees and Tourism / 11

Bissau, West Africa). J Primatol 2:110. doi: 10.4172/2167‐6801.1000110

Costa S, Lee P, Casanova C. 2008. Especiessismo—percepçõessociais portuguesas e guineenses sobre os “outros”. IVCongresso Português de Sociologia,Mundos Sociais: Saberese Práticas. 25–28 Junho FCSH‐UNL. Lisboa, Portugal:Associação Portuguesa de Antropologia.

Catarino LM, Martins ES, Pinto‐Basto MF, Diniz MA. 2006.Plantas vasculares e briófitos da Guiné‐Bissau. Lisboa,Portugal: Instituto de Investigação Cientifica Tropical,Instituto Português de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento.

Drewal HJ. 2008. Mami Wata. Arts for water spirits in Africaand its diasporas. African Arts 41:60–83.

Drumm A, Moore A. 2002. Desenvolvimento do ecoturismo—um manual para planejadores e gestores de conservação.Arlington, VA: Nature Conservancy.

Dunnett S, Orshoven JV, Albrecht H. 1970. Peaceful co‐existence between chimpanzee and man in West Africa.Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde 40:148–153.

Duvall CS. 2008. Human settlement ecology and chimpanzeehabitat selection in Mali. Landscape Ecol 23:699–716.

Ericksen P, Woodley E, Cundill G, et al. 2005. Using multipleknowledge systems in sub‐global assessments: Benefits andchallenges. In: Capistrano D, Samper CK, Lee MJ, Raud-sepp‐Hearne C, editors. Ecosystems and human well‐being:Multiscale assessments. Findings of the sub‐global assess-ments working group of the millennium ecosystem assess-ment. Washington, DC: Island Press. p 85–117.

Frazão‐Moreira A. 2009. Plantase “pecadores”. Percepções danatureza em África. Lisboa, Portugal: Livros Horizonte.

Fuentes A, Hockings KJ. 2010. The ethnoprimatologicalapproach in primatology. Am J Primatol 71:1–7.

Garcia de Carvalho JP. 1949. Nota sobre a distribuição ehistória dos povos da área do Posto de Bedanda. BoletimCultural da Guiné Portuguesa IV:307–318.

Gillingham S, Lee P. 1999. The impact of wildlife‐relatedbenefits on the conservation attitudes of local people aroundSelous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environ Conserv 26:218–228.

Gippoliti S, Sousa C, Embalo D. 2004. Guiné‐Bissau. In:Kormos R, Boesch C, Bakarr HI, Butynski TM, editors.Chimpanzés d’Afrique de l’Ouest Etat de Conservation del’espèce et plan d’action. Groupe de specialists des primatesde la CSE de l’UICN, Gland, Suisse et Cambridge, Royaume‐Uni. p 73–78.

Goldman MJ, Roque de Pinho J. 2010. Maintaining complexrelations with large cats: Maasai and lions in Kenya andTanzania. Hum Dimens Wildl 15:332–346.

Goldman MJ, Roque de Pinh J, Perry J. 2013. Beyond ritualand economics: Maasai lion hunting and conservationpolitics. Oryx. Available online ahead of print at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605312000907

Groom R, Harris S. 2008. Conservation on community lands:the importance of equitable revenue sharing. EnvironConserv 35:241–251.

Halloran AR, Cloutier CT, Sesay PB. 2013. A previouslyundiscovered group of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus)is observed living in the Tonkolili District of Sierra Leone.Am J Primatol 75:519–523.

Hartter J. 2009. Attitudes of rural communities towardwetlands and forest fragments around Kibale NationalPark, Uganda. Hum Dimens Wildl 14:433–447.

Hill CM. 1997. Crop‐raiding by wild vertebrates: the farmer’sperspective in an agricultural community in westernUganda. Int J Pest Manag 43:77–84.

Hill CM. 2000. Conflict of interest between people and baboons:crop raiding in Uganda. Int J Primatol 21:299–315.

Hill CM. 2004. Farmers’ perspectives of conflict at the wildlife–agriculture boundary: some lessons learned from Africansubsistence farmers. Hum Dimens Wildl 9:279–286.

Hill CM, Webber A. 2010. Perceptions of nonhuman primatesin human–wildlife conflict scenarios. Am J Primatol 72:919–924.

Hockings KJ. 2007. Human–chimpanzee coexistence at Bos-sou, the Republic of Guinea: a chimpanzee perspective[dissertation]. Stirling, Scotland, UK: University of Stirling.272p.

Hockings KJ, McLennan MR. 2012. From forest to farm:systematic review of cultivar feeding by chimpanzees—management implication for wildlife in anthropogeniclandscapes. PLoS Biol 7:e33391.

Hockings KJ, Sousa C. 2012. Differential utilisation ofcashew—a low‐conflict crop—by sympatric humans andchimpanzees. Oryx 46:375–381.

Hockings KJ, Sousa C. 2013. Human–chimpanzee sympatryand interactions in Cantanhez National Park, Guinea‐Bissau: current research and future directions. PrimateConserv 26:57–65.

Hockings KJ, Yamakoshi G, Kabasawa A, Matsuzawa T.2009. Attacks on local persons by chimpanzees in Bossou,Republic of Guinea: long‐term perspectives. Am J Primatol71:1–10.

Horowitz LS. 1998. Integrating indigenous resource manage-ment with wildlife conservation: a case study of Batang AiNational Park, Sarawak, Malaysia. Hum Ecol 26:371–403.

Howell NR. 2003. The importance of being chimpanzee. TheolSci 1:179–191.

Humle T. 2003. Chimpanzees and crop raiding in West Africa.In: Kormos R, Boesch C, Bakarr HI, Butynski TM, editors.West African chimpanzees. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.p 147–150.

INEC. 2005. Guiné‐Bissau em números. Bissau, Repúblicada Guiné‐Bissau: Instituto Nacional de Estatística e Censos.43 p.

IUCN/UNEP/WWF. 1991. Caring for the Earth: a strategy forsustainable living. Gland: International Union for theConservation of Nature, United Nations EnvironmentProgramme & World Wildlife Fund.

Kohler A. 2005. Of apes and men: Baka and Bantu attitudesto wildlife and the making of eco‐goodies and baddies.Conservat Soc 3:407–435.

Kormos R. 2003a. Introduction. In: Kormos R, Boesch C,Bakarr HI, Butynski TM, editors. West African chimpan-zees: status survey and conservation action plan. Gland,Switzerland: IUCN. p 1–4.

Kormos R. 2003b. Policy recommendations for chimpanzeeprotection in West Africa. In: Kormos R, Boesch C, BakarrHI, Butynski TM, editors. West African chimpanzees: statussurvey and conservation action plan. Gland, Switzerland:IUCN. p 1–4.

Laudati A. 2010. Ecotourism: the modern predator? Implica-tions of gorilla tourism on local livelihoods in BwindiImpenetrable National Park, Uganda. Environment andPlanning: Society and Space 28:726–743.

Lee PC. 2010. Sharing space: can ethnoprimatology contributeto the survival of nonhuman primates in human‐dominatedglobalized landscapes? Am J Primatol 71:1–7.

Li W. 2009. Tourism, local community and natural resources:tourism impact assessment and tourism managementanalysis in the Jiuzhaigou Biosphere Reserve, China. In:Hill J, Gale T, editors. Ecotourism and environmentalsustainability principles and practice. Farnham, England,Burlington,VT: Ashgate Publishing Limited. p 73–88.

Macfie EJ, Williamson EA. 2010. Best practice guidelinesfor great ape tourism Williamson EA, editor. Gland,Switzerland: IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group (PSG).78 p.

MacKenzie CA. 2012. Trenches like fences make goodneighbours: revenue sharing around Kibale National Park,Uganda. J Nat Conserv 20:92–100.

Am. J. Primatol.

12 / Sousa et al.

McLennan MR. 2008. Beleaguered chimpanzees in theagricultural District of Hoima, Western Uganda. PrimateConserv 23:45–54.

McLennan MR, Hill CM. 2010. Chimpanzee responses toresearchers in a disturbed forest–farm mosaic at Bulindi,Western Uganda. Am J Primatol 71:1–12.

McLennan MR, Hill CM. 2012. Troublesome neighbours:changing attitudes towards chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes)in a human‐dominated landscape in Uganda. J Nat Conserv20:219–227.

Mendes N, Serra A. 2002. As medidas de Iemberém sobre a co‐gestão das 14matas de Cantanhez. Iemberém, Guiné‐Bissau

Molenaar JW, Santen JCMV. 2006. Maami Waata’s underwa-ter kingdom. Perceptions of water in a changing hydrologicaland ecological context: the case of the Logone flood plains inCameroon. Geograph J 172:331–347.

Naughton‐Treves L. 1997. Farming the forest edge: vulnerableplaces and people around Kibale National Parl, Uganda.Geograph Rev 87:27–46.

Naughton‐Treves L. 1998. Predicting patterns of crop damageby wildlife around Kibale National Park, Uganda. ConservBiol 12:156–168.

Nunes FJSdFP. 1955. Leguminosas florestais da GuinéPortuguesa. Boletim Cultural da Guiné Portuguesa X:187–278.

Nyanganji G, Fowler A, McNamara A, Sommer V. 2010.Monkeys and apes as animals and humans. Ethnoprimatol-ogy in Nigeria’s Tabara region. In: Sommer V, Ross C,editors. Primates of Gashaka. Socioecology and conservationin Nigeria’s biodiversity hotspot. New York, NY: SpringerNew York. p. 101–134.

Oates JF. 1999. Myth and reality in the rain forest howconservation strategies are failing in West Africa. Berkeley,CA: University of California Press.

Okello MM. 2005. Land use changes and human–wildlifeconflicts in the Amboseli area, Kenya. Hum Dimens Wildl10:19–28.

Pinto BR. 2007. Estudo das potencialidades e dos constrangi-mento do ecoturismo na região de Tombali. Lisboa, Bissau:Projecto U’Anan, AD, IMVF.

Richards P. 2000. Chimpanzees as political animals in SierraLeone. In: Knight J, editor. Natural enemies: people–wildlifeconflicts in anthropological perspective. London, UK: Rout-ledge. p 78–103.

SáRMM, Ferreira da SilvaMJ, Sousa FM,Minhós T. 2012. Thetrade and ethnobiological use of chimpanzee body parts inGuinea‐Bissau: implications for conservation. Traffic Bull24:31–34.

Sousa J. 2007. Densidade de Pan troglodytes verus e Veículosde Sensibilização Ambiental: Quatro Florestas de Cantan-hez, República da Guiné‐Bissau [dissertation]. Lisbon,Portugal: Lisbon University. 130p.

Sousa F. 2011. Food security and international trade: thecase of cashew monoculture in Guinea‐Bissau. EstorilConferences 1–39.

Sousa C, Frazão‐Moreira A. 2010. Etnoprimatologia ao serviçoda conservação na Guiné‐Bissau: o chimpanzé como exem-plo. In: Alves A, Souto F, Peroni N, editors. Etnoecologia emperspectiva: natureza, cultura e conservação. Recife, Brasil:NUPEEA. p 189–200.

Sousa J, Barata AV, Sousa C, Casanova CCN, Vicente L. 2011.Chimpanzee oil‐palm use in southern Cantanhez NationalPark, Guinea‐Bissau. Am J Primatol 73:1–13.

Spiteri A,Nepal SK. 2008.Distributing conservation incentivesin th buffer zone of Chitwan National Park, Nepal. EnvironConserv 35:76–86.

Stronza A, Pêgas F. 2008. Ecotourism and conservation: twocases from Brazil and Peru. Hum Dimens Wildl 13:263–279.

Tweheyo M, Hill CM, Obua J. 2005. Patterns of crop raiding byprimates around the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda.Wildlife Biol 11:237–247.

Verjans JM, Camara T, Malaise F. 2000. Approche ethno‐-écologique du territoire de Cantanhez (Guinée‐Bissau),Guinea‐Bissau. Bissau: Acção para o Desenvolvimento.105 p.

Watkins C. 2006. Local ecological perceptions of chimpanzeesand forest resources. In: Newton‐Fisher NE, Notman H,Paterson JD, Reynolds V, editors. Primates of westernUganda. New York, NY: Springer New York. p 423–437.

Am. J. Primatol.

Local Knowledge of Chimpanzees and Tourism / 13