Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 January 2022 | 14(1): 20387–20399
ISSN 0974-7907
(Online) | ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6977.14.1.20387-20399
#6977 | Received 11
December 2020 | Final received 12 December 2021 | Finally accepted 08 January
2022
Local hunting practices and
perceptions regarding the distribution and ecological role of the Large Flying
Fox (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae:
Pteropus vampyrus)
in western Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo
Jayasilan Mohd-Azlan
1, Joon Yee Yong 2, Nabila Norshuhadah
Mohd Hazzrol 3, Philovenny Pengiran 4,
Arianti Atong 5 & Sheema Abdul Aziz 6
1,3,4 Institute of Biodiversity and
Environmental Conservation, Universiti Malaysia
Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia.
2,6 Project Pteropus,
Rimba, 22-3A Casa Kiara 2, Jalan
Kiara 5, 50480 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
5 Sarawak Forestry Corporation Sdn. Bhd., Lot 218, KCLD, Jalan Tapang, Kota Sentosa, 93250, Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia.
1 azlan@unimas.my, 2 joonyee@rimbaresearch.org,
3 nabila.mhazzy@gmail.com, 4 philovennypengiran26@gmail.com,
5 arianti@sarawakforestry.com, 6 sheema@rimbaresearch.org
(corresponding author)
Editor: Priya Davidar, Sigur Nature Trust, Nilgiris, India. Date
of publication: 26 January 2022 (online & print)
Citation: Mohd-Azlan, J., J.Y. Yong,
N.N.M. Hazzrol, P. Pengiran,
A. Atong & S.A. Aziz (2022). Local hunting
practices and perceptions regarding the distribution and ecological role of the
Large Flying Fox (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae:
Pteropus vampyrus)
in western Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo. Journal of Threatened Taxa 14(1): 20387–20399. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6977.14.1.20387-20399
Copyright: © Mohd-Azlan et al. 2022. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the
author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: (a) United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS; F17AP00829);
(b) Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education - Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS/1/2020/WAB11/UNIMAS/02/3).
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Dr. Mohd-Azlan
Jayasilan is an Associate Professor at the Institute
of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation, Universiti
Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS). He conducts research on mammal ecology, threatened
species, and protected areas. Mr. Yong Joon Yee is a Research Associate under
Project Pteropus. He is also a student at the
Department of Biological Sciences, Sunway University, Malaysia. He is pursuing
his MSc on durian (Durio zibethinus)
pollination networks across Peninsular Malaysia. Ms. Nabila Norshuhadah
Mohd Hazzrol is a student
at the Department of Zoology, Universiti Malaysia
Sarawak (UNIMAS). She worked on ethnozoology for her undergraduate project. Ms.
Philovenny Pengiran has a
MSc from Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS). She
does research on wildlife ecology and conservation. Her MSc focuses on the
distribution, ecology and conservation of hornbills in western Sarawak. Ms. Arianti Atong is attached to the
Visitors and Products Management Section of Sarawak Forestry Corporation,
looking at the possibilities of flying foxes as an ecotourism product. Dr. Sheema Abdul Aziz is the co-founder & President of Rimba, and Principal Investigator of Project Pteropus. Her work focuses on fruit bat conservation in
Peninsular Malaysia through conducting research on bat-plant interactions and
bat-human interactions, especially for flying foxes.
Author contributions: Jayasilan Mohd-Azlan
conceived and designed the study, contributed materials, collected the data,
wrote the paper, and reviewed drafts of the paper. Joon Yee Yong contributed
analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, wrote the paper, and reviewed
drafts of the paper. Nabila Norshuhadah Mohd Hazzrol collected the data, prepared figures and/or tables,
and wrote the paper. Philovenny
Pengiran collected the data, prepared figures and/or
tables, and wrote the paper. Arianti Atong contributed to the
concept and design of the study, and reviewed drafts of the paper. Sheema Abdul Aziz
helped conceptualise the study, contributed analysis
tools, prepared figures and/or tables, wrote the paper, and reviewed drafts of
the paper.
Acknowledgements: We thank the Malaysian Ministry
of Higher Education Fundamental Research Grant Scheme
(FRGS/1/2020/WAB11/UNIMAS/02/3) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) for funding this research under the regional Southeast Asian Bat
Conservation Research Unit (SEABCRU) project: ‘Identifying and Addressing
Factors Contributing to Flying Fox Trafficking in Southeast Asia’ (F17AP00829),
along with SEABCRU and Mabuwaya Foundation for
coordinating the work under this grant. We are grateful to UNIMAS, Sarawak
Forestry Corporation and Forest Department Sarawak (NPW.907.4.4(ld.14)-71 &
WL043/2017) for facilitating this project. We appreciate the assistance given
by Ms. Shanaz Shamat and all the village heads during
interviews, and the advice given by Tigga Kingston
for study design. We are also indebted to Kanitha Krishnasamy and Serene Chng of
TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, and Tom Hughes and Jimmy Lee of EcoHealth
Alliance, for sharing further details and insights regarding the hunting,
consumption and trade of flying foxes in Malaysia. Lastly, we are grateful to Gopalasamy Reuben Clements for providing technical advice
and assistance.
Abstract: Pteropodids such as flying foxes
are declining rapidly across their range due to human activities, despite their
benefit to humans through ecosystem services. The Large Flying Fox Pteropus vampyrus
had a wide distribution across Borneo, but is now severely reduced in numbers,
and rarely sighted. In order to develop effective conservation and management
prescriptions for this species, updated information on its distribution,
movement patterns, and the impact of anthropogenic pressure on its survival is
crucial. As such, a questionnaire survey was conducted in western Sarawak to
determine the occurrence of this species, and the conservation awareness for
the species amongst local communities. The survey was conducted at nine sites
during November 2018 – March 2019, involving a total of 123 respondents,
including hunters (20%) and consumers (35%) of P. vampyrus.
Respondents reported that P. vampyrus appears
sporadically around the western tip of Borneo, and around the interior parts of
western Sarawak, with more than half (51%) of the reported sightings in the
interior occurring at fruit orchards during the fruiting and flowering seasons. Despite hunting and consuming
this species, over 60% of the respondents felt that P. vampyrus
could become an eco-tourism product in their area. Although many respondents
viewed flying foxes as pests (47%) or food (52%), there was remarkably high
awareness of the ecological roles and conservation needs of this species (76%),
suggesting potentially strong support for flying fox conservation at the local
level. Challenges associated with the
enforcement of wildlife law in the remote parts of Sarawak need to be
addressed, alongside strategic education and awareness efforts, which are all
vital to achieve successful conservation and protection of this ecologically
important species.
Keywords: Bats, conservation, indigenous,
local communities, Malaysia, Palaeotropics, wildlife.
Introduction
Despite providing crucial ecosystem
services such as seed dispersal and pollination, populations of Old World fruit
bats (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae)
are rapidly decreasing across their range due to multiple anthropogenic threats
(Fujita & Tuttle 1991; Kunz et al. 2011; Aziz et al. 2021). In Southeast
Asia, pteropodids have been well-documented as critical pollinators of the
economically important durian (Durio zibethinus) fruit, which is worth millions of USD to
the economies of producing countries (Bumrungsri et
al. 2009; Aziz et al. 2017a: Sheherazade et al. 2019). Despite these benefits,
pteropodid bats, especially flying foxes (Pteropus
spp., Acerodon spp., Desmalopex
spp.), have been widely hunted for food and medicinal purposes in many
Asia-Pacific cultures (Mildenstein et al. 2016; Low
et al. 2021). Additionally, they are also persecuted and culled as fruit crop
pests throughout their range (Aziz et al. 2016).
Pteropus vampyrus,
the Large
Flying Fox, is distributed throughout much of mainland and insular Southeast
Asia (Bates et al. 2008). It is the largest bat found on Borneo, and is
also the only known flying fox species found in Sarawak (Aziz et al. 2019).
Like other pteropodids, this species plays a critical role in
pollination and seed dispersal (Gould 1997; Gumal
2001; Mohd-Azlan et al. 2001; McConkey
& Drake 2006; Aziz et al. 2017a). Although this species is under
threat and legally protected in Sarawak under the Sarawak Wild Life Protection
Ordinance 1998, it is listed as only Near Threatened on the global IUCN Red
List, despite a decreasing trend noted for its global population (Bates et al.
2008) which is still being hunted/traded as a delicacy and for its perceived
medicinal qualities (Fujita & Tuttle 1991; Mildenstein
et al. 2016; Low et al. 2021). In general, most communities across Borneo share
the belief that consumption of flying fox meat and liver is a cure for general
malaise and respiratory ailments (Fujita 1988; Mohd-Azlan
& Fauzi 2006; Low et al. 2021).
Like many other fruit bats in
Southeast Asia, P. vampyrus is at high risk of
becoming extinct by the end of the century, not only due to intense hunting
pressure (Epstein et al. 2009) but also due to high deforestation rates across
the region (Lane et al. 2006). In Sarawak, the last state-wide survey on P. vampyrus roosting sites was conducted during 1997–2000,
and only five maternity colonies were found: in Patok
Island, Sarang, Loagan Bunut,
Limbang, and Sedilu (Gumal 2001). Therefore, for the conservation management of
this species in Sarawak, more recent data on its distribution and status are
urgently needed.
In addition to its outdated
distribution and population data in Sarawak, little is known about local
community perceptions, knowledge, and awareness of P. vampyrus,
as no prior studies have been conducted on these aspects. Hence, as
community-based wildlife surveys are known to be an effective tool to help
elucidate the distribution of wildlife species and their interactions with
humans (Fitzgibbon & Jones 2006), we employed this approach in western Sarawak
to obtain information on P. vampyrus, namely:
(i) the current distribution patterns; (ii) hunting
and consumption by local communities; and (iii) their perception of the
ecological role of this species.
Materials
and Methods
Study Site
Sarawak, Malaysia (1.553278°,
110.359213°; Figure 1) is located in northwestern
Borneo and has a population of ~2.8 million (Department of Statistics Malaysia
2019). Sixty-two percent of the state is still forested, with peat swamp
forests dominating the coastal lowlands to hill dipterocarp forests towards the
interior, and montane forests in the interior highlands (Forest Department of
Sarawak 2020). The climate is uniformly humid and warm throughout the year,
with the north-east monsoon occurring during November–February, and the
south-west monsoon occurring during June–October (Hazebroek & Abang
Kashim 2000).
Approximately 29% of Sarawak’s
population belongs to the Iban indigenous group making up the majority,
followed by 23% of ethnic Malays, Chinese (22%), Bidayuh
(8%), Melanau (5%), other indigenous groups (6%), other non-indigenous groups
(1%), and lastly, non-Malaysian citizens make up 6% of the population
(Department of Statistics Malaysia 2019). Christianity is the most professed
religion in Sarawak (43%), followed by Islam (32%), Buddhism (13%),
Confucianism, Taoism, and Tribal religions (6%), Hinduism (0.2%), others (1%),
no religion (3%), and unknown religion (2%) (Department of Statistics Malaysia
2010). Ethnic Malays do not hunt bats for consumption due to Islamic dietary
restrictions, but may still kill fruit bats for fruit crop protection (Aziz et
al. 2017b), or for sale to non-Muslims (Low et al. 2021).
Our survey was conducted at nine
sites in western Sarawak: Sri Aman, Lubok Antu, Lubok
Subong, Maludam, Sebuyau, Sematan, Simunjan, Serian, and Tanjung Manis (Figure 1). These locations were selected
based on previous information on markets where flying foxes were sold (Gumal et al. 1997), and our own preliminary enquiries
regarding popular sites for bushmeat trading.
Study Species
Pteropus vampyrus
is one of the
largest bats in the world, weighing up to 1.1 kg and with a wingspan of up to
1.5 m (Image 1). It is listed as ‘Near Threatened’ on the IUCN Red List (Bates
et al. 2008), although there appears to be a sharp population decline in
Sarawak (Gumal 2001), and in Peninsular Malaysia due
to over-harvesting (Epstein et al. 2009). It is listed as Endangered on the Red
List of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia (PERHILITAN 2017). In Sarawak all bat
species including P. vampyrus are protected
under the Wild Life Protection Ordinance 1998, and hunting is not allowed.
Currently, little is known about the
population and distribution of P. vampyrus in
Sarawak, as the last state-wide survey was conducted by Gumal
(2001) around two decades ago. That survey found that all five of the reported
roosts were located in remote and inaccessible areas such as peat swamps and
mangroves.
Data Collection
A questionnaire survey (Table 1)
consisting of open-ended and closed questions was designed to obtain data on
(1) local community socio-demographics; (2) P. vampyrus
sightings; (3) consumption and hunting of this species by local communities;
and (4) local community perceptions of the species. A pilot survey was first
conducted on 35 individuals comprising members of the general public and
students from Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) in
Kota Samarahan.
The questionnaire survey was
conducted during November 2018-–March 2019, at local markets in the nine study
sites. Respondents were surveyed opportunistically using snowball sampling,
starting first with a durian vendor who then recommended other people known to
hunt or consume flying foxes (Image 2). Respondents were then selected based on
preliminary questioning to ascertain whether they were: (i)
familiar with P. vampyrus; (ii) hunters; or
(iii) consumers of the species.
Before the questionnaire
commenced the respondents were first asked to identify P. vampyrus by displaying an image of the species with a
corresponding measurement scale to convey size, and this was used to set the
benchmark for the reliability of the respondents’ answers. As flying foxes (Pteropus spp., Acerodon
spp., Desmalopex spp.) often have specific
local names to distinguish them from all other bats (e.g., Tanalgo
et al. 2016; Low et al. 2021), wherever applicable we used the relevant local
name according to a respondent’s ethnicity (Supplementary Table 1).
The questionnaire was
administered by three female enumerators, who were all Malaysian students
at Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), via face-to-face interviews
conducted in Iban, Melanau, and standard colloquial Malay. Enumerators targeted
respondents that were adults, i.e., aged 18 and above. Prior to commencing an
interview, the student enumerators first started with an introduction of their
background, i.e., UNIMAS students conducting research on flying foxes, and also
showed their university student identification cards when introducing
themselves. Each
question was read aloud by the enumerator to the respondent, and the
respondent’s answers were then recorded using the Open Data Kit Collection
(ODK) version 1.18.0 application.
This study complies with the
research ethics criteria designated by Universiti
Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS), conducted under research permits NPW.907.4.4(JLD.14)-71 and
WL043/2017. Before
initiating any interview, the survey purpose and goals were explained first to
the respondent, and free, prior, & informed consent (FPIC) was obtained.
Respondent identities were kept anonymous, and they were informed of the
confidentiality of their identity and information shared. The respondents were
also informed in advance that they have the right to choose not to continue
with the interview at any time during the process should they feel
uncomfortable.
Results
Out of 200 people approached, 123
(40 women and 83 men; Supplementary Table 2) responded. Most of the 38.5% of
people who declined to be interviewed claimed not to have any knowledge on the
topic, but some appeared to be intimidated. The biggest group (43%) of
respondents was those above 55 years old (n= 53). The Iban ethnic group
comprised half of all respondents, and 60% of respondents professed
Christianity as their religion. A large majority (86%) resided in rural areas,
with 72% having received some form of formal education (i.e., school or
university), and 37% having received an education beyond primary level (i.e.,
>12 years old).
Sixty-one percent of respondents
were self-employed, owning small businesses such as restaurants, food stalls or
wet market stalls. Twenty-one percent were unemployed retirees from either the
government or private sector. Sixty-nine percent had an income of less than MYR
(Malaysian ringgit) 900 (~USD 213) a month, with their livelihoods dependent on
the selling of forest products at markets.
Flying fox sightings
The majority (91%) of respondents
were familiar with Pteropus vampyrus, with 51% of respondents stating that flying
foxes were most commonly found during the fruiting season. Hunters reported that Engkelili,
Lingga, Entumpi, Engkalong, Roban, Kampung Temiang, and Simunjan are flying
fox hotspots. Seventy-nine percent of respondents stated that the highest
occurrence of flying fox sightings was in July–December, with July–September
being the most likely time to encounter flying foxes (Figure 2). Fifty-nine
percent of respondents stated that flying foxes forage on langsat (Lansium parasiticum),
rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum),
and Syzygium cephalophorum
fruits, and 51% of respondents stated that flying foxes forage on durian (Durio spp.) flowers.
Fifty-two percent of respondents
stated that flying foxes can be seen in fruit orchards. The species was also
reported as being sighted near secondary and primary forests (Figure 3). Three
respondents had sighted dead flying foxes being sold at the Pasar
Tamu Sri Aman, Pasar Serian, and Pasar Lubok Antu markets. An additional 10% of respondents had sighted
flying fox roosting sites, having seen the bats flying near mangrove and peat
swamp forests in the Simunjan and Tanjung
Manis areas around 20–30 years ago.
Hunting and consumption of flying
foxes
Twenty-one percent (n= 51) of
respondents were flying fox hunters, but 53% of these hunters no longer hunted
due to the difficulty of locating roosting sites (Supplementary Table 3). A
slight majority (58%) of hunters hunted flying foxes for food, while 35% hunted
because flying foxes were viewed as pests, and the remainder hunted flying
foxes for supplementary income.
According to 15 respondents, price per bat ranged from MYR 16–30 (approximately
USD 4–7) (Table 2), and even the lowest price of MYR 10 (approximately USD
2.50) was higher than the local price of chicken, which is MYR 8.50/kg
(approximately USD 2/kg).
Forty-one percent of hunters
preferred hunting in groups of 3–6 people, and 83% of hunters preferred hunting
from dusk till midnight. Seventy-five percent of hunters stated that they
hunted in fruit orchards. The most common hunting technique employed by the
hunters was shooting the flying foxes with shotguns (46%), followed by
traditional hunting techniques involving hooks and strings (29%). Many (67%) of
the hunters reported that they only managed to hunt less than 10 individuals
per hunting trip.
Thirty-five percent of
respondents had consumed flying foxes before, while the others (65%) who had
not, cited a variety of reasons including religious reasons (46%), fear (38%),
and a dislike of the smell of flying foxes (16%). Those that consumed flying
foxes stated that soups and stews with an assortment of herbs and spices were
the main methods (86%) of cooking, whereby the fur is first removed by burning,
and the animal is then skinned to eliminate its odour. The carcass (Image 2 is cleansed with either lime
juice or tamarind juice to further remove any remaining odour, and the meat is
then marinated with lemongrass, ginger, chilli, pepper, garlic, and onion. Some
respondents claimed that the wings are a delicacy, with a chewy texture
resembling the black fungus (Auricularia polytricha).
Our survey also revealed that
people who bought flying fox meat preferred it to be as fresh as possible. To
meet this demand, hunters string fine-meshed nets over waterways, or
above/around fruit trees near their village. This method is the preferred
method of Iban hunters, as it is an efficient and common method for capturing
live bats to meet consumer demand for freshness. Live flying foxes trapped in
the nets are harvested in the morning and brought to the market immediately to
be sold, and only killed once a sale is made. Flying foxes caught by nets are
sold at higher prices compared to those that are shot, as shot bats have wounds
on their wings, and those that survive do not stay alive for long – thereby
less desirable to consumers. However, another hunting method, considered to be
more traditional, involves stringing up a fishing line tied with large fishing
hooks above the canopy of a fruiting or flowering tree. As the bats get caught
easily on the hooks during flight, this is sometimes used due to its ffectiveness and low cost, with one hunter reporting that
as many as 30 bats could be caught from just one tree in one night using this
method.
Perceptions of local communities
towards flying foxes
Fifty-one percent of respondents
felt that the current consumption of flying fox meat does not negatively impact
flying fox populations (Figure 4), although 71% of respondents conceded that
hunting and selling of flying fox meat would become a threat in the long term.
Sixty-nine percent of respondents believed that deforestation is a bigger
threat to flying fox populations compared to hunting. Slightly more than half
(55%) of the respondents were unsure of the claimed medicinal properties of
flying foxes. For perceptions of flying foxes as agricultural pests, respondents
were divided between those perceiving flying foxes to be pests (48%), and those
who did not (38%), with the rest being unsure (14%) (Figure 4). Despite this,
66% of the respondents were aware of the role played by flying foxes in seed
dispersal (Figure 4). To prevent fruit losses, growers typically set up nets
around their fruit trees so that the bats are trapped before reaching the
fruits. The nets are often set up in the afternoon, and taken down late at
night (0000–0300 h) or the following morning.
Half of all respondents felt that
flying foxes could be used to develop local eco-tourism, and 51% of respondents
agreed to participate in school events such as talks or seminars
conducted by the relevant conservation authorities on the importance of flying
foxes. Forty-four
percent of respondents believed that flying fox conservation requires
management at the village or local community level in order to prevent
excessive hunting. Lastly, 39% of respondents felt that the Sarawak Wild Life
Ordinance 1998, which makes it illegal to hunt, capture, sell, import or export
bats, is ineffective at conserving flying foxes.
Discussion
Our survey has provided important
and novel data on the opinion and perceptions of local communities regarding Pteropus vampyrus
in western Sarawak. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to collect
empirical data on the knowledge and opinions of people in Malaysian Borneo
regarding this species. Our study confirmed that hunting and trade of P. vampyrus still occurs despite the decline in sightings,
and the implementation of legal protection for this species – partly due to
cultural beliefs and practices, and partly due to perceptions or experiences of
flying foxes as orchard pests. Indeed, the highest occurrence of P. vampyrus sightings now coincides with the durian
flowering season in Sarawak, and the fruiting seasons of langsat, rambutan, and
Syzygium cephalophorum.
Similar trends in hunting pressure, trade and drivers were reported from
Peninsular Malaysia, whereby it was predicted that legal hunting levels alone
would lead to species extinction anytime between 6–81 years (Fujita 1988;
Epstein et al. 2009; Cantlay et al. 2017).
Trends in hunting and trade
While the scale and intensity of
flying fox hunting in western Sarawak do not seem as severe as that previously
reported for Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo; Struebig
et al. 2007; Harrison et al. 2011) and Sulawesi (Sheherazade
& Tsang 2015), we believe this is likely because intense hunting pressure
in the past has already caused drastic population reductions in Sarawak,
pushing the species to more remote/inaccessible areas, and rendering it
increasingly rare. The beliefs and practices reported in our study support
those of other studies across Southeast Asia (Low et al. 2021).
Concurrently, this study also
yielded qualitative details that helped to supplement empirical data. For
example, during this survey we found that flying fox meat was not commonly seen
in markets, but respondents reported it as being easily acquired at the Serian Wet Market. We did find P. vampyrus
being sold openly at Pasar Tamu
Sri Aman, despite hunting and selling of bats being illegal. A stall owner even
commented that she could sell as many as 10–15 flying foxes in one single sale.
Such information corroborates earlier surveys of wildlife meat availability by
TRAFFIC Southeast Asia, that found
flying fox meat still available for purchase at certain markets, restaurants
and roadside stalls across Sarawak (K. Krishnasamy
pers. comm.; Cantlay et al. 2017). This explains why
the majority of our respondents felt that legal protection of P. vampyrus has not deterred or reduced hunting activity,
as there was perceived to be a clear lack of enforcement.
One reason P. vampyrus is a highly valued wild meat amongst locals is
the belief that it is a remedy for a variety of ailments and diseases, such as
asthma, kidney ailments, gynaecological problems, and lung ailments (Mildenstein et al. 2016; Low et al. 2021). Flying fox liver
and bile are also believed to cure asthma. One respondent even claimed that an
alcoholic drink made by soaking an infant flying fox in ‘langkau’
(a particularly potent, locally brewed rice spirit) for a few weeks is an
effective cure for asthma if consumed daily. Due to Islamic dietary restrictions,
all Muslim respondents stated that it is forbidden for them to consume flying
foxes. However, in Sebuyau, one Muslim respondent
claimed that it is permissible to consume flying fox if this is done with the
intent of curing illnesses, and not to consume it as a delicacy. This suggests
that the perceived benefits of flying fox meat, which appears to be a
widespread belief across their entire regional distribution (Mildenstein et al. 2016; Low et al. 2021), might be used by
some as justification to override religious restrictions or aversions. Indeed,
Harrison et al. (2011) reported similar attitudes in Indonesian Borneo, and
cautioned that if this widely-held belief regarding health benefits is left
unaddressed it would likely cause unsustainable hunting of flying foxes to
continue. There is an urgent need to address this belief and practice by
conducting community outreach and education for raising awareness, but also to
implement targeted intervention strategies that leverage on social psychology approaches
for incentivising behavioural change (Kingston 2016; St. John et al. 2018).
Worryingly, unlike in Indonesian
Borneo (Harrison et al. 2011), more than half of the respondents did not feel
that consumption of flying foxes had a negative impact on flying fox
populations. The reason given was the belief that flying foxes breed rapidly,
and therefore local hunting would not severely reduce populations, especially
since hunting only occurs during the flowering and fruiting seasons. Indeed,
almost 70% of the respondents stated that deforestation is a bigger threat due
to it being the direct cause of flying fox habitat loss. Scientific research
has shown that flying foxes actually have long lifespans and slow reproductive
rates, so their populations would take a long time to recover from hunting
pressure (Mildenstein et al. 2016). While Pteropus flying foxes are easily able to persist in
human-dominated areas with sufficient food resources (e.g., Tait et al. 2014;
Aziz et al. 2017b), this proximity can render them more accessible and
vulnerable to hunters (Chaiyes et al. 2017; Aziz et
al. 2021). Also, low abundance of flying foxes can negatively affect their
ecological roles, such as seed dispersal in forest ecosystems, long before
these populations actually become extinct (McConkey
& Drake 2006; Luskin 2010). Therefore, we concur with Harrison et al.
(2011) that overhunting remains the biggest threat to this species, and there
is an urgent need to communicate such implications of intense or uncontrolled
hunting pressure to local communities. Obtaining empirical long-term data on
the hunting of flying foxes, and on the ecosystem services they provide, is
necessary to ascertain whether current offtake levels are sustainable or not –
not just in terms of population numbers, but also in terms of their ecological
roles and the wider impact they have on ecosystem health.
Negative interactions due to
crop-raiding
Loss (whether real or perceived)
of fruits and flowers is clearly a major source of conflict between local fruit
growers and flying foxes, and is also a factor driving the hunting of P. vampyrus in western Sarawak. Fruit growers stated that
economic loss is their main motivation for killing P. vampyrus,
as it is believed that eradication of this species can prevent such loss. Fruit
growers at Pasar Tamu Sri
Aman and Pasar Tani Lubok Antu even admitted to doing so despite stating that flying
foxes foraging on their fruit trees would help disperse seeds to other areas.
Flying foxes were still regarded as fruit pests even amongst fruit growers who
acknowledged the bats’ role as durian pollinators. This suggests that knowledge
of flying fox ecosystem services alone is not enough to prevent killings, and
therefore education and awareness-raising must be complemented by enforcement
of regulations (e.g., see review by Aziz et al. 2016). Efforts are clearly
needed to investigate and quantify fruit/flower losses attributed to P. vampyrus, and to trial non-lethal mitigation methods
for protecting crops without killing or harming bats. These can be done
following some of the potential methods reviewed and summarised by Aziz et al.
(2016), but more recent studies have also been conducted for the Madagascan
Flying Fox P. rufus and the Mauritian Flying
Fox P. niger, whereby fruit loss from flying
foxes was found to be minimal, and the use of organic deterrents, plastic
flags, bells, and nylon net bags were found to be effective at reducing feeding
in cultivated fruit trees (Raharimihaja et al. 2016; Oleksy et al. 2018; Tollington et
al. 2019) .
Support for flying fox
conservation
Finally, our survey uncovered
some encouraging attitudes towards P. vampyrus:
even though many respondents
viewed flying foxes as pests and/or food, ecological and conservation awareness
were relatively high, and there was grassroots-level support among some
communities. Slightly more than half of our
respondents, comprising hunters, consumers, and fruit growers, were
willing to cooperate with wildlife agencies to protect P. vampyrus at the village level to prevent overhunting,
as they still perceived flying foxes to be important for seed dispersal or
tourism. The same number also agreed to participate in school events aimed at
conserving flying foxes, as they believed these events are important for educating
the younger generation on the importance of biodiversity conservation, and the
ecosystem services provided by flying foxes. When asked further, these
respondents mentioned that they were willing to attend conservation education programmes for communities in rural areas, such as talks or
seminars on flying foxes. Those that strongly disagreed to participate in awareness programs
stated that they didn’t see the point of such efforts due to the fact that P.
vampyrus numbers are now too low – suggesting that
further efforts are needed to convince them that appropriate conservation
interventions can indeed be effective. However, those that were unsure about
participating said that they felt so because they were still unsure about the
importance of flying foxes. This group of people clearly needs to be targeted
as a priority audience for awareness and education campaigns.
Our results suggest that there is some support
for flying fox conservation amongst local communities, as almost half of the
respondents felt that P. vampyrus can be an
iconic species for ecotourism, particularly if there are protected areas to
safeguard populations. Those who disagreed provided mixed reasons; some stated
that population numbers are so greatly reduced that it would be difficult to
view the species in the wild, whereas others feared or viewed flying foxes as
gruesome, and therefore did not see any ecotourism potential. Given that this
species was traditionally respected and even revered in local Malaysian
cultures (Low et al. 2021), it is unclear where such negative perceptions come
from. As noted from other countries, properly managed and regulated bat tourism
can indeed serve as an effective strategy for bat conservation (Pennisi et al. 2004; Aziz et al. 2017b; Tanalgo
& Hughes 2021). A sustained effort to revive positive local beliefs and
imagery related to flying foxes, possibly in the form of Conservation Pride
campaigns (Butler et
al. 2013; de Pinho et al. 2014), could potentially help overcome
such aversions by creating a mere-exposure effect (Zajonc
2001), hopefully predisposing both locals and tourists to start viewing bats
positively.
Caveats
and recommendations
Many of the respondents appeared
to be candid in their comments, although on several occasions when they felt
intimidated or suspected the enumerator to be a government official, they
became very reluctant to provide details on the quantities and capture
locations of flying foxes that were hunted and sold. Indeed, only 61.5% of the
200 people we approached agreed to be interviewed, and some who declined could
have done so due to fear. As flying foxes are protected in Sarawak, hunting and
consumption are illegal, and thus it is possible that some people did not want
to participate in the survey because they feared their identity could be leaked
to the authorities.
This underscores the difficulty
of obtaining accurate data on flying fox hunting and trade, and highlights the
need to employ more appropriate survey methods to reduce social desirability
bias when asking sensitive questions that seek to understand illicit behaviour (Nuno & St. John 2015; Mildenstein
et al. 2016). A more suitable approach for wildlife conservation research, such
as the unmatched count technique, should be explored in future work (Hinsley et al. 2019). Additionally, the current COVID-19
situation has introduced new complexities with regards to wildlife hunting and
trade, as fears of disease risk could potentially reduce such activities (Low
et al. 2021), but at the same time sensationalist media reports have increased
negative perceptions of bats amongst the general public (Zhao 2020; Rocha et
al. 2021). Since COVID-19 could potentially erode public support for bat
conservation (Rocha et al. 2020), follow-up surveys are vital.
Although our results are
preliminary, the information uncovered by our exploratory survey is a useful first step to provide a better
understanding of the current situation, which will be important for guiding
appropriate conservation strategies for the species and its habitats. We hope
that both the quantitative and qualitative data yielded by this study will
prove useful in helping to direct future efforts to conserve flying foxes in
Sarawak, and also provide helpful insights for flying fox conservation efforts
elsewhere.
Table 1. Questionnaire used for survey on community
knowledge, perceptions and interactions with Pteropus
vampyrus (referred to as simply ‘flying fox’ in
local languages during interviews) in western Sarawak.
|
QUESTIONNAIRE |
|
|||||
|
Part
1. Flying Fox Sightings |
|
|||||
|
i)
Have you ever seen a flying fox? Yes No |
|
|||||
|
ii) If yes,
what type of habitat did you last see a flying fox in? a) Mangrove
swamp forest b) Peat
swamp forest c)
Secondary forest d) Primary
forest e) Gardens
or field f) River g) Market |
|
|||||
|
iii) If
yes, when did the last time you saw a flying fox? a)
January–March b)
April–June c)
July–September d)
October–December |
|
|||||
|
iv) Has
anyone in the area you reside been hunting flying foxes? Yes No |
|
|||||
|
v) If yes,
how many hunters are there? a) 1–3
individuals b) 3–6
individuals c) 6–9
individuals d) 9–12
individuals e) >12
individuals |
|
|||||
|
vi) If yes,
how long have you been hunting? a) weeks b) months c) years |
|
|||||
|
Part
2. Flying Fox Hunters and Consumers |
|
|||||
|
(i) Have you ever hunted or killed flying foxes before? Yes No |
|
|||||
|
(ii) If
yes, for what purpose? a) Food b)
Traditional medicine c) Pest
control d) Source
of income |
|
|||||
|
(iii) If
yes, where did you hunt or kill flying foxes? a) Swamp
area b) Coastal
area c) Forest
edge d) Forest
interior e) Fruit
orchard f) Rubber
plantation g) Oil palm
plantation |
|
|||||
|
(iv) If
yes, how did you get to the hunting area? a) Boat b) Car c) Lorry d)
Motorcycle e) On foot |
|
|||||
|
(v) What
method do you use to hunt flying foxes? a) Net b) Shotgun c)
Traditional method (stringing up hooks on fishing line) d) Cutting
down roost tree |
|
|||||
|
(vi) At
what time do you usually hunt flying foxes? a) 0600 hrs–0900 hrs b) 0900 hrs–1200 hrs c) 1200 hrs–1500 hrs d) 1500 hrs–1800hrs e) 1800 hrs–2100 hrs f) 2100 hrs–0000 hrs g)
0000hrs–0300 hrs h) 0300 hrs–0600 hrs |
|
|||||
|
(vii) On
average, how much is the total cost of a flying fox hunting trip? a) <RM50 b)
RM51–RM100 c)
RM101–RM300 d)
RM301–RM600 e)
RM601–RM1000 f)
>RM1000 |
|
|||||
|
(viii) On
average, how many flying foxes do you catch per hunting trip? a) <10
individuals b) 11–20
individuals c) 21–40
individuals d) 41–60
individuals e) 61–80
individuals f) >80
individuals |
|
|||||
|
(ix) On
average, what is the market price of flying fox meat? a)
RM10–RM15 b)
RM16–RM30 c)
RM31–RM60 d)
RM61–RM80 e)
RM81–RM100 f)
RM100–RM120 |
|
|||||
|
(x) What
motivates you to hunt? |
|
|||||
|
(xi) Do you
get moral support from your local community to hunt flying foxes? Yes No |
|
|||||
|
(xii) How
does the local community in the area you reside feel about you hunting flying
foxes? |
|
|||||
|
(xiii) Have
you ever consumed or cooked flying fox meat? Yes No |
|
|||||
|
(xiv) If
yes, how did you process the meat? |
|
|||||
|
(xv) If
yes, what other ingredients did you mix with the flying fox meat? |
|
|||||
|
(xvi) Which
parts of a flying fox are used as traditional medicine? |
|
|||||
|
Part
3. Local perceptions towards flying foxes |
||||||
|
Statements |
Strongly
Agree |
Agree |
Not
Sure |
Disagree |
Strongly
Disagree |
|
|
Occasionally
consuming flying fox meat is fine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consuming
flying fox meat can cure respiratory ailments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flying
foxes can damage agricultural crops. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hunting
& selling flying foxes can damage their populations in the long term. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deforestation
causes more negative impacts on flying fox populations compared to hunting
activities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sarawak’s
wildlife law has been effective in protecting flying foxes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flying
foxes can be an important aspect in promoting tourism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Flying
foxes play an important role in dispersing seeds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Awareness
programs in schools will help to increase efforts to conserve flying foxes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Besides the
Sarawak wildlife law, flying foxes also need to be protected at the village
level. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are
traditional beliefs or taboos related to flying foxes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
For
figures & images - - click here
REFERENCES
Altringham, J.D. (1996). Bats: Biology and Behaviour. Oxford University Press, New York, 262pp.
Aziz, S.A., K.R. McConkey,
K. Tanalgo K., T. Sritongchuay,
M-R. Low, J.Y. Yong, T.L. Mildenstein, C.E.
Nuevo-Diego, V.C. Lim & P.A. Racey (2021).
The critical importance of Old World fruit bats for healthy ecosystems and
economies. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9: 641411. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.641411
Aziz, S.A.,
K.J. Olival, S. Bumrungsri,
G.C. Richards & P.A. Racey (2016). The conflict between pteropodid
bats and fruit growers: species, legislation and mitigation, pp. 377–426. In:
Voigt, C.C. & T. Kingston (eds). Bats in the
Anthropocene: Conservation of Bats in a Changing World. SpringerOpen.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25220-9_13
Aziz, S.A.,
G.R. Clements, K.R. McConkey, T. Sritongchuay,
S. Pathil, M.N.H. Abu Yazid, A. Campos-Arceiz, P-M. Forget & S. Bumrungsri
(2017a). Pollination
by the locally endangered island flying fox (Pteropus
hypomelanus) enhances fruit production of the
economically important durian (Durio zibethinus). Ecology and Evolution 7(21):
8670–8684. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.3213
Aziz, S.A.,
G.R. Clements, X. Giam, P-M. Forget & A. Campos-Arceiz (2017b). Coexistence and conflict between
the Island Flying Fox (Pteropus hypomelanus) and humans on Tioman
Island, Peninsular Malaysia. Human Ecology 45(3): 377–389. https://doig.org/10.1997/s10745-017-9905-6
Aziz, S.A.,
M-R. Low & G.R. Clements (2019). A Conservation Roadmap for
Flying Foxes Pteropus spp. in Peninsular
Malaysia. Rimba, Kuala Lumpur, 40 pp.
Bates, P., C.
Francis, M. Gumal, S. Bumrungsri,
J. Walston, L. Heaney & T. Mildenstein (2008). Pteropus
vampyrus. In: IUCN 2008. IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Accessed on 24 November 2020. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T18766A8593657
Bumrungsri, S., E. Sripaoraya,
T. Chongsiri, K. Sridith
& P.A. Racey (2009). The pollination ecology of
durian (Durio zibethinus,
Bombacaceae) in southern Thailand. Journal of
Tropical Ecology 25(1): 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266467408005531
Butler, P.,
K. Green & D. Galvin (2013). The Principles of Pride: The
Science Behind the Mascots. RARE, Arlington, 81 pp.
Cantlay, J.C., D.J. Ingram & A.L.
Meredith (2017). A review of
zoonotic infection risks associated with the wild meat trade in Malaysia. EcoHealth 14(2): 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-017-1229-x
Chaiyes, A., P. Duengkae,
S. Wacharapluesadee, N. Pongpattananurak,
K.J. Olival & T. Hemachudha
(2017). Assessing
the distribution, roosting site characteristics, and population of Pteropus lylei in
Thailand. Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 65: 670–680. http://zoobank.org/References/CD1BC57B-FA8A-4E1F-9A5C-E042659CB8C6
de Pinho, J. R., C. Grilo, R.B.
Boone, K.A. Galvin & J.G. Snodgrass (2014). Influence of Aesthetic
Appreciation of Wildlife Species on Attitudes Towards their Conservation in
Kenyan Agropastoralist Communities. PLoS ONE 9: e88842. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088842
Department of
Statistics Malaysia (2010). Population distributions and basic demographics characteristic. Retrieved
on 24 November 2020 from: https://web.archive.org/web/20140522234002/http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/download_Population/files/census2010/Taburan_Penduduk_dan_Ciri-ciri_Asas_Demografi.pdf
Department of
Statistics Malaysia (2019). Statistics Yearbook Sarawak. (Publication No. ISSN 0128-7613).
Retrieved on 24 November 2020 from: https://newss.statistics.gov.my/newssportalx/ep/epFreeDownloadContentSearch.seam?cid=60237
Epstein,
J.H., K.J. Olival, J.R.C. Pulliam, C. Smith, J. Westrum, T. Hughes, A.P. Dobson, A. Zubaid,
S.A. Rahman, M.M. Basir & H.E. Field (2009). Pteropus
vampyrus, a hunted migratory species with a
multinational home-range and a need for regional management. Journal of
Applied Ecology 46(5): 991–1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01699.x
Fitzgibbon, S.I. & D.N. Jones (2006). A community-based wildlife
survey: The knowledge and attitudes of residents of suburban Brisbane, with a
focus on bandicoots. Wildlife Research 33(3): 233. https://doi.org/1071/wr04029
Forest Department of Sarawak (2020). Facts
and Figures. https://forestry.sarawak.gov.my/page-0-0-1170-FACTS-FIGURES.html
Fujita, M.
(1988). Flying foxes
and economics. BATS 6(1): 4–9. https://www.batcon.org/article/flying-foxes-and-economics/
Fujita, M.S. &
M.D. Tuttle (1991). Flying Foxes (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae):
Threatened animals of key ecological and economic importance. Conservation
Biology 5(4): 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1991.tb00352.x
Gumal, M., S. Jamahari,
M.I. Abdullah, C.J. Brandah, M.K. Abdullah & A.R.
Pawi (1997). The ecology and role of the
large flying fox (Pteropus vampyrus) in Sarawakian rain
forests. Hornbill 1: 32–47.
Gumal, M.T. (2001). Ecology and conservation of a
fruit bat in Sarawak, Malaysia. PhD Thesis. Department of Anatomy,
University of Cambridge, 234 pp.
Harrison,
M.E., S.M. Cheyne, F. Darma, D.A. Ribowo,
S.H. Limin & M.J. Struebig
(2011). Hunting of
flying foxes and perception of disease risk in Indonesian Borneo. Biological
Conservation 144(10): 2441–2449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.06.021
Hazebroek, H. P. & A. M. Abang Kashim (2000). National Park of Sarawak. Kota Kinabalu:
Natural History Publications (Borneo).
Hinsley, A., A. Keane, F.A.V. St. John,
H. Ibbett & A. Nuno (2019). Asking sensitive questions using the unmatched count
technique: Applications and guidelines for conservation. Methods in Ecology
and Evolution 10(3): 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13137
Kingston, T.
(2016). Cute,
creepy, or crispy – how values, attitudes, and norms shape human behavior
towards bats, pp. 571–595. In: Voigt, C.C. & T. Kingston (eds). Bats in the Anthropocene: Conservation of Bats in
a Changing World. SpringerOpen. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25220-9_18
Kunz, T.H.,
E. Braun de Torrez, D. Bauer, T. Lobova T. & T.H.
Fleming (2011). Ecosystem
services provided by bats. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1223(1):
1-38. https://doi.10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06004.x
Low, M-R.,
Z.H. Wong, S. Shen, B. Murugavel, N. Mariner, L.M. Paguntalan, K. Tanalgo, M.M.
Aung, Sheherazade, L.A. Bansa,
T. Sritongchuay, J. Preble & S.A. Aziz (2021). Bane or blessing? Reviewing
cultural values of bats across the Asia-Pacific region. Journal of
Ethnobiology 41(1): 18–34. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.1.18
Luskin, M.S.
(2010). Flying foxes
prefer to forage in farmland in a tropical dry forest landscape mosaic in Fiji.
Biotropica 42(2) 246–250. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2009.00577.x
McConkey, K.R. & D.R. Drake (2006). Flying foxes cease to function
as seed dispersers long before they become rare. Ecology 87(2): 271–276.
https://doi.org/10.1890/05-0386
Mohd-Azlan, J., A. Zubaid
& T.H. Kunz (2001). Distribution, relative abundance and conservation status of large
flying fox, Pteropus vampyrus in Peninsular Malaysia: A
preliminary assessment. Acta Chiropterologica
3(2): 149–162.
Mohd-Azlan, J. & M.F. Fauzi (2006). Ethnozoological survey in selected areas in
Sarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal. LXII(83): 185–200.
Mildenstein, T., I. Tanshi
& P.A. Racey (2016). Exploitation of bats for
bushmeat and medicine, pp. 325–375. In: Voigt, C.C. & T. Kingston (eds). Bats in the Anthropocene: Conservation of Bats in
a Changing World. SpringerOpen. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25220-9_12
Nuno, A.
& F.A. St John (2015). How to ask sensitive questions in conservation: A review of specialized
questioning techniques. Biological Conservation 189: 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.09.047
Oleksy, R.Z., C.L. Ayady,
V. Tatayah, C. Jones, J.S.P. Froidevaux,
P.A. Racey & G. Jones (2018). The impact of the endangered
Mauritian flying fox Pteropus niger on commercial fruit farms and the efficacy of
mitigation. Oryx 55(1): 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605318001138
Pennisi, L.A., S.M. Holland & T.V.
Stein (2004). Achieving
Bat Conservation Through Tourism. Journal of Ecotourism 3(3): 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200508668432
PERHILITAN
(2017). Red List
of Mammals for Peninsular Malaysia. Version 2.0. Department of Wildlife and
National Parks Peninsular Malaysia (PERHILITAN), Kuala Lumpur, 206 pp.
Raharimihaja, T.E.A., J.L.M. Rakotoarison, P.A. Racey &
R.A. Andrianaivoarivelo (2016). A comparison of the
effectiveness of methods of deterring pteropodid bats from feeding on
commercial fruit in Madagascar. Journal of Threatened Taxa 8(13):
9512–9524. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.2688.8.13.9512-9524
Rocha, R.,
S.A. Aziz, C.E. Brook, W.D. Carvalho,R. Cooper-Bohannon, W.F. Frick, J.C.-C. Huang, T. Kingston, A.L. López-Baucells, B. Maas, F. Mathews, R.A. Medellin, K.J. Olival, A.J. Peel, R.K. Plowright, O. Razgour,
H. Rebelo, L. Rodrigues, S.J. Rossiter, D. Russo,
T.M. Straka, E.C. Teeling,
T. Treuer, C.C. Voigt & P. Webala
(2020). Bat
conservation and zoonotic disease risk: a research agenda to prevent misguided
persecution in the aftermath of COVID-19. Animal Conservation 24(3):
303–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12636
Rocha, R., A.
López-Baucells & Á. Fernández-Llamazares
(2021). Ethnobiology
of Bats: Exploring Human-Bat Inter-Relationships in a Rapidly Changing World. Journal
of Ethnobiology 41(1): 3–17. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.1.3
Sheherazade & S.M. Tsang (2015). Quantifying the bat bushmeat
trade in North Sulawesi, Indonesia, with suggestions for conservation
action. Global Ecology and Conservation 3: 324–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2015.01.003
Sheherazade, H.K. Ober & S.M. Tsang
(2019).
Contributions of bats to the local economy through durian pollination in
Sulawesi, Indonesia. Biotropica 51(6):
913-922. https://doi.org/10.1111/btp.12712
St. John,
F.A., M. Linkie, D.J. Martyr, B. Milliyanawati,
J.E. McKay, F.M. Mangunjaya, N. Leader-Williams &
M.J. Struebig (2018). Intention to kill: Tolerance and
illegal persecution of Sumatran tigers and sympatric species. Conservation
Letters 11(4): p.e12451. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12451
Struebig, M.J., M.E. Harrison, S.M.
Cheyne & S.H. Limin (2007). Intensive hunting of large
flying foxes Pteropus vampyrus
natunae in Central Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo. Oryx 41(3):
390–393. https://doi/org/10.1017/S0030605307000310
Tait, J.,
H.L. Perotto-Baldivieso, A. McKeown & D.A.
Westcott (2014). Are
flying-foxes coming to town? Urbanisation of the
spectacled flying-fox (Pteropus conspicillatus) in Australia. PloS
One 9: e109810. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0109810
Tanalgo, K.C., R.D. Teves,
F.R.P. Salvaña, R.E. Baleva
& J.A.G. Tabora (2016). Human-bat interactions in caves
of South Central Mindanao, Philippines. Wildlife Biology in Practice
12(1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2461/wbp.2016.12.2
Tanalgo, K. & A.C. Hughes (2021). The potential of bat-watching
tourism in raising public awareness towards bat conservation in the
Philippines. Environmental Challenges 4: 100140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2021.100140
Tollington, S., Z. Kareemun,
A. Augustin, K. Lallchand, V. Tatayah,
V. & A. Zimmermann (2019). Quantifying the damage caused by fruit bats to
backyard lychee trees in Mauritius and evaluating the benefits of protective
netting. PLOS ONE 14: e0220955. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220955
Zajonc, R.B. (2001). Mere Exposure: A Gateway to the
Subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences 10(6): 224–228.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00154
Zhao, H. (2020). COVID-19 drives new threat to bats in China. Science 367(6485):
1436–1436. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb3088
Supplementary
Table 1. ‘Flying Fox’ in local Sarawakian languages.
|
Ethnic
group |
Local
names for flying foxes |
|
Iban |
Entambah/Semawak |
|
Malay |
Keluang |
|
Salako |
Ka'uangk |
|
Bidayuh |
Jingawat |
|
Melanau |
Keluang/Nawai |
Supplementary
Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents in the study area,
western Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo.
|
Characteristics |
Number
of Respondents |
% |
|
Gender |
|
|
|
Male |
83 |
68 |
|
Female |
40 |
32 |
|
Age
range |
|
|
|
<21 |
1 |
1 |
|
22-34 |
10 |
8 |
|
35-44 |
19 |
15 |
|
45-54 |
40 |
33 |
|
≥55 |
53 |
43 |
|
Religion |
|
|
|
Christian |
74 |
60 |
|
Muslim |
37 |
30 |
|
Buddhist |
5 |
4 |
|
Atheist |
4 |
3 |
|
Taoist |
1 |
1 |
|
Bahai |
2 |
2 |
|
Ethnicity |
|
|
|
Iban |
62 |
50 |
|
Malay |
26 |
21 |
|
Chinese |
7 |
6 |
|
Bidayuh |
8 |
7 |
|
Selako |
13 |
11 |
|
Melanau |
7 |
6 |
|
Others |
1 |
1 |
|
Working
Sector |
|
|
|
Unemployed |
26 |
21 |
|
Self-employed |
75 |
61 |
|
Employed in
the government sector |
7 |
6 |
|
Employed in
the private sector |
15 |
12 |
|
Income
|
|
|
|
<RM999 |
85 |
69 |
|
RM1000-2499 |
32 |
26 |
|
RM2500-3500 |
4 |
3 |
|
>RM10000 |
2 |
2 |
|
Residency
Area |
|
|
|
City |
1 |
1 |
|
Town |
16 |
13 |
|
Rural |
106 |
86 |
|
Education |
|
|
|
No formal
education |
34 |
28 |
|
Primary
school |
33 |
27 |
|
Secondary
school |
46 |
37 |
|
Post-school
skill certificate |
5 |
4 |
|
Pre-university
foundation course |
2 |
2 |
|
Diploma |
3 |
2 |
Supplementary
Table 3. P. vampyrus hunting activities in the
study area, western Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo.
|
Details |
Number
of Respondents |
% |
|
Hunting
experience |
|
|
|
Have more
than a year of experience |
24 |
100 |
|
Number
of hunters in a group |
|
|
|
1-3
person/s |
10 |
42 |
|
3-6 people |
10 |
42 |
|
6-9 people |
2 |
8 |
|
9-12 people |
1 |
4 |
|
>12 |
1 |
4 |
|
Time
of the hunt |
|
|
|
0600hrs-0900hrs |
2 |
8 |
|
1800hrs-2100hrs |
8 |
34 |
|
2100hrs-0000hrs |
12 |
50 |
|
0000hrs-0300hrs |
1 |
4 |
|
0300hrs-0600hrs |
1 |
4 |
|
Hunting
area |
|
|
|
Swamp area |
1 |
4 |
|
Forest edge |
5 |
21 |
|
Fruit
orchard |
18 |
75 |
|
Transportation |
|
|
|
Car |
1 |
4 |
|
Motorcycle |
7 |
29 |
|
On foot |
16 |
67 |
|
Hunting
Method |
|
|
|
Net
techniques |
6 |
25 |
|
Shot gun |
11 |
46 |
|
Traditional
methods |
7 |
29 |
|
Cost
of hunting tools |
|
|
|
<MYR 50 |
16 |
67 |
|
MYR 51-100 |
5 |
21 |
|
MYR 101-300 |
3 |
12 |
|
Average
number of individual bats caught |
|
|
|
≤10 |
16 |
67 |
|
11-20 |
6 |
25 |
|
21-40 |
2 |
8 |
|
Hunting
purpose |
|
|
|
Food |
13 |
54 |
|
Pest |
9 |
38 |
|
Source of
income |
2 |
8 |