Put up signs to warn people about not feeding primates

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

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

30%
Certainty

10%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

The consumption of human food wastes or the feeding by tourists of primates can result in their dependency on the human provided food, their habituation to human contact, increased intra and inter-species aggression, and various health implications arising from artificial food sources causing injury and disease (Orams 2002). This intervention aims to reduce the negative impact of consumption of human food wastes by primates, by installing signage to warn people about not feeding primates.

The implementation and enforcement of ‘no-feeding’ policies is discussed under ‘Implement a ‘no-feeding of wild primates’ policy’. 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 review in Japan found that aggressive interactions between Japanese macaques and humans declined after prohibiting tourists from feeding of monkeys.

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 review in 2010 at multiple sites in Japan found that aggressive interractions between free-ranging Japanese macaques Macaca fuscata and humans decreased after food provision by tourists was prohibited and the message was clearly transmitted. After decades of primate feeding by tourists, the practice was banned and the number of aggressive incidents of macaques on people decreased at multiple sites as well as the macaque road collisions at sites where tourists used to feed monkeys from the cars (no data included). The distance to tourists also increased after the ban (no data provided). No statistical tests were carried out to determine whether these differences were significant. The shop used by tourists to buy food for macaques at Takasakiyama Nature Zoo was closed in 1993 and the feeding of primates was prohibited and advertised using signs and direct advice by rangers during educational talks. In 1952-1972 food provisioning took place at 41 free-ranging monkey parks to attract tourists and reduce crop damage but resulted in rapidly increasing populations, crop and forest damage and the need to control macaques. Food provisioning by tourists was prohibited in the 1990s.
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
Put up signs to warn people about not feeding primates Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Resettle illegal human communities (i.e. in a protected area) to another location Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Restrict the number of people that are allowed access to site Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link