Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 February 2025 | 17(2): 26443–26458
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)
| ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9473.17.2.26443-26458
#9473 | Received 31
October 2024 | Final received 30 December 2024 | Finally accepted 01 February
2025
Culture and
provisioning: the case of Human-Long-tailed Macaque Macaca
fascicularis (Raffles, 1821) interactions in Sumile, Butuan City, Philippines
Fritche H. Lapore 1, Debbie S. Aseňas
2 & Sherryl L. Paz 3
1,2,3 College of Forestry
and Environmental Sciences, Caraga State
University-Main Campus, Ampayon, Butuan City,
Philippines.
1 fritchefaith@gmail.com,
2 asenasdebbie@gmail.com, 3 slpaz@carsu.edu.ph (corresponding
author)
Editor: Joseph Erinjery,
Kannur University, Wayanad, India. Date of publication: 26 February
2025 (online & print)
Citation: Lapore, F.H., D.S. Aseňas
& S.L. Paz (2025). Culture
and provisioning: the case of Human-Long-tailed Macaque Macaca
fascicularis (Raffles, 1821) interactions in Sumile, Butuan City, Philippines. Journal of Threatened Taxa 17(2): 26443–26458. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9473.17.2.26443-26458
Copyright: © Lapore et al. 2025. 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: None.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Fritche H. Lapore has just graduated BS in Environmental Science from Caraga State University. She is currently working in Mt. Apo Protected Natural Park, Protected Area Management Office as a Carrying Capacity Analyst.
Her research interests are human-wildlife conflict studies and natural resources management.
Debbie Aseňas has just graduated BS in Environmental Science from Caraga State University. She is currently looking for a job. Her research interests are human-wildlife conflict studies and environmental planning and management. Dr. Sherryl L. Paz is a professor in the College of Forestry and Environmental Science of Caraga State University. She graduated PhD in Environmental Science from the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB).
Her research interests include human-wildlife conflict, terrestrial wildlife conservation, and terrestrial wildlife ecology.
Author contributions: FHL, DSA & SLP conceptualized & designed the research, wrote the paper, reviewed, edited, and approved the submission of the final paper.
FHL & DSA performed the surveys and field work activities and analysed the data.
Filipino abstract: See end of this article.
Acknowledgements: We express our gratitude to the local government officials of Sumile who allowed us to conduct the surveys in their communities.
We are also grateful for the assistance and significant information from the Elijan Park caretakers and the local government head. Most of all, we highly appreciated the contribution of the mentors and the advisory committee of Fritche H. Lapore and Debbie S. Aseňas as this paper is part of their undergraduate thesis.
Abstract: Understanding
human-macaque interactions is crucial for species conservation and management.
Hence, this study investigated the Human-Long-tailed Macaque Macaca
fascicularis (Raffles 1821) interactions in Sumile, Butuan City from July 2022 to April 2023 through
one-on-one interviews. A total of 271 randomly selected respondents were
surveyed to determine their demographic and socioeconomic profiles. Their
knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of human-macaque interactions such as provisioning,
regulation measures, and associated factors were also determined. Most of them
were aware of the cultural importance of macaques (86.35%). The majority were
not aware of the ecological (73.43%) and socioeconomic importance of macaques
(52.03%), as well as RA 9147 or Wildlife Act (61.26%). Most residents
provisioned macaques (99.26%). Macaque behaviors were household food foraging
(94.84%), crop foraging (31.78%), trash consumption (69.37%), and trash
dropping (30.63%). Most residents did nothing to food foraging in households
(53.51%) or crop foraging (58.30%) while some resorted to throwing hard
objects, hand clapping, or dog chasing. Educational attainment was the most
common factor significantly associated with residents’ knowledge. Length of residency and educational
attainment were significantly associated with provisioning frequency while
length of residency and occupation were associated with the prohibition of
provisioning to avoid negative human-macaque interaction. This study implies that
cultural factors influence rampant macaque provisioning. If uncontrolled,
provisioning may lead to economic and health losses and negative attitudes
toward macaques and conservation efforts. The top three human-macaque
regulation measures suggested by most residents were government action,
effective waste disposal, and increasing the food base in the forest.
Researchers further recommend local conservation area establishment;
culture-sensitive and controlled provisioning; and community-based conservation.
This also entails educating the public on the adverse impacts of uncontrolled
provisioning. Furthermore, periodic monitoring of macaque populations and
conservation management strategies that balance ecological, socio-economic, and
cultural considerations for human-macaque co-existence is necessary.
Keywords: Conservation, crop
foraging, cultural belief, Elijan Park, foraging
behavior, local communities, management, monkey feeding, perceptions,
regulation measures.
INTRODUCTION
Long-tailed Macaques Macaca fascicularis
(Raffles, 1821) are found across southeastern Asia (Eudey
et al. 2020) and are now classified as ‘Endangered’ due to habitat destruction
and exploitation (Hansen et al. 2022). One of the 10 subspecies of M. fascicularis is found in the Philippines, which is M.
fascicularis philippinensis
(Grunstra et al. 2023), specifically known as the
Philippine Long-tailed Macaque. Macaques often share space and food with humans
which is an important aspect of the human-primate interface (Fuentes et al.
2007). The adaptability, flexibility, and synanthropic
nature of Long-tailed Macaques enable them to inhabit diverse habitats
including anthropogenic areas (Gumert et al. 2011),
and consume various foods including human food (Sha & Hanya
2013). The macaque’s adaptability to human-modified landscapes, their
crop-foraging behavior, and the complex cultural and religious associations
have made them particularly challenging for wildlife managers. The Long-tailed
Macaques are often subject to culling despite being recently elevated to
Endangered status on the IUCN Red list due to negative human-macaque
interactions (Gamalo et al. 2023). The endemic Toque
Macaque Macaca sinica
in Sri Lanka is considered both endangered and nuisance species in certain
habitats due to increased interactions with humans and crop foraging (Jayapali et al. 2023). In Nepal, negative Human-Rhesus
Macaques Macaca mulatta
interactions resulted from expanding monocultures, forest fragmentation, and
habitat degradation (Koirala et al. 2021).
Long-tailed Macaques
are frequently observed in roadsides, temples, towns, tourist sites, and
agricultural areas (Muroyama & Eudey 2004; Lee & Priston
2005; Gumert et al. 2011). In these human-dominated
areas, macaques are often provisioned by humans. Multiple factors contribute to
macaque provisioning. Sengupta & Radhakrishna (2018) found that human
attitudes significantly influence the degree of human-primate interaction.
Their study highlighted the cyclical pattern where macaques are attracted to
areas with food provided by humans, who in turn are motivated to feed them due
to their behavior. Research in China and India showed that macaque provisioning
was mainly due to concerns about wildlife food scarcity, desire for close
observation, cultural factors, and religious beliefs (Zhao 2005; Sengupta &
Radhakrishna 2018, 2020).
Macaque provisioning
is prevalent in anthropogenic areas of the Philippines, including parks and
human settlements adjacent to forests. Food provisioning was observed to be
common in Puerto Princesa Subterranean River National
Park in Palawan (Gamalo et al. 2019), and Subic Bay.
In Butuan City, particularly in Barangay Sumile, food
provisioning for the Philippine Long-tailed Macaques is frequently observed.
These macaques inhabit Elijan Park in proximity to
human settlement. Elijan Park is governed by a
quasi-religious organization, the Knights of Rizal Agricultural Endeavor
Foundation Incorporated (KRAEFI), and was established
by tribal chieftain or Datu Santiago B. Ecleo, Sr. (Dominador Paglinawan pers. comm.
20.i.2022). The majority of residents in Sumile are
affiliated with the KRAEFI organization. Most residents perceived macaque
provisioning as an act of benevolence. KRAEFI members typically provide corn,
bananas, and other human food items to macaques inside and outside the park boundaries. Elijan Park
caretakers were also observed permitting tourists to provision the macaques.
Food provisioning can
aid macaque survival (Kurita 2014). Macaques may consume human food during
periods of natural food shortages to supplement their diet (McKinney 2010)
which could similarly benefit macaques in Sumile
during a food crisis. Food provisioning
may also have negative consequences such as the attenuation of macaque natural
survival instinct (Dubois & Fraser 2013), increased risks of human-macaque
infectious disease transmission (Chapman et al. 2005), restriction of
ecological functions, e.g., seed dispersal capabilities (Sengupta 2015),
alterations in habitat use (Sengupta & Radhakrishna 2018), changes in
macaque behavior (Hsu & Kao 2009) and abrupt increase in reproduction and
population size (Sengupta & Radhakrishna 2020).
Macaques adapt to
provisioning, and subsequently exhibit a preference for and actively seek
human-provided food (Lee & Priston 2005). This
often leads to an overabundance of macaques in human settlements, resulting in
negative human-macaque interaction (Sengupta & Radhakrishna 2020) such as
foraging in kitchens or refuse containers (Unwin & Smith 2010) and
consuming crops (Agyei et al. 2019; Li & von Essen 2021). Crop and refuse
foraging are linked to food provisioning issues in Puerto Princesa
Subterranean River National Park, Palawan (Gamalo et
al. 2019). Similarly, in Sumile, macaques forage in
households, nearby farms, and refuse disposal sites. These are perceived as a
consequence of macaque adaptation to provisioning.
Without regulation,
provisioning in Sumile could lead to an overabundance
of macaques and negative human-macaque interactions, fostering negative
perceptions among residents (Muroyama & Eudey 2004; Matheson et al. 2006; Kuswanda
& Hutapea 2023), and hindering conservation
efforts. Identifying sociocultural predictors of human-macaque interactions is
crucial for developing adaptive conservation plans for Long-tailed Macaques in Sumile (Humle & Hill 2016).
Education programs, targeted behavior management, and consideration of cultural
contexts are crucial components of such plans.
Therefore, the study
aimed to assess the socioeconomic and cultural background of the respondents;
knowledge of macaque significance and relevant legislation; perceptions and
attitudes toward macaque provisioning and other human-macaque interactions,
management measures, and conservation strategies; and associated socio-economic
factors. This research aimed to prove if all Sumile
residents engaged in provisioning and whether educational attainment, length of
residency, and income negatively correlated with the provisioning frequency and
positively correlated with its prohibition as a management measure alongside
cultural factors. Studies like this are
important, particularly in areas where sociocultural factors play a complex and
important role in shaping human-macaque interactions. According to Priston & Mclennan (2012) and
Dacks et al. (2019), it is essential to incorporate sociocultural
indicators, alongside ecological ones for developing holistic conservation
strategies in human-dominated landscapes where macaques reside. The findings
will furnish critical information to aid policymakers in developing adaptive
management measures and conservation interventions that respect cultural and
socio-economic values. This research can guide information, education, and
communication initiatives in Sumile, particularly
concerning the ecological significance of macaques, protective laws, specific
threats, and the importance of human-macaque co-existence. Additionally, it
will provide baseline data for future studies on human-macaque interactions and
related primate behavior.
METHODS
Study site
Sumile is located
in Butuan City, Agusan del Norte, Mindanao Island,
Philippines, at 8.826°N, 125.626°E with an elevation of 116.3 m (381.6
ft) (Image 2). It was declared as “barangay” on 30 May 30
1986, under Ordinance No. 450–85. It has a population of 2,271, which comprises
0.64% of Butuan’s total population. Its population has increased by 585
individuals from 1,814 in 1990 to 2,399 in 2020.
One subspecies, Macaca
fascicularis philippensis (Grunstra et al. 2023) is endemic to the Philippine
archipelago and also inhabits Sumile, Butuan City,
particularly in Elijan Park, known as the KRAEFI-Sumile Botanical & Zoological Garden (Image 1). Elijan Park is named after the first settlers in the area “Elijan” — individuals residing near the site since the
1960s (Dominador Paglinawan
pers. comm. 20.i.2022). The macaque population is estimated at approximately
500 and is divided into three troops according to park caretakers. The Knights
of Rizal Agricultural Endeavor Foundation, Inc. (KRAEFI) organization currently
manages Elijan Park (Dominador
Paglinawan pers. comm. 20.i.2022). Numerous tourists
visit Elijan Park primarily due to the presence of
macaques. The tourists do not pay entrance fees as the local government still
complies with the necessary documents to officially designate the park as
tourism destination (Dominador Paglinawan
pers. comm. 20.i.2022).
Elijan Park was part of the extensive forest in Sumile during the 1970s (Dominador
Paglinawan pers. comm. 20.i.2022). This park consists
of primary and secondary forests with 28 species. The botanical garden is
dominated by Gmelina arborea,
followed by Swietenia macrophylla, Artocarpus blancoi,
and Shorea contorta
(Glenn Mary Daulat in litt.
20 June 2022). In 2016, the DENR-Caraga also
established a dipterocarp (White Lauan) plantation in
the area. Sumile has 10 Puroks.
Puroks 1,2, & 3, being the closest to Elijan Park, were selected for this research.
Study design,
questionnaire, and research ethics
The researchers
secured research authorization from Sumile Local
Government, KRAEFI, and the City Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO-Butuan) prior to initiating the study. A preliminary site
visit was conducted for area familiarization, followed by a pilot test of the
questionnaire with 15 respondents to gather feedback for revisions. The
questions underwent review and validation by subject matter experts.
Subsequently, the actual surveys were conducted in three Puroks
(Purok 1,2 & 3) of Barangay Sumile, involving 271
randomly selected respondents: 82 in Purok 1, 96 in Purok 2, and 93 in Purok 3.
Although the questionnaire was in English, it was translated into Visayan.
During one-on-one interviews, respondents provided socio-demographic and
economic information (first part of the questionnaire), including gender, civil
status, age, length of residency, religion, ethnicity, household size,
education, KRAEFI membership, occupation, and income (Appendix 1). The second
part of the questionnaire assessed knowledge of macaque importance and
conservation legislation and examined perceptions and attitudes toward
provisioning, other human-macaque interactions, management, and conservation
measures.
Data analysis
Data were organized,
coded, and analyzed utilizing descriptive and inferential statistics from jamovi version 2.3.28. Frequencies and percentages were
calculated. The results are subsequently presented using tables, graphs, and
qualitative descriptions. The chi-square test of association was
used to determine the socioeconomic factors linked to knowledge (RA 9147 and
importance of macaques — ecological, socio-economic, and cultural), attitudes
(provisioning frequency, and deterrent actions to household food and crop
foraging), and perceptions (potential management strategies such as the
prohibition of provisioning, translocation, and dog patrolling) of the
respondents. All reported statistical tests were conducted at a 95% confidence
level.
RESULTS
Demographic and
socio-economic profile of respondents
The majority of
respondents were female (79.34%, n = 215) (Table 1) and married (80.07%, n =
217). The predominant age group was 26–45 years old (53%, n = 143), while the
least represented age range was over 66 years (2%, n = 7). More than half of
the participants had resided in the area for 16–35 years (57.94%, n = 157). Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI) was the dominant
religious affiliation (83.13%, n = 225). Regarding ethnicity, only two
respondents were indigenous: Higaonon (0.74%). The
majority of the respondents were Bisaya (48.34%,
n=131). Most households had 1–5 members (56.45%, n = 153). Nearly half of the
respondents had attained Junior High School education without completion
(44.28%, n = 120). In terms of organization affiliation, 87.82% of the
respondents (n = 238) were members of the KRAEFI.
Nine occupations were
identified in this study (Table 2), with housewives being the largest
occupational group (60.53%, n = 164). The majority of respondents (83.76%, n =
227) had only one employed family member, and more than half of the respondents
had no supplementary income sources (60.53%, n = 164). A small proportion of
the remaining respondents earned from businesses (sari-sari store,
ready-to-wear store, manicure/pedicure services) (3.69%, n = 10) and employment
as government employees (8.49%, n = 18). The monthly income for most
respondents (83.76%, n = 227) ranged from PHP1,000 to PHP5,000 per month. The primary sustenance came from farm produce
such as vegetables, fruits, and root crops.
Knowledge of
respondents: macaque importance and related legislation
Approximately 26.57%
(n = 72) of respondents considered macaques ecologically significant, while the
majority (73.43%, n = 199) did not (Figure 1). Of those recognizing the
ecological importance of macaques, 15.87% (n = 43) identified them as seed
dispersers aiding tropical forest diversity. A few respondents (2.21%, n = 6)
recognized macaques as important in maintaining forest balance while 1.11% (n =
3) linked them to preserving forest diversity.
Most respondents
(52.03%, n = 141) did not recognize macaques as socioeconomically important,
whereas 47.97% (n = 130) did, primarily in relation to tourism. These
respondents believed macaques could significantly boost Sumile’s
tourism revenue. Although Elijan Park has no
mandatory entrance fee, visitors can make voluntary donations that can be
utilized for park maintenance and community support. Majority of the
respondents (86.35%; n = 234) regarded macaques as culturally important. Half
of the respondents (51.29%, n = 139) viewed macaques as symbols of unity while
27.68% (n = 75) considered macaques sacred, and 7.38% (n = 20) believed that
mistreating them could lead to negative karmic consequences.
More than half of the
respondents (61.26%; n = 166) were unaware of the Wildlife Resources
Conservation and Protection Act or Republic Act No. 9147, while 38.38% of the
respondents (n = 104) were familiar with it. Among those aware of RA 9147,
17.71% (n = 48) identified it as wildlife protection legislation. Twenty-five
respondents (9.23%) specifically mentioned macaque protection. Twenty-one
respondents (7.75%) referred to it as providing wildlife handling guidelines,
and 11 respondents (4.06%) recognized its role in wildlife conservation.
A chi-square test was employed to examine the
association between socioeconomic factors and knowledge of macaque importance
and RA 9147, with results in Table 3.
There was a significant association between age (X2 = 31.0, p
= 0.011) and the knowledge of macaques’ ecological importance. Educational
attainment (X2 = 30.0, p <0.01), income (X2 = 13.2, p
= 0.021), and occupation (X2 = 46.6, p <0.01) were also
significantly associated with this knowledge. Younger residents (18–45 years
old), individuals with higher educational attainment, and those with higher
monthly incomes were more likely to know the ecological significance of
macaques. Local government officials and educators exhibited a higher level of
knowledge concerning this information.
Significant associations with length of residency (X2
= 14, p = 0.007), education (X2 = 30.8, p <0.01), income (X2
= 18.5, p = 0.002), and occupation (X2 = 46.6, p <0.001) were
also observed when respondents were asked about their knowledge of the
socio-economic importance of macaques. Long-term residents, individuals who
attained higher educational levels, and those with higher monthly incomes were
more likely to be knowledgeable about the socioeconomic importance of macaques.
Similarly, local government officials, teachers, and students were more likely
to be knowledgeable about this information.
Additionally, the
length of stay (X2 = 17.2, p = 0.002) and education (X2 =
25.2, p <0.001) were significantly linked to knowledge of macaque’s cultural
importance. Long-term residents and individuals who attained higher educational
levels demonstrated greater knowledge regarding the cultural significance of
macaques. Age (X2 = 31.0, p <0.01), length of residency in the
village (X2 = 20.4, p <0.01), educational attainment (X2
= 44.6, p <0.01), income (X2 = 26.3, p <0.01) and occupation
(X2 = 50.6, p <0.01) were significantly associated with knowledge
of RA 9147. Individuals who were younger had a shorter-term residency,
possessed higher educational attainment, and reported higher incomes
demonstrated greater knowledge of RA 9147. Additionally, educators and students
exhibited a higher level of familiarity with this legislation.
Perceptions and
attitudes of respondents toward human-macaque interactions and management
Macaque provisioning
Nearly all
respondents (99.26%, n = 269) engaged in macaque provisioning, while only two
(0.74%) abstained due to perceived harm to macaques. A significant proportion
of the respondents (71.59%, n = 194) provisioned macaques out of respect,
18.08% (n = 49) regarded macaque provisioning as a cultural practice, and 9.59%
(n = 26) participated in macaque provisioning out of concern for macaque
survival. Conversely, one respondent (0.36%) avoided provisioning to encourage
natural foraging, and another respondent (0.36%) believed that provisioning
does not provide macaques with a natural diet.
The five primary food
items frequently provided to macaques in Sumile were
Bananas Musa acuminata, Sweet Potatoes Ipomoea
batatas, Corn Zea mays, Taro Colocasia esculenta, and biscuits. Bananas
were the most common (35.42%, n = 96), followed by Sweet Potatoes (18.08%, n =
49), Corn (17.71%, n = 48), biscuits (17.71%, n = 48), and Taro (11.44%, n =
31). Additional foods included bread, vegetables (e.g., squash, eggplants, vegetable
pear), root crops (cassava, other taro species, gabi,
and ube), and fruits (cacao and jackfruit). Some
respondents shared portions of their crop harvests with macaques.
More than half of the
respondents 65.68% (n = 178) engaged in macaque provisioning during “community
service” time in Elijan Park. Others (22.88%, n = 62)
provisioned macaques upon encountering them within the village, during the
recreational visits to Elijan Park (10.70%. n = 29), or deliberately
prepared food for them (0.71%, n = 2). The majority of the respondents (60.15%,
n = 163) provisioned macaques sometimes, while 38.38% (n = 104) always did, and
1.48% (n = 4) seldom provisioned macaques.
There was a
significant association between age (X2 = 25.2, p <0.001) and
frequency of macaque provisioning. Other factors significantly associated
included length of residency (X2 = 42.3, p <0.001), education (X2
= 73.6, p <0.001), and income (X2 = 24.6, p = 0.006) (Table 3).
Individuals aged 25–45 years, long-term residents, those with lower educational
attainment, and those with higher monthly incomes exhibited increased
provisioning frequency.
Other human-macaque
interactions
Macaque behaviors in Sumile included crop foraging (31.78%), household food
foraging (94.84%), trash foraging (69.37%), and trash dropping (30.63%) (Figure
2). Macaques were observed foraging most of their crops including Gabi Xanthosoma sagittifolium,
Corn, Coconuts Cocos nucifera, Sweet Potatoes, Peanuts Arachis hypogaea, Chayotes Sechium edule, Bananas Musa spp., Cassava Manihot esculenta, and Eggplant Solanum melongena. All respondents (100%, n = 271) reported
that macaques did not take non-food items from their households, and only one
reported a monkey attack in 2013 near a stream in Sumile.
Most respondents did
not intervene when macaques foraged household food (53.51%) and their crops
(58.30%, n = 158). Deterrent actions in response to household food foraging
included throwing hard objects e.g. slippers or stones (34.97%) and using a dog
(11.44%) (Figure 3). Actions taken to deter crop foraging included throwing
hard objects e.g. slippers or stones (30.62%), hand clapping (6.64%), and dog
chasing (6.64%). Other preventive measures also involved closing doors and
windows and installing nettings and fences.
Chi-square tests
showed that age (X2 = 25.5, p <0.001), length of residency (X2
= 36, p <0.001), education (X2 = 80.7, p <0.001), income (X2
= 38.1, p=0.004), and occupation (X2 = 45.7, p <0.001) were
significantly associated with deterrent actions on household food foraging
(Table 3). Younger residents (18–45 years old), long-term residents,
respondents with college-level education, and those with higher incomes were
more likely to ignore household food foraging. In contrast, older respondents
(46–65 years old), short-term residents, individuals with lower educational
attainment, and those with lower incomes demonstrated positive responses to
throwing objects and allowing dogs to chase the macaques. Local government
officials and teachers were more likely to disregard the food-foraging
macaques, while students were more likely to throw objects and allow dogs to
chase the macaques.
Similarly, for crop
foraging deterrence, significant associations were found with age (X2
= 25.2, p <0.001), length of residency (X2 = 25.2, p <0.001),
education (X2 = 25.2, p <0.001), income (X2 = 25.2, p
<0.001) and occupation (X2 = 25.2, p <0.001). Residents aged
26–45 years old, long-term residents (over 36 years), college graduates, and
residents with higher incomes were more likely to ignore crop-foraging
macaques. Older residents (46–65 years old), those with lower education levels,
and those with lower incomes were more likely to throw objects to deter
macaques. Local government officials and teachers were more likely to disregard
crop foraging, while housewives and students were more inclined to throw
objects, use dogs, and hand clapping to deter macaques.
Human-macaque
interaction management measures
All the respondents
(100%) reported absence of management measures for negative human-macaque
interactions in Sumile, allowing macaques to interact
freely with humans. The three most suggested measures (Figure 4) were: (i) Government intervention to address negative
human-macaque interactions (100%), with respondents emphasizing its importance
for both macaques and human welfare. (ii) Effective waste disposal (100%), as
macaques were seen foraging and dropping trash in the village. (iii) Increasing
the food base in the forest (98.89%, n = 268), linked to observed household
food foraging during food scarcity in Elijan Park.
Respondents opposed measures such as sterilization (100%), culling of monkeys
(100%), prohibition of monkey feeding (81.55%), patrolling by dogs (73%), and
translocation (70%) due to cultural reasons.
The length of stay in
the village (X2 = 23.3, p <0.001) and occupation (X2 =
31.3, p <0.001) are significantly associated with the respondents’
perception of prohibiting macaque provisioning as a measure. Short-term
residents, students, housewives, teachers, and local government officials were
less likely to favor the prohibition of macaque provisioning. Perceptions of
macaque translocation as a measure were significantly associated with education
(X2 = 25, p = 0.002), income (X2 = 15.3, p = 0.009), and
occupation (X2 = 41.5, p = 0.012). Residents with lower education
attainment and those with lower incomes were more in favor of translocation.
Students, teachers, local government officials, and housewives were likely not
in favor of translocation. Perceptions of dog patrolling as a management
measure were significantly associated with the length of stay (X2 =
35.3, p <0.001), education (X2 = 25, p = 0.002), income (X2
= 16.7, p = 0.005), and occupation (X2 = 28.7, p <0.001).
Short-term residents, individuals with lower educational attainment, and those
with higher incomes were less likely to favor dog patrolling as a measure.
DISCUSSION
The study indicates
that the majority of Sumile residents engaged in
macaque provisioning which could be attributed to their reverence for macaques,
cultural beliefs, and concern for macaque survival. Most of the respondents
were KRAEFI members who considered macaques sacred, reflecting traditional
reverence for macaques common in southeastern Asia (Nahallage
& Huffman 2013) including the Philippines.
The KRAEFI
organization that governed Elijan Park encouraged
weekly macaque provisioning in the park as “community service”. More than half
of the respondents also mentioned that most of their provisioning activity
occurred during “community service” while others did so opportunistically
around the village. The primary foods used for provisioning were bananas, sweet
potatoes, corn, and biscuits, with some respondents preparing food specifically
for macaques or sharing crop harvests.
This study did not
include tourist interviews. Tourists were observed provisioning macaques when Elijan Park was open to the public, with KRAEFI and
caretakers encouraging this behavior to habituate macaques to human presence
and attract visitors. Frequent provisioning has resulted in the frequent
observation of macaques in Elijan Park and adjacent
communities, demonstrating their synanthropic
behavior and adaptability to human environments and food (Gumert
et al. 2011; Sha & Hanya 2013). Macaques foraging
household food, crops, and refuse highlights their adaptation to human
settlements in Sumile, especially during food
scarcity in Elijan Park. Consistent with Suwannarong et al. (2023), cultural beliefs in Sumile prevented macaque killings, as harming them was
believed to bring misfortune. The act of harming monkeys was perceived to incur
misfortune. Consequently, most residents did not act against household food and
crop foraging, using non-aggressive deterrents like dog chasing, throwing
slippers or wood, and hand clapping.
The fear of spiritual
retribution for killing macaques is the main reason for the taboo against
hunting, trading, and consuming them in Sumile. Most
residents fear spiritual consequences similar to those in Bali, Indonesia, where
harming monkeys is believed to bring misfortune (Peterson & Riley 2017). In
Sumile, locals cited instances of neighbors falling
ill and dying after persecuting macaques. The residents’ reverence for macaques
helps protect the threatened Long-tailed Macaques from exploitation and harm.
The residents’
affection and respect for macaques, demonstrated through provisioning, indicate
a significant human-macaque relationship in Sumile.
Many residents mistakenly view provisioning as a conservation measure, which
may undermine long-term conservation efforts. Unregulated provisioning may lead
to a substantial increase in the macaque population and adverse behavioral
changes (Fa 1981; Newsome & Rodger 2008; Knight 2017; Sengupta &
Radhakrishna 2020; Cui et al. 2021) in areas of sympatry (Dittus
et al. 2019). If unchecked in Sumile, this could
result in negative human-macaque interactions due to the growing macaque
population’s dependence on human food, similar to situations in western
Sumatra, Indonesia (Ilham et al. 2017), and Hainan, China (Cui et al. 2021).
Macaques in the Palawan Subterranean River National Park in the Philippines
also exhibited problematic behaviors linked to widespread food provisioning (Gamalo et al. 2019). In Elijan
Park, macaques displayed intraspecific conflict during provisioning. Despite
prohibitions against harassing monkeys, some tourists disturb and provoke them,
leading to macaque aggression, like Berman & Li’s findings (2002).
Macaque adaptation to
human food can reduce natural feeding and forest habitat use (O-Leary & Fa
1993; Sha & Hanya 2013; Sengupta et al. 2015;
Sengupta & Radhakrishna 2018). Extensive provisioning and culturally
influenced macaque tolerance in Sumile and Elijan Park may increase foraging on household food, crops,
and waste. If unaddressed, these behaviors can escalate, leading to
socio-economic and health issues, fostering hostility, and resulting in
retaliatory actions against macaques. Negative attitudes toward macaques due to
socioeconomic losses (Hill & Webber 2010) can undermine community support
for conservation and human-macaque management, complicating human-wildlife
interactions (Frank et al. 2019).
According to Pontzer (2023), macaques’ dependence on human food and loss
of natural foraging behavior can lead to health issues such as increased body
size, higher stress, and alopecia in males (Maréchal
et al. 2016). Physical contact during provisioning raises mutual disease
transmission risks which is detrimental to macaque health and populations
(Jones-Engel et al. 2005; Muehlenbein & Wallis
2014). For instance, provisioning by tourists and locals in Elijan
Park and Sumile often follows bites, facilitating
disease spread via fluid exchange.
In Sumile, food provisioning also leads to waste consumption
and dispersion. Frequent provisioning habituates macaques to anthropogenic food
sources in refuse areas (Bempah et al. 2021). The
lack of proper waste receptacles exacerbates this behavior, potentially
impacting human and primate health. Waste foraging can attract enteroparasites (Baloria et al.
2022), disease-carrying insects, and rodents, heightening disease transmission
risks. Effective waste management and public awareness about provisioning risks
and proper disposal practices can minimize refuse dispersion and reduce
negative interactions.
The strong
human-macaque connections in Sumile and the potential
adverse effects of uncontrolled provisioning indicate a need to balance
socio-cultural and ecological factors. Completely prohibiting provisioning may
not be an optimal solution, as most residents did not support measures like
prohibition, sterilization, translocation, and dog patrolling for managing
human-macaque interactions. A bottom-up approach involving residents, KRAEFI
leaders, local government officials, and other stakeholders in management
planning is recommended. Decision-making should be culture-sensitive,
participatory, and community-based to develop adaptive strategies for
human-macaque coexistence.
The findings show
that residents’ educational level and occupation were significantly associated
with knowledge of the ecological, socio-economic, and cultural importance of
macaques, as well as RA 9147. More positive responses were seen from
individuals with higher educational attainment, local government officials,
teachers, and students. Education and length of stay in the village were also
significantly linked to provisioning frequency. This underscores the need for
comprehensive education and social media campaigns to raise public awareness of
the ecological and health implications of uncontrolled macaque provisioning. In
addition to local government officials, teachers, and students, it is crucial
to educate local communities, KRAEFI officials, Elijan
Park caretakers, and tourists on the conservation status of Long-tailed
Macaques, their threats, behavior, ecological and socio-economic services, the
importance of natural foraging behavior, conservation laws like RA 9147, and
macaque-friendly management strategies. Engaging local religious leaders to include
conservation messages in religious teachings and promote responsible macaque
interaction is also recommended.
Results indicated
that lower-income residents were more likely to throw objects and let dogs
chase household food and crop-foraging macaques. This suggests that
economically disadvantaged communities who are reliant on subsistence, may use
deterrent tactics against macaques. A study on Buton
Island, Indonesia, showed that lower-income communities employed violent
control methods more frequently than wealthier ones, even when crop raiding was
less severe (Hardwick et al. 2017). Although most Sumile
residents did not act against foraging macaques and only a few used
non-aggressive deterrents, this situation could change. Disadvantaged residents
might develop negative attitudes if unregulated provisioning worsens macaque
foraging behavior, potentially leading to conservation issues. Thus, a holistic
approach combining education, coexistence incentives, macaque-friendly
deterrents, and economic support is necessary. Wildlife managers, local
governments, and communities need to collaborate on context-sensitive solutions
to balance macaque conservation with community well-being (Koirala et al.
2021).
Macaque conservation
should prioritize habitat restoration and natural food provision through
science-based and community-driven establishment of local conservation areas.
Multi-sectoral participation in the planning and implementation of local
conservation areas should be encouraged. Volunteer programs for habitat
restoration, observation, and education may be organized. Government officials
and residents should develop culture-sensitive provisioning regulations
alongside habitat rehabilitation and public education. In extreme cases, like
during a food crisis, controlled provisioning supervised by wildlife
professionals may be necessary. Proper waste management is also crucial to
prevent macaques from consuming food remnants from refuse containers and other
health issues. Instead of a total provisioning ban, a gradual reduction over
time could encourage natural foraging behaviors.
Regular monitoring of
the macaque population in Sumile is crucial to avoid
overestimating their numbers in anthropogenic areas (Kyes
et al. 2011), where they are often mistakenly seen as abundant (Eudey et al. 2020). Comprehensive and extensive research on
macaque behavior, habitat preference, feeding patterns, and reproduction is
needed to understand human-macaque-environment dynamics. One of the limitations
of this study was that females (79.34%) and housewives (60.53%) constituted the
majority of respondents, primarily due to their availability during the
one-on-one interview process, as most of the husbands were at work during
daytime hours. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies incorporate a
balanced representation of male and female respondents. Additional studies on interactions with
tourists in Elijan Park and farmers in the village
will offer insights for managing human-wildlife interactions, coexistence
strategies, and sustainable conservation efforts.
CONCLUSIONS
The research findings
indicate that rampant macaque provisioning in Sumile
is influenced by cultural beliefs. The reverence for Philippine Long-tailed
Macaques may contribute positively to the conservation of this threatened
species. Uncontrolled provisioning in settlements and Elijan
Park may potentially lead to population increase, zoonotic disease
transmission, behavioral changes, and adverse human-macaque interactions,
potentially undermining conservation and coexistence goals. The regulation of
provisioning requires balancing cultural and scientific considerations.
Culturally sensitive, participatory, and science-based planning and management
strategies are recommended to balance the ecological, socioeconomic, and
cultural aspects of human-macaque-environment interactions.
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the
respondents in Sumile, Butuan City.
|
Socio-demographic characteristics |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
Sex |
|
|
|
Female
|
215 |
79.34 |
|
Male
|
56 |
20.66 |
|
Civil status |
|
|
|
Single
|
51 |
18.82 |
|
Married
|
217 |
80.07 |
|
Widowed
|
3 |
1.11 |
|
Age |
|
|
|
18–25 |
59 |
21.77 |
|
26–45 |
143 |
52.77 |
|
46–65 |
62 |
22.88 |
|
66 above |
7 |
2.58 |
|
Length of residency |
|
|
|
1–5 |
8 |
2.95 |
|
6–15 |
34 |
12.54 |
|
16–25 |
74 |
27.31 |
|
26–35 |
83 |
30.63 |
|
36+ |
72 |
26.57 |
|
Religion |
|
|
|
Iglesia Filipina Independiente (IFI) |
225 |
83.03 |
|
Roman Catholic |
37 |
13.65 |
|
Born Again Christian |
9 |
3.32 |
|
Ethnicity |
|
|
|
Higaonon |
2 |
0.74 |
|
Masbatenio |
73 |
26.94 |
|
Leytenio |
11 |
4.05 |
|
Bisaya |
131 |
48.34 |
|
Number of household members |
|
|
|
1–5 |
153 |
56.45 |
|
6–10 |
114 |
42.07 |
|
11–15 |
4 |
1.48 |
|
Educational attainment |
|
|
|
Elementary Undergraduate |
22 |
8.12 |
|
Elementary Graduate |
35 |
12.92 |
|
Junior High School Undergraduate |
120 |
44.28 |
|
Junior High School Graduate |
51 |
18.82 |
|
Senior High School Undergraduate |
1 |
0.37 |
|
Senior High School Graduate |
3 |
1.10 |
|
College Undergraduate |
19 |
7.01 |
|
College Graduate |
19 |
7.01 |
|
Vocational |
1 |
0.37 |
|
KRAEFI membership Non-Member Member |
33 238 |
12.18 87.82 |
Table 2. Socio-economic
characteristics of the respondents in Sumile, Butuan
City.
|
Socio-demographic characteristics |
Frequency |
Percentage |
|
Occupation of respondents |
|
|
|
Housewife
|
164 |
60.53 |
|
Farmer
|
14 |
5.17 |
|
Local government employees |
23 |
8.49 |
|
Teacher |
18 |
6.64 |
|
Engineer
|
2 |
0.74 |
|
Social Worker
|
1 |
0.37 |
|
Information technologist |
1 |
0.37 |
|
Student |
38 |
14.02 |
|
Businessman |
10 |
3.69 |
|
Monthly income |
|
|
|
1,000–5,000 |
227 |
83.76 |
|
5,001–10,000 |
19 |
7.01 |
|
10,001–15,000 15,001–20,000 20,001–25,000 25,001–30,000 |
2
3 17
3 |
0.74 1.11 6.27 1.11 |
Table 3. Factors associated with
the knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of residents towards human-macaque
interactions and management strategies in Sumile,
Butuan City.
|
Variables knowledge |
Age |
Length of residency |
Educational attainment |
Monthly income |
Occupation |
|
RA 9147 |
X2 (3, N = 271) = 31.0, p
<0.01 |
X2 (4, N = 271) = 20.4, p
<0.01 |
X2 (8, N = 271) = 44.6, p
<0.01 |
X2 (5, N = 271) = 26.3, p
<0.01 |
X2 (8, N = 271) = 50.6, p
<0.01 |
|
Ecological importance of macaques |
X2 (3, N = 271) = 11.2, p=0.011. |
X2 (4, N = 271) = 6.03,
p=0.197 |
X2 (8, N = 271) = 30.0, p
<0.01 |
X2 (5, N = 271) = 13.2, p=0.021 |
X2 (8, N = 271) = 46.6, p
<0.01 |
|
Socio-economic importance of macaques |
X2 (3, N = 271) = 5.92,
p=0.153 |
X2 (4, N = 271) = 14, p=0.007 |
X2 (8, N = 271) = 30.8, p
<0.001 |
X2 (5, N = 271) = 18.5, p=0.002 |
X2 (8, N = 271) = 46.6, p
<0.001 |
|
Cultural importance of macaques |
X2 (3, N = 271) = 5.92,
p=0.115 |
X2 (4, N = 271) = 17.2, p=0.002 |
X2 (8, N = 271) = 25.2, p=0.001 |
X2 (5, N = 271) = 7.67,
p=0.176 |
X2 (8, N = 271) = 10.9,
p=0.208 |
|
Attitudes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Provisioning frequency |
X2 (6, N = 271) = 25.2, p
<0.001 |
X2 (8, N = 271) = 42.3, p <0.001 |
X2 (16, N = 271) = 73.6,
p <0.001 |
X2 (10, N = 271) = 24.6,
p=0.006 |
X2 (16, N = 271) = 21.8,
p=0.148 |
|
Deterrent Action (Household Foraging) |
X2 (6, N = 271) = 25.5, p
<0.001 |
X2 (8, N = 271) = 36, p <0.001 |
X2 (16, N = 271) = 80.7,
p <0.001 |
X2 (10, N = 271) = 38.1,
p <0.001 |
X2 (16, N = 271) = 45.7,
p <0.001 |
|
Deterrent Action (Crop Foraging) |
X2 (9, N = 271) = 29.7, p
<0.001 |
X2 (12, N = 271) = 48.4,
p <0.001 |
X2 (24, N = 271) = 107, p <0.001 |
X2 (15, N = 271) = 39.7,
p <0.001 |
X2 (24, N = 271) = 39.7,
p 0.015 |
|
Perceptions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prohibit Provisioning |
X2 (3, N = 271) = 6.59,
p=0.086 |
X2 (4, N = 271) = 23.3, p
<0.001 |
X2 (8, N = 271) = 12.4, P =0.136 |
X2 (5, N = 271) = 3.18, P=0.672 |
X2 (8, N = 271) = 31.3, p <0.001 |
|
Translocation of macaques |
X2 (3, N = 271) = 7.11,
p=0.068 |
X2 (4, N = 271) = 4.95,
p=0.292 |
X2 (8, N = 271) = 25, P 0.002 |
X2 (5, N = 271) = 15.3, P 0.009 |
X2 (8, N = 41.5) = 19.7,
p 0.012 |
|
Dog patrolling |
X2 (3, N = 271) = 3.94,
p=0.268 |
X2 (4, N = 271) = 35.3, p
<0.001 |
X2 (8, N = 271) = 25, P 0.002 |
X2 (5, N = 271) = 16.7, P 0.005 |
X2 (8, N = 41.5) = 28.7,
p <0.001 |
For
images, figures & Appendix - - click here for full PDF
REFERENCES
Agyei, F., A. Afrifa &
J. Ohemeng (2019). Human-monkey
conflict and community wildlife management: the case of Boabeng-fiema
monkey sanctuary and fringed communities in Ghana. International Journal of
Biodiversity 14(6): 302–311. http://doi.org/10.12692/ijb/14.6.302-311
Baloria, H.T, E.F. Gamalinda, J.J. Rosal & L.A. Estaño (2022). Determination of enteroparasites
in Long-tailed Macaques Macaca fascicularis of Barangay Sumile,
Butuan City, Philippines. Asian Journal of Biological and Life Sciences
11(3): 1–6.
Bempah, G., C. Lu & Y.
Yi (2021). Anthropogenic food utilization and seasonal difference in diet
of Cercopithecus lowei at a
community protected forest in Ghana. Diversity 13(12): 610. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13120610
Berman, C.M. & J.H. Li (2002). Impact of
translocation, provisioning and range restriction on a group of Macaca thibetana. International
Journal of Primatology 23: 383–397.
Chapman, C.A., T.R. Gillespie & T.L. Goldberg
(2005). Primates and the ecology of their infectious diseases: how will
anthropogenic change affect host-parasite interactions? Evolutionary
Anthropology 14: 134–144.
Cui, Q., Y. Ren & H. Xu (2021). The escalating
effects of wildlife tourism on human–wildlife conflict. Animals 11:
1378. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11051378
Dacks, R., J. Maccarter, T. Ticktin, S.D.
Jupiter, E. Sterling, S. Wongbusarakum, J. Claudet, M. Mejia, P. Fabre, A. Mawyer,
P. Pascua & S. Caillon (2019). Developing
biocultural indicators for resource management. Conservation Science and
Practice 1(16). https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.38
Dittus, W.P.J., S. Gunathilakec & M. Felderc
(2019). Assessing public perceptions and solutions to human-monkey conflict
from 50 years in Sri Lanka. Folia Primatologica
(Basel). 90: 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1159/000496025
Dubois, S. & D. Fraser (2013). A framework to
evaluate wildlife feeding in research, wildlife management, tourism and
recreation. Animals 3: 978–994. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani3040978
Eudey, A.A., A. Kumar, M.
Singh & R. Boonratana (2020). Macaca
fascicularis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2020. e.T12551A17949449. Downloaded on 8
September 2020.
Fa, J.E. (1981). Apes on the rock. Oryx.
16: 73–76.
Frank, B., J.A. Glikman
& S. Marchini (2019). Human-wildlife
interactions: turning conflict into coexistence. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 464 pp. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235730
Fuentes, A., E. Shaw & J. Cortes (2007). Qualitative
assessment of macaque tourist sites in Padangtegal,
Bali, Indonesia, and the Upper Rock Nature Reserve, Gibraltar. International
Journal of Primatology 28: 1143–1158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-007-9184-y
Gamalo, L.E., J. Baril, J. Dimalibot, A. Asis, B. Anas, N. Puna & V.G.
Paller (2019). Nuisance behaviors
of macaques in Puerto Princesa Subterranean River
National Park, Palawan, Philippines. Journal of Threatened Taxa 11(3):
13287–13294. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4702.11.3.13287-13294
Gamalo, L.E., S. Paramasivam, B. Aldrich, P. Phiapalath,
R. Sweet, A. Fuentes, D.R.K. Nielsen, M.F. Hansen, N. Ruppert,
T. Van Bang, T. Ahmed, H. Seiha, K. Ilham, M. Gill,
S. Kite, L. Jones-Engel & M.Z. Zainol (2023). Removal from the wild
endangers the once widespread Long-tailed Macaque. American Journal of
Primatology 86(3): e23547. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.23547
Grunstra, N.D.S., J. Louys
& S. Elton (2023). Climate, not quarternary
biogeography, explains skull morphology of the Long-tailed Macaque on the Sunda Shelf. Quarternary
Science Reviews 310: 108121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2023.108121
Gumert, M.D., A. Fuentes
& L. Jones-Engel (eds.) (2011). Monkeys on the
Edge: Ecology and Management of Long-Tailed Macaques and their Interface with
Humans. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, xx + 360 pp.
Hansen, M.F., A. Ang, T.T.H. Trinh, E. Sy, S. Paramasivam, J. Dimalibot, L. Jones-Engel, N. Ruppert, C. Griffioen,
R. Gray, P. Phiapalath, K. Doak,
S. Kite, V. Nijman, A. Fuentes & M.D. Gumert
(2022). Macaca fascicularis ssp. fascicularis (amended version of 2022
assessment). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2022: e.T195351957A221668305. https://doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2022-2.RLTS.T195351957A221668305.en. Electronic
version accessed on 22 March 2024.
Hardwick, J.L., T.E. Martin, A.H. Mustari,
N.E.C. Priston, D.G. Tosh & K.E. Abernethy (2017).
Community perceptions of the crop-feeding Buton
Macaque Macaca ochreata
brunnescens: an ethnoprimatological
study on Buton Island, Sulawesi. International
Journal of Primatology 38(6): 1102–1119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-017-9999-0
Hill, C.M. & A.D. Webber (2010). Perceptions of
nonhuman primates in human-wildlife conflict scenarios. American Journal of
Primatology 72(10): 919–924. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20845
Hsu, M. J., C.C. Kao & G. Agoramoorthy
(2009). Interactions between visitors and Formosan macaques Macaca cyclopis at Shou-Shan Nature Park, Taiwan. American Journal of
Primatology 71: 214–222.
Humle, T. & C.M. Hill
(2016). People–primate interactions: implications for primate conservation,
pp. 219–240. In: Wich, S.A. & A.J. Marshall
(eds.). An Introduction to Primate Conservation. Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198703389.003.0014
Ilham, K., J. Nurdin &
T.Y. Rizaldi (2017). Status of urban
populations of the Long-tailed Macaque Macaca
fascicularis in west Sumatra, Indonesia. Primates
58: 295–305.
Jayapali, U., P. Perera, J. Cresswell & N. Dayawansa (2023). Does anthropogenic
influence on habitats alter the activity budget and home range size of Toque
Macaques Macaca sinica?
Insight into the human-macaque conflict. Trees, Forests and People 13:
100412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2023.100412
Jones-Engel, L., G.A. Engel, M.A. Schillaci,
A. Rompis, A. Putra, K.G. Suaryana,
A. Fuentes, B. Beer, S. Hicks & R. White (2005). Primate-to-human
retroviral transmission in Asia. Emerging Infectious Disease 11:
1028–1035.
Knight, J. (2017). Wildlife tourism as
crop protection? Double-goal provisioning and the transvaluation
of the macaque in postwar Japan. Human Wildlife Interactions 11:
217–230.
Koirala, S., P.A. Garber, D. Somasundaram, H.B. Katuwal, B. Ren, C. Huang & M. Li (2021). Factors affecting the
crop raiding behavior of wild Rhesus Macaques in Nepal: implications for
wildlife management. Journal of Environmental Management 297:
113331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113331
Kurita, H. (2014). Provisioning and
tourism in free-ranging Japanese macaques, pp. 44–56. In: Russon
A.E. & J. Wallis (eds.). Primate Tourism: A Tool for Conservation?
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kuswanda, W. & J. Hutapea (2023). The endangered Long-tailed Macaque is
considered a pest in north Sumatra, Indonesia. Oryx 57(1): 9–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/50030605322001326
Kyes, R.C., E. Iskandar
& J. Pamungkas (2011). Preliminary survey
of the Long-tailed Macaques Macaca fascicularis on Java, Indonesia: Distribution and
human-primate conflict, pp. 65–69. In: Gumert, M., A.
Fuentes & L. Jones-Engel (eds.). Monkeys on the Edge: Ecology and
Management of Long-tailed Macaques and their Interface with Humans.
Cambridge University Press, New York.
Lee, P.C. & N.E.C. Priston
(2005). Human attitudes to primates: perceptions of pests, conflict, and
consequences for primate conservation, pp. 1–23. In: Paterson, J.D. & J.
Wallis (eds.). Commensalism and Conflict: The Human–Primate Interface.
American Society of Primatology Publications, San Diego.
Li, W. & E.V. Essen (2021). Guarding crops from
monkey troops: farmer-monkey interaction near a nature reserve in Guangxi,
China. Environmental Sociology 7(1): 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2020.1811004
Maréchal, L., S. Semple , B. Majolo & A. MacLarnon (2016). Assessing the
effects of tourist provisioning on the health of wild Barbary Macaques in
Morocco. PLoS ONE 11(5): e0155920. https://doi.org.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155920
Matheson, M.D., L. K. Sheeran, J.H. Li & R.S.
Wagner (2006). Tourist impact on Tibetan Macaques. Anthrozoös 19(2): 158–168. https://doi.org/10.2752/089279306785593810
McKinney, T. (2010).The effects of
provisioning and crop-raiding on the diet and foraging activities of human
commensal White-faced Capuchins Cebus capucinus. American Journal of Primatology 71:
1–10.
Muehlenbein, M.P. & J.
Wallis (2014). Considering risks of pathogen transmission
associated with primate-based tourism, pp. 278–292. In: Russon,
A.E. & J. Wallis (eds.). Primate Tourism: A Tool for Conservation?
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Muroyama, Y. & A.A. Eudey (2004). Do macaque species have a future?,
pp. 328–332. In: Thierry, B., M. Singh & W. Kaumanns
(eds.). Macaque Societies: A Model for the Study of Social Organization.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Nahallage C.A.D. & M.A.
Huffman (2013). Macaque-human interactions in past and present-day
Sri Lanka, pp. 135–148. In: Radhakrishna, S, M.A. Huffman & A. Sinha
(eds.). The Macaque Connection: Cooperation and Conflict Between Humans and
Macaques. Springer Science and Business Media, New York.
Newsome, D. & K. Rodger (2008). To feed or not to
feed: a contentious issue in wildlife tourism, pp. 255–270. In: Lunney, D., A. Munn & W. Meikle (eds.). Too Close
for Comfort: Contentious Issues in Human–Wildlife Encounters. Royal
Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney.
O’Leary, H. & J.E. Fa (1993). Effects of tourists
on Barbary Macaques at Gibraltar. Folia Primatologica
61: 77–91.
Peterson, J. & E. Riley (2017). Sacred monkeys? An
ethnographic perspective on macaque sacredness in Balinese Hinduism, pp.
206–218. In: Dore, K.M., E. Riley & A. Fuentes (eds.). Ethnoprimatology:
A Practical Guide to Research at the Human-Nonhuman Primate Interface.
Cambridge University Press, xviii + 308 pp.
Pontzer, H. (2023). The provisioned
primate: patterns of obesity across lemurs, monkeys, apes and humans.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 378: 20220218. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0218
Priston, N.E.C. & M.R. Mclennan (2012). Managing Humans,
Managing Macaques: Human-Macaque Conflict in Asia and Africa. Springer, New York.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3967-7_14
Sengupta, A., K.R. McConkey
& S. Radhakrishna (2015). Primates, provisioning and plants: impacts of
human cultural behaviours on primate ecological
functions. PLoS One 10: e0140961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140961
Sengupta, A. & S. Radhakrishna (2018). The hand that feeds
the monkey: Mutual influence of humans and Rhesus Macaques Macaca
mulatta in the context of provisioning. International
Journal of Primatology 39: 817–830. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-018-0014-1
Sengupta, A. & S. Radhakrishna (2020). Factors predicting
provisioning of macaques by humans at tourist sites. International Journal
of Primatology 41(3): 471–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-020-00148-5
Sha, J.C. & G. Hanya
(2013). Diet, activity, habitat use, and ranging of two neighboring groups of
food-enhanced long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis). American Journal of Primatology
75(6): 581–92. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22137
Suwannarong, K., K. Balthip, N. Soonthornworasiri, S.
Yimsamran, P. Maneekan,
S.M.T. Ponlap, C. Saengkul,
C. Lantican & K.T.P. Singhasivanon
(2023). Love or conflict: a qualitative study of the human-long tailed macaque
interface in Nakhon Sawan Province, Thailand. Acta
Tropica 240: 106861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actatropica.2023.106861
Unwin, T. & A. Smith (2010). Behavioral
differences between provisioned and non-provisioned Barbary Macaques Macaca sylvanus. Anthrozoös 23: 109–118. https://doi.org/10.2752/17530371
0X12682332909855
Zhao, Q. (2005). Tibetan macaques,
visitors, and local people at Mt Emei: problems and
countermeasures, pp. 376–399. In: Paterson, J.D. & J. Wallis (eds.). Commensalim and Conflict: The Human-Primate Interface.
American Society of Primatologists, Norman, Oklahoma, xviii + 483 pp.