Implement a ‘no-feeding of wild primates’ policy

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

40%
Certainty

20%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

The deliberate and long-term provision of food to wildlife by people, e.g. tourists, or for attracting tourists, can have a variety of negative impacts. For example, it can alter natural behavioural patterns and wildlife population levels, has resulted in the dependency of animals on the human provided food and their habituation to human contact, has increased intra and inter-species aggression, and has various health implications arising from artificial food sources causing injury and disease (Orams 2002). This intervention involves enforcing a ‘no-feeding of wild primates’ policy to prohibit the provision of food to primates.

The use of signage to warn people not to feed primates is discussed under ‘Put up signs to warn people about not feeding primates’. The use of garbage bins inaccessible to primates is discussed under ‘Install ‘primate-proof’ garbage bins’. Prohibiting people from consuming food in natural primate habitat is discussed under ‘Do not allow people to consume food within natural areas where primates can view them’.

Orams M.B. (2002) Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction: a review of issues and impacts. Tourism Management, 23, 281–293.

Study locations

Key messages

One controlled, before-and-after study in Japan found that several previously increasing Japanese macaque populations declined in size and productivity after limiting and then prohibiting food provisioning.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A controlled before-and-after study in 1950-2010 at multiple sites in Japan found that Japanese macaques Macaca fuscata were rapidly increasing in population size, conflict rate with farmers and forest damage at food-provisioned sites compared to non-provisioned sites, but reducing feeding resulted in lower productivity, population decreases, less crop-raiding and forest damage in the long term. The Takasakiyama population increased from 166 macaques in 1950, before food provisioning, to over 2000 in 1990, but then declined by almost 50% by 2011 after food provisioning was progressively reduced in 1973-1989 and then stopped (data in graphs). Reducing provisioning resulted initially in higher crop damage (data not provided). Birth rate was higher in sites with food provisioning (0.49-0.54 births/female/year) than in non-provisioned sites (0.27-0.35) but productivity declined after provisioning was limited and annual population growth reduced from 13% in 1952-1962 to 4% in 1965-1970, 3% in 1970-1980, 1.1% in 1980-1990 and -0.65% in 1990-2000. In 1952-1972 food provisioning took place at 41 free-ranging monkey parks to attract tourists and reduce crop damage; 30 naturally occurring populations and 11 sites with translocated ‘problem’ macaques. Provisioned foods (sweet potato, wheat, soybean and peanuts) were far more energy-rich than natural macaque food. Food provisioning by staff was reduced since 1965 and food provisioning by visitors was prohibited in 1993 at Takasakiyama.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Kurita H. (2014) Provisioning and tourism in free-ranging Japanese macaques . Pages 44-56 in: Primate tourism: A tool for conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Please cite as:

Junker, J., Kühl, H.S., Orth, L., Smith, R.K., Petrovan, S.O. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Primate Conservation. Pages 431-482 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Primate Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Do not allow people to consume food within natural areas where primates can view them Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Remove/treat external/internal parasites to increase reproductive success/survival Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	9	Synopsis Link
Resettle illegal human communities (i.e. in a protected area) to another location Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link