Content uploaded by Christian Lenzi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christian Lenzi on Jul 30, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Visitors’ attitudes toward non-human primates in a free-roaming multi-species
1
sanctuary (Monkeyland, South Africa)
2
3
Christian Lenzi1, Chiara Grasso1*, Siobhan Speiran2
4
1 Associazione ETICOSCIENZA, Turin, Italy - eticoscienza@gmail.com
5
2 The Lives of Animals Research Group, School of Environmental Studies,
6
Queen's University, 99 University Ave, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6 - 17sims@queensu.ca
7
* Corresponding author: chiaragrasso.eticoscienza@gmail.com
8
9
The aim of the present study is to investigate themes related to visitors’ perceptions of captive
10
wildlife in particular, attitudes towards non-human primates (henceforth, primates). This
11
research took place in free-roaming, multi-species primate sanctuary, Monkeyland (South
12
Africa), where 400 visitors were interviewed using an anonymous survey both before and after
13
attending a guided tour. The answers were divided into different categories, in order to
14
standardize the motivations behind tourists’ choices. The results of the survey demonstrated
15
that most visitors agree that a primate would not be a good companion animal. Visitors’ desire
16
to touch primates was found to be positively correlated with desire for companion primates and
17
inversely associated with visitor age. In response to: “would you like to touch a monkey?”, the
18
majority of tourists who expressed this desire seemed aware that such interactions are not
19
appropriate, with concern for animal welfare and human health. Of the various primate species
20
present in the sanctuary, visitors preferred the ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta) and, generally
21
speaking, expressed appreciation for primates’ “cuteness”. Our results indicate a general
22
awareness by the visitors on the importance of animal welfare in the human interactions with
23
captive wildlife, in agreement with the “hands-off” policy of Monkeyland primate sanctuary.
24
We discuss the findings from a general to zooanthropological point of view, proposing some
25
reflections on the attitudes of visitors toward non-human primates.
26
27
Keywords: human-wildlife interactions; non-human primates; zooanthropology; primate
28
sanctuary; Lemur catta
29
30
Introduction
31
Tourism and Public Perception of Wildlife
32
The environmental and educational context in which wild animals are displayed can influence
33
the public’s perception of the natural world, lifestyle, and behaviour of the species on-display.
34
As demonstrated in a study by Finlay et al. (1988), animals in a zoo setting are typically
35
perceived as passive and tame, while the same species presented in a more naturalistic
36
environment are perceived as active and wild. Furthermore, a survey published in 2002 showed
37
that interacting with wild animals, experiencing educational opportunities, and viewing a large
38
diversity of species are the most exciting experiences visitors have in captive wildlife settings.
39
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0684.v1
© 2021 by the author(s). Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY license.
Negative experiences reported by visitors, however, include the presence of poorly managed
40
facilities, a lack of services, and observing animals performing stereotypical behavior (Woods,
41
2002).
42
Researchers have evaluated the potential influence of knowledge, gender, age,
43
occupation, pet ownership, education, and geographical location on human attitudes toward
44
animals (Eagles & Demare, 1999; Prokop & Tunnicliffe, 2008; Pirrone et al., 2019). An older
45
study examined these factors within the United States, finding significant differences between
46
males and females’ stances on moral issues (e.g. animal testing and hunting) and species
47
preference (males prefer predators and invertebrates, while females prefer more conventionally
48
attractive animals like dogs, cats and butterflies). Moreover, it appears a higher education level
49
can have a positive influence on interest in and sensitivity to animals (Kellert & Berry, 1987),
50
while occupation and income can play a key role in influencing the attitudes toward animals
51
(Taylor & Signal, 2006).
52
Kellert has demonstrated that age is also an important factor influencing concern for
53
animals (Kellert, 1984a). In particular, children's perception toward animal species develop by
54
age: between ages 6 to 9, they are more sensitive to emotional and affective aspects for
55
example about pets, between age 10 to 13 is suitable for knowledge of cognitive aspects, and
56
between age 13 to 16 for discussion of moral and ecological issues connected to animals
57
(Kellert, 1984b).
58
Beyond the influence of individual variables, however, preference for specific animal
59
species is an ongoing subject of research. Children have shown a greater preference for
60
mammals, especially domestic species, compared with other taxonomic groups (Bjerke et al.,
61
1998; Borgi & Cirulli, 2015). One study demonstrated a preference for species with whom
62
people were already familiar (e.g. domestic, companion species) (Woods, 2000). Reasons cited
63
for liking animals include their perceived attractiveness, intelligence, and character, while
64
reasons for disliking them tend to focus on the threat of potential harm the species poses to
65
humans (Woods, 2000).
66
Among the various taxa, non-human primates (henceforth, primates) are a good case-
67
study to interrogate the relationships between humans and wild animals, in both wild and
68
captive settings. Primates have always been part of the collective imagination (Fuentes, 2012);
69
they are protagonists (or, antagonists) in conflicts with local populations (Hill & Webber,
70
2010), and they are a popular order of animals represented virtually on social media, and on
71
display at zoological facilities.
72
Tourism Encounters with Non-Human Primates
73
Direct, physical interactions between humans and primates can lead to health problems
74
for both parties; such interaction often increases the likelihood that infectious pathogens will
75
be exchanged (Wallis & Lee, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2007; Muehlenbein et al., 2010).
76
There are many situations in which tourists can experience a physical encounter with
77
primates, involving touching, feeding, and photographing themselves with the animal for a
78
wild ‘selfie’ (Stazaker & Mackinnon, 2018). At some sites, one can purchase wild animals as
79
companion animals, as is in the case of white-handed gibbons and slow loris in Thailand (Gray,
80
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0684.v1
2012; Osterberg & Nekaris, 2015) or macaques in Morocco (Stazaker & Mackinnon, 2018).
81
Specifically, in the latter case the negative influence of the presence of tourists at short distance
82
has been documented (Maréchal et al., 2011). This includes increased anxiety experienced by
83
macaques when they were approached for a photo or to be fed, and the experience of stress
84
when they were subjected to aggressive interactions from humans. Macaque encounters have
85
become a popular tourist attraction; at tourist sites most human-macaque interactions include
86
tourists in 85% of events (O'Leary & Fa, 1993).
87
What is the perception of tourists toward primates? The answer to this question is not
88
immediately evident. Globally, primates may be perceived in different ways: from divinities
89
(e.g. in India and Nepal), to pets, to pests or conflict animals. Cultural factors play an important
90
role when it comes to devotion, tolerance, or rejection (Lee & Priston, 2005). It appears that in
91
Asia, there are some of the greatest contradictions in attitudes toward non-human primates
92
(Eudey, 1994; Knight, 1999; Fuentes, 2006).
93
The popularized keeping of primates in homes as companions may have contributed to
94
the perception of these animals as domesticable (Lee & Priston, 2005). In addition to this, films
95
and TV shows depicting chimpanzees or other primates dressed in human clothing can have a
96
major impact on the public’s collective imagination, leading to a potential underestimation of
97
their conservation status and increasing their desirability as a pet (Ross et al., 2008; Ross et al.,
98
2011; Schroepfer et al., 2011; Leighty et al., 2015). A recent study has shown how the
99
propagation of viral videos on social media can have similar significant impacts, offering a
100
distorted view of wild animals and promoting captive detention as pet (Clarke et al., 2019).
101
Zoological facilities are excellent sites to investigate how tourists perceive non-human
102
primates. A study carried out on visitors to Chicago's Lincoln Park Zoo showed that, people
103
had a good prior knowledge, after visiting the zoo visitors demonstrated a significant increase
104
in knowledge about gorillas and chimpanzees. There were no significant differences between
105
the attitudes of the visitors before and after the visit, but returning visitors showed a more
106
ecocentric perspective compared with first-time visitors (Lukas & Ross, 2005). Exhibiting
107
primates in naturalistic environments may be an effective way to engage tourists’ interest on
108
conservation issues of monkeys and apes (Lukas and Ross, 2014). In particular, viewing free-
109
ranging monkeys can stimulate interest, increase sensitivity and education of visitors towards
110
primates (Price et al., 1994).
111
One of the first free-roaming sanctuaries established for non-human primates is
112
Monkeyland (South Africa), inaugurated in 1998, featuring 12 hectares of indigenous forest
113
hosting semi-free monkeys and apes of many species (Nelson et al., 2009; Hamilton &
114
Fragaszy, 2014). In 2017, the anthropologist Muehlenbein conducted a study surveying 1175
115
of Monkeyland’s visitors. This study showed that: (1) 31.1% of visitors had already visited an
116
attraction to see primates, while 29.4% were aware of health risks related to contact with
117
primates, and (2) although most visitors were aware of the possibility of contracting (86.2 %)
118
or transmitting (84.5%) diseases to wildlife, 54.8% would touch or feed a primate given the
119
chance, and 10.4% desire primate companions. Furthermore, 20.0% of visitors had already
120
experienced a direct interaction with a monkey or ape, and 2.3% have been scratched or bitten
121
by a primate. Finally, the study demonstrated the positive impact of having a guided tour of the
122
sanctuary: a survey of 258 visitors showed that, after the visit, there was an increase in
123
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0684.v1
awareness of zoonoses, and a decrease in the desire for direct interactions or for primates as
124
companion animals (Muehlenbein, 2017).
125
Aims of the study
126
The aforementioned research carried out at Monkeyland by Muehlenbein (2017) considered
127
human attitudes toward non-human primates manly in relation to zoonoses and other possible
128
risks to human health. Following the review of this study and the broader literature regarding
129
visitors’ perceptions of wild primates at tourist sites, from zoos to natural settings, we suggest
130
that this topic requires further investigation. The aim of our present study is to contribute to
131
this growing body of literature.
132
In particular we focus on themes relevant to zoo-anthropological studies, including
133
primates as companion species, direct encounters between visitors and primates, and visitors’
134
preferences for a particular primate species. We interviewed visitors to Monkeyland using an
135
anonymous, written survey, and present the results here using a qualitative and descriptive
136
approach, with suggestions for future research.
137
138
Materials and Methods
139
This research was conducted at Monkeyland, a private free-roaming multi-species primate
140
sanctuary located in Plettenberg Bay, Western Cape, South Africa. The data was collected
141
between November 2017 and January 2018.
142
Monkeyland is part of the SAASA (South African Animal Sanctuary Alliance), together
143
with Birds of Eden and Jukani, and consists of 12 hectares of indigenous forest bounded by an
144
electric fence along its perimeter. The sanctuary is home to 11 species of non-human primates,
145
native to different continents, totaling more than 700 individuals living sympatrically in the
146
forest (https://www.monkeyland.co.za/about-our). The 11 non-human primate species include:
147
the black and white tuffed lemur (Varecia variegata), ring-tail lemur (Lemur catta), spectacled
148
langur (Trachypithecus obscurus), hanuman langur (Semnopithecus entellus), black howler
149
monkey (Alouatta caraya), Bolivian squirrel monkey (Saimiri boliviensis), Geoffroy's spider
150
monkey (Ateles geoffroyi), tufted or brown capuchin (Sapajus apella), red-backed bearded saki
151
(Chiropotes chiropotes), vervet monkey (Chlorocebus pygerythrus), and white handed or lar
152
gibbon (Hylobates lar). Most of the primates living in this sanctuary were rescued from
153
captivity (including old zoos, circuses, research laboratories, touristic attractions, homes), but
154
some were also born in the sanctuary.
155
As a tourist attraction, the sanctuary is open daily to the public. Visitors attend hour-long
156
guided tours during which they can observe the animals at a safe distance, take pictures and
157
videos. Although the free-ranging primate residents are habituated to human presence, any
158
"hands-on" experiences between tourists and animals are forbidden, including feeding and
159
touching. The official web site states: “Please note: We have a strict no-touch policy at our
160
primate sanctuary. Look, photograph, video, but please don’t touch.”
161
(https://www.monkeyland.co.za/about-our-primates/).
162
In order to collect information on the attitude of visitors towards the resident primates, we
163
conducted an anonymous survey of Monkeyland visitors. We handed out questionnaires to 400
164
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0684.v1
visitors in total; 200 to visitors before their visit and 200 to different visitors after their visit.
165
Survey participants included both adults, and with parents’ permission, children over the age
166
of 5. Questions on the survey included: socio-demographic information (i.e. gender, age,
167
nationality, educational level, profession), prior experiences at SAASA wildlife sanctuaries,
168
and about perceptions of captive primates (i.e. primates as companions, human-wildlife
169
interactions, preferences for primate traits and species). For some questions, respondents were
170
asked to explain the motivation behind their answers (see Appendix 1 for the questionnaire).
171
A permit to conduct this research was granted by the South African Animal Sanctuary Alliance
172
to which Monkeyland belongs. This research did not require approval from an ethics
173
committee.
174
Analysis
175
The present study was analyzed qualitatively by separating questions into different categories.
176
This allowed us to evaluate the participants' responses in a standardized way, highlighting the
177
main themes emerging from their responses to the questionnaire. Our analytical categories
178
were selected by identifying key themes common in respondents’ answers. For example, if a
179
respondent said, “I like the way they swing,” we thematically categorized this response as
180
“movement”. For the open-ended questions, we allowed each visitor one or more answer
181
categories, and a "no answer" option in the event of a null or illegible response. Open-ended
182
questions, and their response options, include:
183
• “Do you think that a monkey/ape could be a good pet? Why?” We classified
184
responses into the following categories: “wildness”, “cuteness”, “tameable”,
185
“maintenance”, “fun”, “human-like”.
186
• “Do you think is correct to touch/feed/play with wild animals? Why?” We classified
187
responses into the following categories: “animal welfare”, “tameable”,
188
“dangerousness”, “education”, “feeding”, “fun”, “loveable”.
189
• “Which is your favourite monkey? Why?” All 11 species housed within the sanctuary
190
were used as categories, with the addition of the “other” category (in the case of a
191
non-human primate species not present in Monkeyland).
192
• To determine visitors’ preference for particular primate characteristics we classified
193
the responses into the following categories: “beauty”, “cuteness”, “big”, “cleverness”,
194
“calm”, “fun”, “human-like”, “small”, “movement”, “sound”.
195
• “Do you think that a sanctuary like Monkeyland is important? Why?” We classified
196
the responses into the following categories: “bad place for wildlife”, “conservation”,
197
“education”, “good place for wildlife”, “nice experience”, “research”.
198
199
Results
200
The main results of this study are presented below. For open-ended questions, we present a few
201
examples to clarify some of the themes expressed by respondents.
202
Demographics
203
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0684.v1
Out of the 400 visitors who answered the questionnaire, 208 (52,00%) identified as female,
204
191 (47,75%) identified as male, and 1 tourist (0,25%) did not disclose gender. Within this
205
sample, 25 (6,25%) were children (from 5 to 12 years old), 38 (9,50%) teenagers (from 13 to
206
18 years old), 147 (36,75%) young adults (from 19 to 34 years old), and 190 (47,50%) older
207
adults (from to 35 years old). Most respondents were from European countries (49,25%) and
208
from Africa (40,00%), with a few from Central and South America (3,25%), North America
209
(11 – 2,75%), Oceania (2,25%), Asia (2,00%), and 2 (0,5%) did not express their nationality.
210
For the educational level, most of the tourists had a degree (23,75% Master’s degree, 18,00%
211
Bachelor’s degree, 2,5% PhD) or at least had completed high school (22,75%).
212
Occupation, Past Sanctuary Visits, and Companion Animal Ownership
213
Respondents to our survey were categorized by occupation, including: management (13,50%),
214
administrative (12,00%), health (7,5%), education (6,25%), unemployed (5,75%), and
215
engineering (5,00%). The majority of the respondents were visiting Monkeyland for the first
216
time (75,50%), and most (72,00%) had not been to other SAASA sanctuaries (Birds of Eden or
217
Jukani) before. From the total number of visitors interviewed, 60,25% declared having at least
218
one companion animal, while 39,75% indicated they did not.
219
Visitor Attitudes’ Toward Non-Human Primates
220
More than half of our sample (59,5%) indicated the desire to have direct physical contact with
221
a monkey or ape, while the rest of respondents were uninterested in such an encounter. This
222
result did not seem to be strongly influenced by gender (female: 58,74% vs. 41,26%; male:
223
61,05% vs. 38,95%) or native-born continent (Europe: 53,40% vs. 46,60%; Africa: 65,63% vs.
224
34,37%), but there is an inverse association with the age (children: 88,00% vs. 22,00%,
225
teenager: 81,58% vs. 18,42%, young: 58,62% vs. 41,38%, adults: 52,38% vs. 47,62%) and a
226
positive association with the possession of a companion animal at home (companion animal
227
owners: 66,10% vs. 33,90%; non-owners: 49,68% vs. 50,32%).
228
With regards to the question “Do you think that a monkey/ape could be a good pet?
229
Why?” most visitors indicated no (84,75% vs 13,75%, 6 visitors did not answer), and the reason
230
was mainly related to primates’ nature as wild animals (77,88%). Examples of responses
231
indicating this trend includ e: “Because they are wild animals and thus should be kept in their
232
natural habitat” (18 years old, female),” and, “Totally unacceptable to have any wild animal
233
as a pet” (69 years old, male).
234
Among the respondents who believed that a non-human primate can be a good
235
companion animal, the most frequently mentioned categories of responses to the question
236
“why?” were: tameability (34,37%), cuteness (21,87%), human-like (20,31%), and fun
237
(18,75%). Two responses indicated the belief that primates can be good companion animals,
238
stating “It will be very nice if trained well” (40 years old, male), and “They are so cute. I think
239
that they can be loveable and become your best friend” (25 years old, female).
240
Next, we considered visitor perception towards direct interactions with primates. In
241
particular we asked on our survey whether it is correct to have any form of hands-on interaction
242
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0684.v1
(touch, feed or play) with wild animals, and 89,50% of visitors replied it was not correct. We
243
observed that the majority of respondents who previously showed a desire to touch a monkey
244
(59,25% of the 400 visitors) were aware that this practice is not correct (86,07% vs. 11,39%),
245
because may have negative effects on animal welfare (57,35%), or because wild animals can
246
behave dangerously towards the humans (30,88%). Some sample responses along this line of
247
inquiry include: “Petting/touching can alter the animal’s natural wild responses and could
248
influence their responses to ‘wild’ situations affecting their survival” (48 years old, male), and
249
“Touching, feeding, playing with wild animals could be very dangerous” (36 years old,
250
female).
251
The reasoning given by respondents behind why they do not support touch interactions
252
with primates matched the reasoning given by respondents who did not want to touch a primate,
253
and believed such an encounter to be incorrect (total of 151). The motivations of visitors who
254
wanted to touch a primate, and believed it a permissible encounter (6,75% of the entire sample),
255
reasoned that primates need love (22,22%), that they can be tamed (18,52%), that it is funny
256
(11,11%), or that it has an educational purpose (11,11%). Two examples of this mindset
257
include: “Only wild animals who can’t be released back into the wild. Helps to teach people
258
to love and respect animals” (32 years old, female), and “Animals need love, attention and
259
affection too” (22 years old, female).
260
Concerning visitors’ preferences for particular primate species, we asked, “Which is
261
your favorite monkey? Why?” We found differences among the visitors before and after the
262
guided tour. Before the tour, the majority of the visitors (52,00%) did not express a preference
263
(no answer and “I don’t know” or “all”) and the most mentioned species category (47,92%)
264
was “other” (i.e. monkeys or apes that are not present in Monkeyland), Lemur catta (19,79%),
265
Hylobates lar (9,37%), and Chlorocebus pygerythrus (8,33%). Independent from species
266
preference, the most cited characteristics or features were: cuteness (30,00%), human-like
267
(21,43%), beauty (20,00%), and cleverness (15,71%). After the tour, most visitors cited a
268
preference for Lemur catta (21,50%) or did not show a specific preference (21,50%), and the
269
other most mentioned species were Hylobates lar (14,50%), “other” (9,5%), Saimiri boliviensis
270
(9,00%), Again, independent from species preference, the most cited characteristics or features
271
were: cuteness (20,16%), beauty (18,55%), fun (15,32%), cleverness (13,71%), human-like
272
(8,87%), and movements (8,87%). A few examples of the visitors’ preference on animal
273
species: “My favourite monkeys are Gibbons because how human like they are and friendly the
274
are toward humans” (11 years old, female), “Vervet monkey; very cute” (33 years old, female),
275
and “Ring tailed lemur. Because of the Madagascar movie” (13 years old, female).
276
Impression of Sanctuary
277
Visitors’ answers to “Do you think that a sanctuary like Monkeyland is important? Why?” were
278
not significantly influenced by the guided tour. While 355 replied “yes”, 46,76% of this total
279
were surveyed before their visit and 53,24% after their visit. Common themes identified in the
280
responses to this question include education (52,74% before and 47,26% after), conservation
281
(44,90% before and 55,10% after), good place for wildlife (33,01% before and 66,99% after)
282
and nice experience (61,29% before and 38,71% after). Some sample responses regarding the
283
perceived importance of Monkeyland include: “It is important in order to save the species”
284
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0684.v1
(48 years old, female), “It gives them a safe home” (52 years old, male),“Yes, to raise
285
awareness of the danger these animals could be in if don’t take care of the environment” (17
286
years old, female).
287
288
Discussion
289
Our survey’s sample population was fairly balanced between males and females, with most
290
respondents being both young and older adults. The majority of nationalities represented in our
291
survey were European and African. As education level, most respondens had at least a high
292
school diploma. Visitors’ occupations were diversified in the sample, with the most declared
293
categories being management and administrative positions. About 75% of visitors were visiting
294
Monkeyland for the first time, and had never visited other SAASA sanctuaries. More than half
295
of the respondents have at least one companion animal.
296
More than half of the surveyed visitors expressed desire to touch a monkey or an ape;
297
this result did not seem to be influenced by gender or nationality, whereas we found age and
298
companion animal ownership did influence responses. When asked, “Do you think that a
299
monkey/ape could be a good pet? Why?” most visitors said “no”, most often citing primates
300
inherent “wild” nature as a reason. Among the visitors who believe that a primate can be good
301
pet, the most cited reasons were tameability and cuteness. Then, when asked if it is correct to
302
have any form of physical interaction with wild animals, 89,5% responded “no” mainly
303
explaining that wildlife can be dangerous to interact with, or citing animal welfare issues.
304
Visitors surveyed before the tour expressed a preference for “other” primate species
305
than those present at Monkeyland, and those surveyed after the tour expressed a preference for
306
“other” and the ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta). Independent from species preference or time
307
of tour, the most cited characteristic was cuteness. The majority of the respondents (355)
308
thought that “a sanctuary like Monkeyland is important”, and this result was not significantly
309
influenced by the guided tour.
310
Visitor-Primate Relations
311
From our surveyed Monkeyland visitors, we have discovered that the desire to touch a primate
312
is directly dependent on the visitor’s age, and whether or not they own a companion animal,
313
while gender and nationality was not found to have an influence. Children and teenagers
314
expressed more willingness to make physical contact with monkeys or apes, and this can be
315
justified by their naïve curiosity toward the natural world and wild animals. Similarly, visitors
316
with pets are perhaps more accustomed and/or inclined to interact with wild animals. Over the
317
years, many studies have been published on this topic, but with conflicting results (Kellert,
318
1984a; Kellert, 1984b; Kellert & Berry, 1987; Eagles & Demare, 1999, Prokop & Tunnicliffe,
319
2008; Pirrone et al., 2019). It therefore seems that the specific contexts of such studies present
320
substantial differences in the factors determining human perception towards animals.
321
When tourists were asked for their opinion on whether a primate would make a good
322
companion animal or not, most respondents replied that they do not, on account of their wild
323
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0684.v1
nature. This result is promising since research shows that keeping monkeys or apes as
324
companion animals can lead to serious consequences for their welfare (Soulsbury et al., 2008).
325
In fact, in many countries it is prohibited to keep primates as companion animals (Quiroga &
326
Estrada, 2003). Some of our respondents indicated, conversely, that primates may be good
327
companion animals due to their perceived tameability, cuteness, resemblance to humans, and
328
funny nature. This perception can be influenced not only by circuses and entertainment shows,
329
but also by the mass media (e.g. films, TV programs, social networks, advertisings) and by the
330
portrayal of monkeys and apes in domestic contexts or close proximity to humans (Lee &
331
Priston, 2005; Ross et al., 2008; Ross et al., 2011; Schroepfer et al., 2011; Leighty et al., 2015;
332
Clarke et al., 2019).
333
These factors that influence the public's attitude toward non-human primates are most
334
likely the same ones that led some Monkeyland visitors (6.75% of the entire sample) to say that
335
they would like to interact directly with a monkey or ape, believing this interaction is
336
justifiable. The motivations behind such a response included: “they need love”, primates can
337
be tamed, because it is funny, or it has educational value.
338
However, the vast majority of visitors (around 90%) said that physical interaction
339
with wild animals was not justifiable, considering risks to animal welfare and human health.
340
Respondents are therefore aware both of the fact that close encounters can have negative effects
341
on both parties (Stazaker & Mackinnon, 2018). Many studies have demonstrated the risk of
342
zoonoses passed between humans and nonhuman animals, especially in tourism settings
343
(Wallis & Lee, 1999; Goldberg et al., 2007; Muehlenbein et al., 2010).
344
In general, our results are comparable with those obtained by Muehlenbein’s
345
Monkeyland visitor research (2017), for illuminating motivating factors which promote or
346
prevent touch encounters with primates, as well as general impressions of primates and their
347
desirability as companion animals (Muehlenbein 2017). In fact, in both studies, tourists showed
348
a search for sensitivity and awareness on issues in the moral and ecological issues on wildlife.
349
Zoo-Anthropological Implications of Species Preferences
350
In the survey conducted before attending the tour, some visitors did not answer the question
351
regarding their preferred species of primate, while others mentioned a preference only for great
352
apes. This may be due both to a limited knowledge of primates and to the influence of mass
353
media on people's attitudes towards wild animals.
354
It emerged from our study that the ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta) appeared to be the
355
most popular species among the Monkeyland visitors. This primate is at serious risk of
356
extinction, due to habitat loss, bushmeat hunting, climate change, and even pet trade. A species
357
endemic to the forests of Madagascar, in recent years lemurs have found worldwide popularity
358
amongst the public, surely influenced by the release of the animated film Madagascar in 2005.
359
Among the main protagonists of the film is King Julien, an anthropomorphized, talking ring-
360
tailed lemur who captured the attention of viewers with his catchy song: "I like to move, move
361
it". Nowadays, lemurs are among the most present primate species portrayed on social media
362
(Willemen et al., 2015). Social media, the entertainment industry, and the internet in general
363
has had a significant impact on users’ perceptions and attitudes towards lemurs. Just as in the
364
case of the slow loris, another primate popularized on social media through ‘viral’ videos, the
365
portrayal of lemurs in domestic settings can impact the public’s perception of their suitability
366
as companion animals and conservation status (Clarke et al., 2019).
367
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0684.v1
There are thousands of ring-tailed lemurs held in captivity around the world, both as
368
companion animals in peoples’ homes and at tourist attractions (LaFleur et al., 2019; Reuter et
369
al., 2019). Some Malgasian tourist attrations (i.e. restaurants, hotels, zoos, reserves,
370
sanctuaries) may even exploit primates for economic gain, contributing to the development of
371
an illegal wildlife trade. Lemur catta can offer an excellent example to study the possible
372
negative effects on animal welfare and conservation, due to its mass popularity.
373
From our results, it emerged that the quality of “cuteness” is a determining factor in
374
the way people perceive wild animals, further influenced by their portrayal in mass media.
375
Although it has previously been documented how, among other factors, the level of education
376
and occupation type can influence the attitudes toward wildlife (Kellert & Berry, 1987; Eagles
377
& Demare, 1999; Prokop, 2008), in this study we found no significant differences in this area.
378
Likewise, geographical origin of respondents did not have substantial effects on the types of
379
answers we received.
380
Generally speaking, the aesthetic attractiveness of primates plays an important role
381
in influencing people’s perception of and preference for particular species (Woods, 2000).
382
According to one study, it would seem that animals larger in size are those favored by people
383
who visit a zoological attraction (Ward et al., 2008). Furthermore, surveys conducted in zoos
384
have shown that visitors prefer mammals rather than reptiles and birds; the majority justifying
385
this choice mammals are “funny” and “cute” (Carr, 2016). The “cuteness” is a feature
386
considered socially attractive, especially for some cultures as in the case of Japan (Cheok,
387
2010). In this context, cuteness as desirable refers not only to real animals, but also to animated
388
animal characters such as the monkeys of Super Monkey Balls videogame (Pajares, 2003).
389
Returning to the case of a viral video of a Slow Loris (Nycticebus spp.) interacting with a
390
human, the most cited characteristic in their comments was the loris’ “cuteness” (Nekaris et
391
al., 2013).
392
Sanctuaries and Future Research
393
Monkeyland is a free-roaming attraction offering primates a sanctuary to recover from often
394
difficult and tragic past lives under human management. The practice of encounters in
395
Monkeyland is strictly "hands-off", such that visitors are prevented from any kind of touch
396
interaction (e.g. contact and feeding) with the primates. In this study, the majority of visitors
397
responded positively to the question “Do you think that a sanctuary like Monkeyland is
398
important? Why?”, both before and after the guided tour. The reasons behind these positive
399
responses are diverse, involving different aspects such as education, conservation, animal
400
welfare and experience. This reveals that the practices of Monkeyland is setting a good example
401
for other primate sanctuaries, in that their no-touch and no-feed rule demonstrates appropriate
402
encounters between visitors and primates in ways which safeguards both parties’ wellbeing.
403
As documented previously (Price et al., 1994, Lukas and Ross, 2014), the keeping of
404
monkeys in a sufficiently large, free-roam space– in which they can move at will, choose
405
whether to be close to people or not, and to have the freedom to form social groups– is a model
406
example of ideal wildlife tourism attractions. Moreover, the guided tour element at such an
407
attraction positively influences visitors’ knowledge of primate species. Although the structure
408
of a sanctuary such as Monkeyland is logistically difficult to replicate in many countries, it can
409
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0684.v1
still inspire the tourism industry’s shift towards responsible and environmentally-minded
410
tourism.
411
412
Conclusion
413
This research demonstrates a general awareness amongst visitors on the importance of animal
414
welfare in the human interactions with captive wildlife, in agreement with the “hands off”
415
policy of Monkeyland. Even if many (59,50%) express the desire of touching a monkey or ape,
416
most of the tourists thought that a monkey would not be a good pet. The results about species
417
preference underline the possible influence of mass media on the human attitude towards
418
charismatic species such as non-human primates. Moreover, as previously documented in
419
literature behind the concept of “cuteness”, the most cited motivation for the species selection,
420
it would be an altered vision of wildlife, that may allow people to underestimate the species
421
conservation status or enhance their desire for pet ownership. In general, the guided tours seem
422
to have a positive effect on people’s knowledge, in particular for the non-human primate
423
species. Further research is needed in order to deepen other aspects of visitors-wildlife
424
relations, especially in touristic settings.
425
426
Declaration of Interest
427
This research was conducted at Monkeyland, a site where two authors have volunteered.
428
Despite this, the authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication
429
of this article.
430
431
References
432
Bjerke, T., Ødegårdstuen, T. S., & Kaltenborn, B. P. (1998). Attitudes Toward Animals
433
Among Norwegian Children and Adolescents: Species Preferences. Anthrozoös, 11(4),
434
227-23.
435
Borgi, M., & Cirulli, F. (2015). Attitudes toward Animals among Kindergarten Children:
436
Species Preferences. Anthrozoös, 28(1), 45-59.
437
Carr, N. (2016). An analysis of zoo visitors' favourite and least favourite animals. Tourism
438
Management Perspectives, 20, 70-76.
439
Cheok, A. D. (2010). Kawaii/Cute Interactive Media. In: Cheok, A. D. (Ed.), Art and
440
Technology of Entertainment Computing and Communication (pp. 223-254). London:
441
Springer
442
Clarke, T. A., Reuter, K. E., LaFleur, M., & Schaefer, M. S. (2019). A viral video and pet
443
lemurs on Twitter. PLoS ONE, 14(1), e0208577.
444
Eagles, P. F. J., & Demare, R. (1999). Factors Influencing Children's Environmental
445
Attitudes. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(4), 33-37.
446
Eudey, A. A. (1994). Temple and pet primates in Thailand. Revue D Ecologie-La Terre Et La
447
Vie, 49(3), 273-280.
448
Finlay, T., James, L. R., & Maple, T. L. (1988). People’s Perceptions of Animals: The
449
Influence of Zoo Environment. Environment and Behavior, 20(4), 508–528.
450
Fuentes, A. (2006). Human-Nonhuman Primate Interconnections and Their Relevance to
451
Anthropology. Ecological and Environmental Anthropology, 2(2), 1-11.
452
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0684.v1
Fuentes, A. (2012). Ethnoprimatology and the Anthropology of the Human-Primate Interface.
453
Annual Review of Anthropology, 41(1), 101-117.
454
Goldberg, T. L., Gillespie, T. R., Rwego, I. B., Wheeler, E., Estoff, E. L., & Chapman, C. A.
455
(2007). Patterns of gastrointestinal bacterial exchange between chimpanzees and humans
456
involved in research and tourism in western Uganda. Biological Conservation, 135(4),
457
511-517.
458
Gray, S. (2012). Conservation difficulties for Hylobates lar: White-handed gibbons and
459
Thailand’s illegal pet trade. Consortium, 4, 45–58.
460
Hamilton, C., & Fragaszy, D. M. (2014) Observation of Weapon Use in A Group of Semi-
461
Free Tufted Capuchins (Sapajus spp). Neotropical Primates, 21(2), 198-201.
462
Hill, C. M., & Webber, A. D. (2010). Perceptions of nonhuman primates in human–wildlife
463
conflict scenarios. American Journal of Primatology, 72, 919-924.
464
Kellert, S. R. (1984a). American attitudes toward and knowledge of animals: An update.
465
In Fox M.W., & Mickley L. D. (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science
466
1984/85 (pp. 177-213). Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States
467
Kellert, S., & Berry, J. (1987). Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behaviors toward Wildlife as
468
Affected by Gender. Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006), 15(3), 363-371.
469
Kellert, S.R. (1984b). Attitudes toward animals: Age-related development among children. In
470
Fox M.W., & Mickley L. D. (Eds.), Advances in animal welfare science 1984/85 (pp.
471
43-60). Washington, DC: The Humane Society of the United States.
472
Knight, J. (1999). Monkeys of the move: the natural symbolism of people-macaque conflict
473
in Japan. Journal of Asian Studies. 58(3), 622-647.
474
LaFleur, M., Clarke T. A., Reuter, K. E., Schaefer, M. S., & terHorst, C. (2019). Illegal Trade
475
of Wild-Captured Lemur catta within Madagascar. Folia Primatologica, 90, 199–214.
476
Lee, P. C., & Priston, N. E. (2005). Human attitudes to primates: perceptions of pests,
477
conflict and consequences for primate conservation. Commensalism and conflict: The
478
human-primate interface, 4, 1-23.
479
Leighty, K. A., Valuska, A. J., Grand, A. P., Bettinger, T. L., Mellen, J. D., Ross, S. R.,
480
Boyle, P., & Ogden, J. J. (2015). Impact of visual context on public perceptions of non-
481
human primate performers. PLoS ONE, 10(2), e0118487.
482
Lukas, K. E., & Ross, S. R. (2005). Zoo visitor knowledge and attitudes toward gorillas and
483
chimpanzees. The Journal of Environmental Education, 36(4), 33-48.
484
Lukas, K. E., & Ross, S. R. (2014). Naturalistic Exhibits May be More Effective Than
485
Traditional Exhibits at Improving Zoo-Visitor Attitudes toward African Apes.
486
Anthrozoös. 27(3), 435-455.
487
Maréchal, L., Semple, S., Majolo, B., Qarro, M., Heistermann, M., & MacLarnon, A.
488
(2011). Impacts of tourism on anxiety and physiological stress levels in wild male
489
Barbary macaques. Biological Conservation, 144(9), 2188-2193.
490
Muehlenbein, M. P. (2017). Primates on display: Potential disease consequences beyond
491
bushmeat. The American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 162, 32–43.
492
Muehlenbein, M. P., Martinez, L. A., Lemke, A. A., Ambu, L., Nathan, S., Alsisto, S., &
493
Sakong, R. (2010). Unhealthy travelers present challenges to sustainable primate
494
ecotourism. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 8(3), 169-175.
495
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0684.v1
Nekaris, B. K., Campbell, A-I. N., Coggins, T. G., Rode, E. J., & Nijman, V. (2013). Tickled
496
to Death: Analysing Public Perceptions of ‘Cute’ Videos of Threatened Species (Slow
497
Lorises – Nycticebus spp.) on Web 2.0 Sites. PLoS ONE, 8(7): e69215.
498
Nelson, E. L., O’Karma, J. L., Ruperti, F. S., & Novak, M. (2009). Laterality in Semi-Free-
499
Ranging Black and White Rufted Lemurs (Variecia variegata variegata): Head-Tilt
500
Correlates with Hand Use During Feeding. American Journal of Primatology, 71, 1032–
501
1040.
502
O’Leary, H., Fa, J., E. (1993). Effects of Tourists on Barbary Macaques at Gibraltar. Folia
503
Primatolica, 61, 77-91.
504
Osterberg, P., & Nekaris, K. A. I. (2015). The use of animals as photo props to attract tourists
505
in Thailand: A case study of the slow loris Nycticebus spp. TRAFFIC Bulletin, 27, 13–
506
18.
507
Pajares. S. T. (Ed.) (2003, November). The appeal of the Cute Monkeys. Conference: Digital
508
Games Research Conference 2003, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.
509
Pirrone, F., Mariti, C., Gazzano, A., Albertini, M., Sighieri, C., & Diverio, S. (2019).
510
Attitudes toward Animals and Their Welfare among Italian Veterinary Students. Journal
511
of Veterinary Science, 6(1), 19.
512
Price, E. C., Ashmore, L. A. & McGivern, A. (1994), Reactions of zoo visitors to free‐
513
ranging monkeys. Zoo Biology, 13, 355-373.
514
Prokop, P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2008). “Disgusting” Animals: Primary School Children’s
515
Attitudes and Myths of Bats and Spiders. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and
516
Technology Education, 4(2), 87-97.
517
Reuter, K. E., LaFleur, M., Clarke, T. A., Holiniaina Kjeldgaard, F., Ramanantenasoa, I.,
518
Ratolojanahary, T., et al. (2019). A national survey of household pet lemur ownership in
519
Madagascar. PLoS ONE, 14(5): e0216593.
520
Ross, S. R., Lukas, K. E., Lonsdorf, E. V., Stoinski, T. S., Hare, B., Shumaker, R., &
521
Goodall, J. (2008). Inappropriate use and portrayal of chimpanzees. Science, 319(5869),
522
1487.
523
Ross, S. R., Vreeman, V. M., & Lonsdorf, E. V. (2011). Specific Image Characteristics
524
Influence Attitudes about Chimpanzee Conservation and Use as Pets. PLoS ONE, 6(7):
525
e22050.
526
Schroepfer, K. K., Rosati, A. G., Chartrand, T., & Hare, B. (2011). Use of "entertainment"
527
chimpanzees in commercials distorts public perception regarding their conservation
528
status. PloS ONE, 6(10), e26048.
529
Stazaker, K., & Mackinnon, J. (2018). Visitor Perceptions of Captive, Endangered
530
Barbary Macaques (Macaca sylvanus) Used as Photo Props in Jemaa El Fna Square,
531
Marrakech, Morocco. Anthrozoös, 31(6), 761-776.
532
Taylor, N., & Signal, T. (2006). Attitudes to Animals: Demographics Within a Community
533
Sample, Society & Animals, 14(2), 147-157.
534
Wallis, J. & Rick Lee, D. (1999). Primate Conservation: The Prevention of Disease
535
Transmission. International Journal of Primatology. 20(6), 803-826.
536
Ward, P. I., Mosberger, N., Kistler, C. & Fischer, O. (1998). The Relationship Between
537
Popularity and Body Size in Zoo Animals. Conservation Biology, 12, 1408-1411.
538
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0684.v1
Woods B (2000) Beauty and the beast: preferences for animals in Australia. The Journal of
539
Tourism Studies, 11, 25–35.
540
Woods, B. (2002). Good zoo/bad zoo: Visitor experiences in captive settings. Anthrozoös,
541
15(4), 343-360.
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0684.v1
Table
583
Table. 1 – Visitors’ preference for particular primate species. Considered variables include:
584
gender (female and male), age: child (under 12), teenager (13-18), young (19-34), and adult
585
(over 35), continent of origin (i.e., nationality), and guided tour (before or after the visit inside
586
the sanctuary). The “other” category included the non-human primate species that are not
587
present in Monkeyland.
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 30 July 2021 doi:10.20944/preprints202107.0684.v1
