Perception of local tribes towards herpetofauna in remote Darjeeling hills, Eastern Himalaya

Prantik Hazra^*, Karun Chhetri, Udrishya Chhetri, Dawa Dolma Sherpa and Yojna Thapa ^*Correspondence: Prantik Hazra, Department of Zoology, Darjeeling Government College, Darjeeling, West Bengal, India, Email:

Author info »

Introduction

There are many animal species, whether endangered or not, are appreciated by humans. Although aesthetic reasons are not scientifically accepted when carrying out conservation measures, the fact remains that aesthetics greatly influences the support given by the public and various decision-making bodies to the preservation of many species [1]. It is easier to justify the conservation of more aesthetically pleasant species than less appreciated species [2]. In this regard, species like the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca) and dolphins are often used as symbols by famous organizations or environmental protection agencies and are called “flagship species”. They are considered as ambassadors for conservation and their protection contributes to the preservation of other organisms in their ecosystems [3,4]. Among different types of organisms human preferences have influenced the provision of conservation resources toward large charismatic species and what is largely considered by the public to be more attractive and colorful vertebrate groups [5,6]. Many birds, mammals, and fishes have been more appreciated and protected because they are more socially accepted than reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates; however, there are exceptions for example, although bats are mammals, they are regarded as like reptiles or invertebrates. The wolf (Canis lupus) is another exception to this rule and many factors affecting wildlife conservation [7,8]. The wolf’s image (e.g., as a bloodthirsty, demonic, man-eating animal) has been influenced by negative values, folklore, and mythologies and it has been perceived as a threat to regional pastoralist economies in Portugal. The conflict between the wolf and man is created by fear and competition for food, leading to persecution and deliberate extermination of wolves [9]. The perception that a particular animal is dangerous and aggressive to humans, like the Iberian wolf, has led to other similar situations for other large carnivores all over the world, as documented in other studies [10-13].

Even though herpetofauna is not responsible for major economic losses and most are harmless, they are feared and persecuted. In fact, many reptiles are quite useful for human beings, not only as food, medicines and raw materials but also in terms of ecological equilibrium and pest control. Despite this usefulness, many animals are seen as dangerous and are persecuted by humans. For example, the gecko is seen as a poisonous and evil animal despite its ecological importance and role in preventing mosquito plagues and is therefore persecuted. It was also shown that most people disdain creatures that represent little threat to humans these are connected to animal phobias, cultural issues and emotional reactions [14-16]. The human fear of reptiles could be a result of the ancient conditions in which the first mammals evolved. In addition to that, these fears may even be an evolutionary heritage. The high level of fear towards snakes and other animals among humans and other primates suggests that this fear is the result of ancient evolutionary history, and may explained by genetic variability why not all individuals harbor these phobias.

The causes of human attitudes towards animals have various natures and the existence of many myths, stories, and misconceptions (some of them resulting from the direct interpretation of local folklore) may be largely responsible for many of this persecution. The human’s perception of threat or potential harm is one of the main reasons for disliking animals, and the outlook of the animals rather than actual bio-ecological importance is also the most important reason for the preference for certain types of animals. All those folklore, ideas, perceptions, and values are a very important part of the human relationship with animals (besides “scientific” approaches) and can be considered as a part of the human relationship with animals, or “ethnozoology”. According to Alves et al., ethnozoology is “the variety of interactions (both past and present) that human cultures maintain with animals” and this type of study “has its roots as deep within the past as the first relationships between humans and other animals”. Although dealing with a very vast and important area, all the types of human relations with animals, these studies are still not very common worldwide, except in Brazil, where many studies have already been done. In this regard, ethnoherpetological studies are even less common worldwide. There are few studies on the topic, and existing ones are mainly concentrated in Africa, South America and Asia. Studies presenting situations in which this type of knowledge has a negative impact on conservation are few, and almost none have ever established a clear link between the presence of folklore, negative values, and preferences, and persecution and anti-conservation attitudes towards reptiles. Only a few studies have been dedicated to understanding peoples’ attitudes toward reptiles and amphibians [17-20].

This work is intended to be an early contribution to clarify the situation in Eastern Himalaya, West Bengal, India. The objectives of the study were the documentation of misconceptions about herpetofauna among local people adjacent to a national park, rich in herpetofauna diversity, and the overall perceptions and beliefs of the local tribes in this regard. It shows significant variations of attitude between males and females toward tolerance of herpetofauna as well as awareness of the ecological or environmental benefits of the herpetofauna. Different age groups and educational qualifications also exhibited significant variations in conceptions and misconceptions towards herpetofauna regarding their existence near or within human habitats, their ecological role, etc. Thus, the general objective of this study is to analyze human perception, values, and folklore related to herpetofauna and to insight into their problem and maintenance.

Materials and Methods

Study area

The study was conducted at four villages; namely Ladam Khasmal, Reshop, Kolakham and Samalbung adjacent to Neora Valley National Park from 1^st April to 31^st October in the year 2022. The geographical locations, number of people who participated in the questionary survey, and altitude of the study areas are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1. A catalog with 29 herpetofauna species commonly found in the study area is given in Table 2.

TABLE 1: Geographical distribution and the number of participants of the study area

Figure 1: Satellite image of the study area

TABLE 2: List of herpetofauna commonly encountered in the study area

Estimation of public attitude towards herpetofauna

A total of 122 villagers (77 male and 45 female) from the four villages adjacent to Neora valley national park, were selected for the questionnaire survey due to their dependency on adjacent forest areas. The minimum age of the participant taken was 15 and the maximum of 85 years. People were asked about their knowledge of the herpetofauna species found in their area and how frequently they have been interacting with them. The questionnaire survey was based on information regarding their attitude and perception of local herpetofauna. Out of the 29 herpetofauna species commonly found in the study areas, the five most common species from each class of reptilia (mountain pit viper (Ovophis monticola), green pit viper (Trimeresurus albolabris), common garden lizard (Calotes versicolor), flat tailed house gecko (Hemidactylus platyurus), and variegated mountain lizard (Japalura variegate) and amphibia (common toad (Duttaphrynus melanostictus), Himalayan toad (Duttaphrynus himalayanus), bubble nest frog (Philautus sp.), Annandale’s bush frog (Roarchestes annandalii), common tree frog (Polypedates leucomystax)) were chosen to prepare the questionnaire survey sheet. The people participating in the survey were shown color photographs of the animals to determine their attitudes and perceptions toward the animals.

Data analysis

The data were analyzed by using SPSS, version 20. Pearson Chi-square tests were employed to assess the relationships among variables.

Results and Discussion

The variations in public attitudes towards different herpetofauna were summarized in Tables 3-5. The attitude towards herpetofauna greatly varies among different gender (Table 3), educational qualifications, and age groups. There are significant variations in attitude between males and females toward killing herpetofauna (χ²=11.78, df=2, P=0.005); actions taken after the first encounter (χ²=55.34, df=7, P<0.001); Ecological benefits of herpetofauna (χ²=9.52, df=4, P=0.049); perception about attacked by those animals after encountering (χ²=10.17, df=2, P=0.006); Ugliness of the animals (χ²=16.09, df=3, P=0.001); and frightened by those species (χ²=10.49, df=2, P=0.005).

TABLE 3: The outcome of respondents of different genders in the study area

In different age groups (Table 4), significant variations in attitude towards the herpetofauna were reflected in the poisonousness of the animals (χ²=26.35, df=12, P=0.01); ecological benefits of herpetofauna (χ²=58.4, df=24, P<0.001); benefits for human being (χ²=55.59, df=24, P<0.001); ugliness of the animals (χ²=31.94, df=18, P=0.022); frightened by those species (χ²=23.96, df=12, P=0.021); and change in population dynamics of the herpetofauna due to anthropogenic interferences (χ²=40.57, df=18, P=0.002).

TABLE 4: The outcome of respondents of different age groups (years) in the study area

There are also significant variations in people’s perceptions of herpetofauna with their educational qualifications (Table 5). These include eradication of species (χ²=24.29, df=12, P=0.019); actions taken after the first encounter (χ²=67.9, df=42, P=0.007); ecological benefits of herpetofauna (χ²=147.56, df=24, P<0.001); benefits for human being (χ²=144.43, df=24, P<0.001); perception about attacked by those animals after encountering (χ²=29.46, df=12, P=0.003); frightened by those species (χ²=22.9, df=12, P=0.029); and change in population dynamics of the herpetofauna due to anthropogenic interferences (χ² =112.73, df=18, P<0.001).

TABLE 5: The outcome of respondents of different education levels in the study area

What people feel and believe about nature determines their attitudes toward it. The results suggest that the human persecution and negative attitudes towards herpetofauna can be explained by the presence of folklore and negative values and those socio-demographic variables also affect the presence of these ideas and values. Similar wrong perceptions about bats and spiders also exist resulting from the interpretation of common folklore, also showed a significant relationship with negative values. Also, the results of some authors indicated a preference for other animals to the detriment of herpetofauna, even anticipating that the support dedicated to their preservation would be less than that provided to other animals. More recently it has been also shown that snakes and “wugs”, a taxon that includes invertebrates like snails, and crabs, and vertebrates as lizards and turtles, were the least appreciated animals when compared to other taxons such as mammals such, birds, or fishes. As the emotional responses to animals comprise an important dimension in the retention and articulation of ethnobiological information. It can be concluded that these wrong perceptions, resulting from folklore, can clearly influence the attitudes people have toward these animals. However, it must be considered that not all the wrong perceptions about amphibians and reptiles result directly from folklore, such, as it was already referred, evolutionary responses, or lack of information, which can lead people to think these animals as dangerous, lethal, or aggressive. Reptiles were more misinterpreted than amphibians, and, in fact, amphibians showed a lower negative attitude than reptiles. The greatest threats to reptiles and amphibians are due to habitat destruction, pollution, climate change and competition with alien species but it is also known that the complex relationship between humans and these animals, consisting of their direct persecution, capture, and killing, poses a serious and real threat. Among many other threats, the greatest threat to reptiles in the Mediterranean basin is habitat destruction and alteration, which affect not only endangered species but also species that are not yet threatened, followed by over-exploitation of animals, pollution, and invasive species.

Our results clearly show that attitude towards herpetofauna significantly varies with gender, age, and educational qualifications. Religious views usually do not promote beliefs in superstitions among those tribes. Although male people are more aggressive toward killing and eradicating those animals than females while females are more afraid of those animals and chose to stay away. Females are also significantly more aware (both ethically and scientifically) of the ecological or environmental importance and conservation of the species. Among different age groups people from 21 years to 50 years are more positive toward ecological and human benefits from herpetofauna as well as anthropogenic pressure on the natural habitats leading to declining of those species. But those age groups are also significantly more prone to misconception regarding venomous and nonvenomous, ugliness, and danger from those animals. Academically higher qualified people are also significantly less prone to show direct threats towards killing, eradication, and removal of species. Those people also give significant positive attitudes toward herpetofauna regarding ecological and human benefits from them as well as anthropogenic pressure on the natural habitats leading to the decline of those species. And irrespective of gender, age, and educational qualifications there is a significantly high level of intolerance towards reptiles than amphibians; like fear, killing, eradication, and removal of reptilian species.

Lack of education and awareness about the importance of the ecological and economic role of herpetofauna are responsible for grooming many misconceptions and negative thoughts toward these animal groups. While less educated people in the survey often ruled out the importance of herpetofauna on the other hand, people with higher academic qualifications have some minimum awareness of herpetofauna and the importance of conservation in the study area, and according to their opinion, wild animals have the right to roam freely in nature as humans do. Individual interests in wildlife education played a role in creating positive attitudes toward them. So, proper education and awareness programs are the best solution to create an environment in which both humans and herpetofauna can co-exist.

Conclusion

People’s perception of herpetofauna has great importance in their conservation both inside and outside of the protected areas. But lack of education and awareness about the importance of the ecological and economic role of herpetofauna are responsible for developing many misconceptions and negative thoughts toward these animal groups. Hence, this work intends to highlight and clarify the situation. Proper education from the primary school level as well as different awareness programs especially in the areas where people’s interaction with herpetofauna is frequent can give fruitful results in terms of conservation and co-existence.

References

1. Gibbons JW. The management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America: The need for an environmental attitude. In Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America: Proceedings of the symposium 1988;4-10.
2. Easley S, Holtman JP, Scancarelli J, et al. The endangered species act: A Stanford environmental law society handbook. 2001.
3. Meffe GK, Carroll CR. Principles of conservation biology. 2^nd Edition. Sinauer Associates; Sunderland, USA, 1997.
4. Primack RB. Essentials of conservation biology. Fourth Edition. Sinauer Associates; Sunderland, MA, USA. 2006.
5. Coursey DL. The revealed demand for a public good: Evidence from endangered and threatened species. NYU Envtl. LJ. 1997;6:411.

   [Google Scholar]

6. Czech B, Krausman PR, Borkhataria R. Social construction, political power, and the allocation of benefits to endangered species. Biol Conserv. 1998;12(5):1103-1112.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]

7. Czech B, Krausman PR. The endangered species act: History, conservation biology, and public policy. JHU Press; 2001.
8. Knight AJ. “Bats, snakes and spiders, Oh my!” How aesthetic and negativistic attitudes, and other concepts predict support for species protection. J Environ Psychol. 2008;28(1):94-103.

   [Google Scholar]

9. Alvares F. The wolf in the popular imagination. Serra da Aboboreira-the land, man and wolves. 2004:135-145.
10. Bjerke T, Vitterso J, Kaltenborn BP. Locus of control and attitudes toward large carnivores. Psychol Rep. 2000;86(1):37-46.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

11. Bjerke T, Reitan O, Kellert SR. Attitudes towards wolves in southeastern Norway. Soc Nat Resour. 1998;11:169-178.

    [Google Scholar]

12. Bkerke T, Kaltenborn BP, Thrane C. Sociodemographic correlates of fearrelated attitudes toward the wolf (Canis lupus lupus). Fauna Nor. 2001;21:33-35.
13. Kleiven J, Bjerke T, Kaltenborn BP. Factors influencing the social acceptability of large carnivore behaviours. Biodivers Conserv. 2004;13:1647-1658. [Crossref]

    [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

14. Kellert SR. Values and perceptions of invertebrates. Biol Conserv. 1993;7(4):845-855.

    [Google Scholar]

15. Kellert SR. The public and timber wolf in Minnesota. Trans North Am Wildl Nat Resour Conf 1986;51:193-200.
16. Kellert SR. Public views of wolf restoration in Michigan. Trans North Am Wildl Nat Resour Conf 1991;6:151-161.
17. Kellert SR. Public attitudes towards bears and their conservation. Int Conf Bear Res Manag 1994, 9:43-50.
18. Kellert SR. Knowledge, affection and basic attitudes toward animals in American society. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service; 1982.
19. Kellert SR, Black M, Rush CR, et al. Human culture and large carnivore conservation in North America. Biol Conserv. 1996;10(4):977-990.

    [Google Scholar]

20. Morzillo AT, Mertig AG, Garner N, et al. Resident attitudes toward black bears and population recovery in East Texas. Hum Dimens Wildl. 2007;12(6):417-428.

    [Google Scholar]