Topic 5: Resolution of Human–Macaque Conflicts: Changing from Top-Down to Community-Based Damage Management

Part of the Primatology Monographs book series (PrimMono, volume 0)


Human–wildlife conflicts have become a major concern in many countries. These conflicts range from wildlife being a nuisance in daily life and crop-raiding, to wildlife being a threat to human life. Such conflicts have been observed in Japan, where the activities of wild mammals such as sika deer (Cervus nippon), wild boar (Sus scrofa), Japanese black bears (Ursus thibetanus japonicus), and Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata) have caused serious damage to agricultural and forestry products, and their activities around human settlements have impacted human life in a variety of ways. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan, reported that total agricultural damage caused by wild mammals was 13.2 billion yen in 2007 (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan 2008a). To alleviate these conflicts, researchers have developed theories and techniques of wildlife damage management.


Local People Wild Boar Human Settlement Wildlife Management Access Route 


  1. Chase LC, Schulsler TM, Decker DJ (2000) Innovations in stakeholder involvement: what’s the next step? Wildl Soc Bull 28:208–217Google Scholar
  2. Chase LC, Lauber TB, Decker DJ (2001) Citizen participation in wildlife management decisions. In: Decker DJ, Brown TL, Siemer WF (eds) Human dimensions of wildlife management in North America 2001. The Wildlife Society, Washington, DC, pp 153–170Google Scholar
  3. Decker DJ, Chase LC (1997) Human dimensions of living with wildlife – a management challenge for the 21st century. Wildl Soc Bull 25:788–795Google Scholar
  4. Inoue M (2002) Protection of crop fields in mountainous villages against crop raiding by monkeys: interesting ecology and clever countermeasures [Yama no Hatake wo Saru kara Mamoru – Omoshiro Seitai to Kashikoi Fusegikata]. Nosansonbunkakyokai, Tokyo (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  5. Inoue M, Komeda J, Maegawa H, Kakuyama M, Iwamoto K, Hideta A, Muroyama Y, Ura M (2004) A countermeasure against monkeys damage to crops in Nara Prefecture. (2) Support for farmer. Wildl Forum 9:19–31 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  6. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan (2008a) Crop damage by wildlife in Japan, 2007 [Zenkoku no Yaseityozyu ni yoru Nousakumotsu Higai Zyokyo, 2007]. Accessed 25 November 2009 (in Japanese)
  7. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan (2008b) Changes in crop damage by wildlife [Yaseityozyu ni yoru Nousakumotsu Higai Zyokyo no Suii]. Accessed 25 November 2009 (in Japanese)
  8. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan (2008c) Census of agriculture and forestry 2005 (1) Result for prefecture [2005 Nogyo Census (1) Todofuken Betsu Toukeishiryo]. Accessed 25 November 2009 (in Japanese)
  9. Muroyama Y (2003) Getting along with monkeys around the village [Sato no Saru to Tsukiau niwa ]. Kyoto University Press, Kyoto (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  10. Muroyama Y (2005) Damage management of Japanese macaques: from the viewpoint of feeding ecology. Mammalian Science [Honyurui Kagaku] 45:99–103 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  11. Nakamura D, Yoshida Y, Matsumoto Y, Hayashi S (2007) Resident’s consensus of countermeasures to the damage by wild Japanese macaque – case of coexistence of urban-rural village. J Rural Plan Assoc [Nouson keikaku Gakkaishi] 26:317–322 (in Japanese with English summary)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Riley SJ, Siemer WF, Decker DJ, Carpenter LE, Organ JF, Berchielli LT (2003) Adaptive impact management: an integrative approach to wildlife management. Hum Dimens Wildl 8:81–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Suzuki K (2002) Human dimensions of the human–monkey conflict in Shimokita Peninsula [Shimokita Hanto ni okeru Engai Mondai no Shakaitekisokumen]. Hokkaido University Graduate School of Letters Kenkyu-ronshu 2:141–162 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  14. Suzuki K (2005) Regional-ecological study on human–Japanese macaques conflict – through practical study for diffusion of damage management [Yasei Nihonzaru Higai Mondai no Chiiki Seitai Gakuteki Kenkyu – Higai Kanri no Fukyu wo Mezashita Jissen Kenkyu wo Tsuujite]. Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Hokkaido University (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  15. Suzuki K (2007) Farmers’ complex cognition and its variability of damages caused by monkeys in human–monkey conflicts in the Shimokita Peninsula: a dilemma of damage management in agricultures with various purposes. Environ Sociol Study [Kankyo Syakaigaku Kenkyu] 13:184–193 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  16. Suzuki K (2008) How can we resolve human-wildlife conflicts? Analyses on developing processes of wildlife problems focusing on local people’s cognitive structure. Environ Sociol Study [Kankyo syakaigaku kenkyu] 14:55–69 (in Japanese with English summary)Google Scholar
  17. Yamanaka S (2009) Agricultural management not to attract wildlife – for essential resolution of wildlife problems [Yaseiju wo Yosetsukenai Einokanri wo – Zyugai Taisaku no Konponteki na Kaiketsu no Tameni]. Think of Japan in the 21st century [21 Seiki no Nihon wo Kangaeru] 44:36–44 (in Japanese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Nature and Environmental SciencesUniversity of Hyogo, and Wildlife Management Research CenterTanbaJapan

Personalised recommendations