Content uploaded by Nabajit Das
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nabajit Das on Dec 30, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Hani Rocha El Bizri
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hani Rocha El Bizri on Sep 21, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Environmental Development 48 (2023) 100925
Available online 7 September 2023
2211-4645/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Global online trade in primates for pets
Vincent Nijman
a
,
1
, Thais Q. Morcatty
a
,
1
,
*
, Hani R. El Bizri
b
,
c
, Hassan Al-Razi
d
,
Andie Ang
e
, Ahmad Ardiansyah
a
, Sadek Atoussi
a
,
f
, Daniel Bergin
a
, Sarah Bell
a
,
g
,
Franciany Braga-Pereira
h
,
i
, Marco Campera
j
,
k
, Nabajit Das
k
,
l
, Felipe Ennes Silva
m
,
n
,
Kim Feddema
o
, Grace Foreman
a
, Anna Fourage
a
, Smitha D. Gnanaolivu
p
,
Malene Friis Hansen
a
,
q
,
r
, Elena Raˇ
cevska
a
, Brittany C. Rapone
a
,
Ganga Ram Regmi
a
,
s
,
t
, Chris R. Shepherd
a
,
u
, Soya Shukhova
a
,
v
, Penthai Siriwat
a
,
Jaima H. Smith
a
, Seyed Ahmad Mir Mohamad Tabar
w
, Aline S. Tavares
a
,
x
,
Ariana V. Weldon
k
, Angelina Wilson
a
, Nobuyuki Yamaguchi
y
, Mingxia Zhang
z
,
Magdalena S. Svensson
a
, K. Anne-Isola Nekaris
a
,
k
a
Oxford Wildlife Trade Research Group, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
b
School of Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Salford, UK
c
Comunidad de Manejo de Fauna Silvestre en la Amazonía y en Latinoam´
erica, COMFAUNA, Iquitos, Peru
d
Department of Zoology, Jagannath University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
e
Rafes’ Banded Langur Working Group, Wildlife Reserves Singapore Conservation Fund, Singapore
f
Laboratoire de recherch´
e Biologie Eau et Environnement, Universit´
e 8 Mai 1945, Guelma, Algeria
g
Pan Verus Project, Kortor, Lower Tambakha, Sierra Leone
h
Department of Ecology and Systematics, Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Jo˜
ao Pessoa, PB, Brazil
i
Rede de Pesquisa para Estudos sobre Diversidade, Conservaç˜
ao e Uso da Fauna na Amazˆ
onia (RedeFauna), Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil
j
Department of Biological and Medical Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
k
Nocturnal Primate Research Group, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK
l
B.H. College, Gauhati University, Howly, India
m
Research Group on Primate Biology and Conservation, Mamirau´
a Institute for Sustainable Development, Brazil
n
Unit of Evolutionary Biology and Ecology, D´
epartement de Biologie des Organismes, Universit´
e Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
o
School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, Western Australia, Australia
p
Biopsychology Laboratory, University of Mysore, Manasagangotry, India
q
Behavioural Ecology Group, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
r
Department of Anthropology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA
s
Third Pole Conservancy, Bhaktapur-10, Nepal
t
Institute of Forestry, Tribhuvan University, Nepal
u
Monitor Conservation Research Society, Big Lake B.C., Canada
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: vnijman@brookes.ac.uk (V. Nijman), tatamorcatty@gmail.com, thais.queiroz.morcatty-2018@brookes.ac.uk (T.Q. Morcatty),
hanibiz@gmail.com (H.R. El Bizri), chayan1999@yahoo.com (H. Al-Razi), Andie.Ang@colorado.edu (A. Ang), ahmadardiansy@gmail.com
(A. Ardiansyah), atoussi.sadek@univ-guelma.dz (S. Atoussi), danielbergin1@gmail.com (D. Bergin), bell_sarah@icloud.com (S. Bell),
franbraga83@yahoo.com.br (F. Braga-Pereira), mcampera@brookes.ac.uk (M. Campera), nabajit_das1@rediffmail.com (N. Das), felipe@
mamiraua.org.br (F.E. Silva), k.feddema@ecu.edu.au (K. Feddema), grace.foreman-2018@brookes.ac.uk (G. Foreman), fourageanna@gmail.com
(A. Fourage), simmy.smitha@gmail.com (S.D. Gnanaolivu), malenefriishansen@gmail.com (M.F. Hansen), elenaracevska@gmail.com
(E. Raˇ
cevska), brittany.rapone-2018@brookes.ac.uk (B.C. Rapone), regmigr1978@gmail.com (G.R. Regmi), chris.shepherd@mcrsociety.org
(C.R. Shepherd), s.shukhova@gmail.com (S. Shukhova), siriwat.penthai@gmail.com (P. Siriwat), jaimahillary@gmail.com (J.H. Smith),
ahmadmirtabar@gmail.com (S.A. Mir Mohamad Tabar), tavaressantos.aline@gmail.com (A.S. Tavares), a.weldon@brookes.ac.uk (A.V. Weldon),
angelinawilson2010@gmail.com (A. Wilson), nobuyuki.yamaguchi@umt.edu.my (N. Yamaguchi), zhangmingxia@xtbg.org.cn (M. Zhang), m.
svensson@brookes.ac.uk (M.S. Svensson), anekaris@brookes.ac.uk (K. Anne-Isola Nekaris).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envdev
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2023.100925
Received 28 February 2023; Received in revised form 30 July 2023; Accepted 31 August 2023
Environmental Development 48 (2023) 100925
2
v
IUCN SSC Asian Songbird Trade Specialist Group, Singapore
w
Department of Sociology, Arak University, Arak, Iran
x
Socioecological Systems Research Group, Minas Gerais Federal University, Brazil
y
Institute of Tropical Biodiversity and Sustainable Development, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Nerus, Malaysia
z
Key Laboratory of Ecology of Rare and Endangered Species and Environmental Protection (Guangxi Normal University), Ministry of Education,
Guilin, 541006, China
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
CITES
Wildlife conservation
Social commerce
Facebook
Instagram
Social media
Wildlife trade
ABSTRACT
The trade in primates as pets is a global enterprise and as access to the Internet has increased, so
too has the trade of live primates online. While quantifying primate trade in physical markets is
relatively straightforward, limited insights have been made into trade via the Internet. Here we
followed a three-pronged approach to estimate the prevalence and ease of purchasing primates
online in countries with different socioeconomic characteristics. We rst conducted a literature
review, in which we found that Malaysia, Thailand, the USA, Ukraine, South Africa, and Russia
stood out in terms of the number of primate individuals being offered for sale as pets in the online
trade. Then, we assessed the perceived ease of purchasing pet primates online in 77 countries, for
which we found a positive relationship with the Internet Penetration Rate, total human popu-
lation and Human Development Index, but not to Gross Domestic Product per capita or corruption
levels of the countries. Using these results, we then predicted the levels of online primate trade in
countries for which we did not have rst-hand data. From this we created a global map of po-
tential prevalence of primate trade online. Finally, we analysed price data of the two primate taxa
most consistently offered for sale, marmosets and capuchins. We found that prices increased with
the ease of purchasing primates online and the Gross Domestic Product per capita. This overview
provides insight into the nature and intricacies of the online primate pet trade and advocates for
increased trade regulation and monitoring in both primate range and non-range countries where
trade has been substantially reported.
1. Introduction
Unregulated wildlife trade is a major threat to wildlife conservation worldwide (Cardoso et al., 2021; Shirey and Lamberti, 2011).
One in every four wild animal species on the planet is currently exploited for trade, with tropical species particularly susceptible
(Scheffers et al., 2019). Live individuals, body parts, and derivatives are traded for several purposes: decoration, medicinal use, food,
and as pets (D’Cruze et al., 2021; El Bizri et al., 2020; Ingram et al., 2021; Phelps et al., 2010). Wildlife trade is a multi-billion-dollar
sector, in which the legal trade in wildlife is thought to be worth more than US$ 400 billion (Nijman, 2021), while estimates of the
yearly illegal trade in wildlife vary widely from US$ 4 to 23 billion (’t Sas Rolfes et al., 2019), i.e., roughly 1–5% the legal trade size.
For live primates, the international trade, both legal and illegal, has been estimated at US$ 117 and US$ 138 million annually (Nijman,
2020; Norconck et al., 2020). When considering only the illegal trade in live primates, no formal monetary estimates are currently
available, but if proportionally similar to the wider wildlife trade, we can approximate the economic value to be roughly US $1 to 7
million per year.
Sixty percent of primate species are threatened with extinction and almost 75% face population declines (Estrada et al., 2017). As
such, domestic and international trade in live primates has been agged as an urgent matter of concern for their conservation (Blair
et al., 2017; Ceballos-Mago and Chivers, 2010; Duarte-Quiroga and Estrada, 2003; Estrada et al., 2018; LaFleur et al., 2019; Norconck
et al., 2020; Mayor et al., 2022; Nijman et al., 2011; Scheffers et al., 2019). Historically, the live primate trade has involved large-scale
companies that trade captive-bred or wild-caught primates internationally like other commodities, while small-scale traders offer live
primates for sale in brick-and-mortar pet shops and markets, or as travelling traders. As Internet access has become increasingly
widespread, this physical trading has shifted dramatically towards online markets (Bergin et al., 2018; Kitade and Naruse, 2020;
Nijman et al., 2019; Siriwat and Nijman, 2020).
With the recent popularisation of e-commerce and increased access to the Internet, suppliers, and sellers have been provided with
an unprecedented connection to potential new consumers and expanded markets, especially through social media sites (Nijman et al.,
2019; Morcatty et al., 2021). In the EU, the number of people that ordered goods or services online in the previous 12 months increased
from 54% in 2009 to 71% in 2019. This increase was markedly steeper for younger and higher educated groups (Anonymous, 2020). A
similar pattern is seen in China (Hongfei, 2017), India (Goyal, 2015), South Africa (Goga et al., 2019), and Brazil (de Lima Enext,
2017). These trends have also been mirrored in the online trade of primates as pets, with younger generations more interested in
having non-domesticated animals as pets than older generations (Cronin et al., 2022). In particular, social media has played a strong
role in inuencing consumer attitudes and increasing demand for wild animals as pets. For example, an analysis of posts containing
galagos, also know as bush babies (Family Galagidae) (Nekaris, 2013), on Tiktok and Instagram showed that 95% of the comments
1
Joint rst authors.
V. Nijman et al.
Environmental Development 48 (2023) 100925
3
indicated a desire in owning a galago. In a period in which post views of galagos increased by up to 472%, there was a correlated
increase in google searches of the term “galago pet” and in the number of live galagos being exported (Svensson et al., 2022).
The ability to shop online is dependent on the Internet Penetration Rate (IPR), i.e., the percentage of the total population of a given
country or region that uses the Internet, and this percentage varies widely. While in certain parts of the world, such as Scandinavia, the
IPR is close to 100%, in regions such as West Africa or countries like Papua New Guinea and Madagascar it remains under 12%
(Miniwatts Marketing Group, 2020). In addition, other socio-economic factors may inuence the online trade of primates. For
example, the Human Development Index (HDI) and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) have been reported to have a positive relationship
with conservation outcomes (Ament et al., 2019; Barnes et al., 2016), while less corruption, and consequently more effective law
enforcement, may increase the efcacy of punitive measures, increasing the socio-legal and nancial costs of engaging in illegal ac-
tivities (Cooney et al., 2017).
Despite the urgent need to understand the ever-increasing online primate trade from a global perspective, to date only limited
individual studies have reported the sale of live primates over the Internet within a few specic countries and no comprehensive
overview has been presented on this topic. Here, we review the online trade of live primates as reported in the literature, characterising
the nature of these studies, the platforms used to advertise sales, and the number of individuals being offered for sale per country.
Secondly, using knowledge from a large number of independent assessors, we provide an overview of the prevalence of online trade
based on the relative ease of purchasing live primates online in 77 countries, and how this is linked to four country-level socioeconomic
factors - IPR, GDP per capita, HDI and Corruption Perception Index (CPI). Based on the identied socioeconomic factors, we model the
prevalence of live primate online trade at the global level. Thirdly, we assess correlates of asking prices by focussing on two primate
taxa that we observed being sold in signicant numbers and across various platforms in different countries, capuchins (Cebinae) and
marmosets (Callitrichidae). Through dedicated searches and detailed statistical modelling, we present a quantitative overview of the
prevalence of the online primate pet trade, and, importantly, we discuss how data from online sale postings can be used to provide
insight into the nature and intricacies of the live primate pet trade.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Literature review
From June to November 2022, we used Google Scholar and the Web of Science to search for articles, reports, book chapters, and
theses (in English, French, German, Dutch, Portuguese, Bahasa Indonesia, and Spanish) that reported on the trade in live primates for
pets and ltered for those that included data on the online trade. We used the following keywords: primate* and all major primate
genera (e.g., Macaca, Cebus, Nycticebus, etc.) AND online trade. In addition, we consulted the Tess Lemmon Memorial Library of the
Primate Society of Great Britain housed at Oxford Brookes University for reports that were not available online, and we queried all the
co-authors for additional studies.
For each study, we extracted data on: i) whether or not the study was focussed exclusively on primates (either one or more species)
or on a more diverse range of species, ii) the platform used by the sellers, iii) the number of primates that were observed for sale, and iv)
the duration of the study (i.e., the length of time over which the online trade was monitored). For analysis, we only focused on those
studies where at least ve primate species were offered for sale in an individual country, as the likelihood of missing studies that
reported a smaller number of primates (mostly as part of a larger more general wildlife trade study) was considered to be high.
2.2. Ease of purchasing pet primates online
From January to October 2020, we contacted members of the Oxford Wildlife Trade Research Group, alumni of the postgraduate
programmes in primatology and primate conservation at Oxford Brookes University, and colleagues with a good working knowledge of
the online trade in wildlife to assess the prevalence of online trade in primates as pets and the ease of purchase. Forty-ve individuals
agreed to assess one or more countries. Assessors only considered countries or territories with which they were familiar (either as
country nationals or because of work, study, or research). Thirty-four countries were assessed by one assessor only, while forty-three
countries were assessed independently by two or three assessors, so each received multiple assessments (see Supplementary Table S1).
Assessors conducted searches using a combination of general keywords for primates (such as monkey, ape, and marmoset) in local
languages, along with the search terms “sale” or “trade”. The online platforms searched were Facebook, Instagram, Baidu, WeiBo,
Mercado libre, auction sites and classied ads in each country (see Supplementary Table S1). We only considered ‘open’ or ‘public’
groups/platforms or groups that could be joined by minimal effort (i.e., by making a single request to a central administrator, with no
further restrictions/evaluations of access). We excluded groups that were secret and required an invitation or groups that required
evaluation to join due to ethical considerations and the challenge of standardising collection in different countries.
Searches were done in one or more of the country’s national languages, in addition to English when appropriate. Overall, searches
were conducted in 30 languages, with English (20 countries), Spanish (10), Arabic (12), French (6), and Portuguese, Dutch/Afrikaans
and Bahasa Indonesia/Malay/Malaysia/Jawa (4 countries each) being the most common. The other languages included: Bosnian,
Burmese, Cambodian, Chinese, Croatian, Danish, German, Greek, Hindi, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, Nepali, Russian, Serbian,
Slovenian, Philipino, Swedish, Thai and Vietnamese.
Assessors were then asked to rate the ease of nding live primates in online trade using an eight-point Likert scale, based on what
could be found online by searching relevant local platforms in a single afternoon (6 h):
V. Nijman et al.
Environmental Development 48 (2023) 100925
4
- The zero in the scale should be selected when no trade was found at all.
- If primate trade was detected, a value from 1 to 7 should be selected according to the agreement level to at least one of the follow
sentences: “i) primates were easily available; ii) primates were available on multiple trade platforms or offered by multiple vendors;
iii) multiple species were sold; iv) a substantial number of individuals were offered for sale”. Each assessor assigned a score to each
of these aspects, and the average of these values was used to generate an overall score rounded to the nearest point (up or below).
The agreement level from 1 to 7 represents Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Slightly Disagree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Slightly
Agree, Agree and Strongly Agree (Likert, 1932). We deemed these ‘online trade scores’ to represent the prevalence of online
primate trade and consequently the ease of purchasing pet primates online.
To check for the level of agreement between different assessors, we compared the online trade score given by the two rst assessors
for the same country using a Pearson’s correlation. We found a high degree of agreement (Pearson’s R =0.89, t =12.9, df =47, P <
0.0001) (see Supplementary Fig. S1). This provided condence in the accuracy of our assessors, and we therefore included in our
analyses the additional 34 countries for which we only had one assessment for further analysis and the scores for countries with
multiple assessments were averaged.
We then investigated the potential relationship between the online trade scores in all countries assessed with the following ve
socio-economic and ecological variables:
(1) Country GDP per capita (as of 2019) in US$ as a reection of purchasing power, obtained from the World Development In-
dicators (World Bank, 2019).
(2) IPR (as of 2020) identifying what percentage of the population uses the Internet, obtained from Internet World Stats (Miniwatts
Marketing Group, 2020).
(3) HDI (as of 2019) on a scale of 0–1 (range: 0.377–0.954), which takes into account life expectancy at birth, expected years of
schooling for children, mean years of schooling for adults, and GDP per capita (UNDP, 2019).
(4) CPI (as of 2019), on a scale of 0 (very corrupt) to 100 (very clean), which reects perceived levels of public sector corruption by
expert assessments and opinion surveys. Published annually by Transparency International (Transparency International, 2019).
(5) Human population size by country (as of 2020) obtained from the World Development Indicators (World Bank, 2020).
(6) Primate species richness per country taken from Estrada et al. (2017). Non-primate range countries received a richness of 0,
except for in the cases of well-established populations of introduced primates, such as green monkey Chlorocebus sabaeus on the
Cape Verde Islands and Barbados (Boulton et al., 1996; Hazevoet and Masseti, 2011).
Whether or not asking prices were included in online ads varied widely between countries. Often the only way to obtain prices was
to contact the trader directly, which we did not do. During the search, we observed that marmosets and capuchins were the only species
offered for sale that repeatedly appeared in almost all countries assessed. Therefore, for these two commonly traded primate taxa we
collected data on asking prices displayed, corrected by ination as of November 2020 and converted to US dollars. We then used these
two species as indicators to understand possible price uctuations for the other traded species. We excluded unusually low starting
prices (‘0’ or ‘1’) and prices that were clearly only added to meet the requirements of the online platform (e.g., ‘1234’). For this study,
there was no interaction with the traders and no data were permanently stored.
2.3. Data analysis
To assess the relationship between the online trade scores and the ve socio-economic and ecological variables above, we ran a
Generalized Additive Model for Location, Scale, and Shape (GAMLSS) (Stasinopoulos and Rigby, 2007). An advantage of using
GAMLSS instead of a Generalized Linear Model is that the ‘gamlss’ R-package provides distribution families that balance the frequency
of 0’s in the count data (such as the zero-adjusted gamma). We tested for multicollinearity among independent variables with a
pair-wise correlation test and found IPR, GDP, HDI, and the CPI were collinear (Pearson’s R >0.6), and therefore they were not
included concomitantly in the same model. We used the IPR as our baseline and a posteriori re-ran the selected model with the other
collinear variables to obtain the relationship and statistical values for all variables.
To account for the potential of non-linear effects, we tested these using a penalized cubic splines function (cs). In order to avoid
overt, a non-linear model was only chosen over a linear one if the improvement in t was deemed signicant enough to justify the
incurred penalty. To assess the drivers of marmoset and capuchin sales prices we ran a GAMLSS which tested whether sales prices were
affected by the online trade score (ranging from 0 to 7), GDP, whether or not it was a primate-range country, and/or the primate taxa
(marmosets vs capuchins). Model selection was conducted based on the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), with the model displaying
the smallest AIC selected for each research question. If a more complex model demonstrated a lower AIC than the baseline model (with
a sufciently large difference from the second-best model – i.e., a difference of more than 2 is considered signicant), we considered
this as an indication of signicant improvement over the simpler model. All ΔAIC values exceeded the threshold of 2, relative to the
second-best model and to the null model (i.e., devoid of predictor variables) and are presented in the results (Burnham and Anderson,
2004).
Since we did not have assessors for all countries in the world, we tested whether the subset of countries we assessed were globally
representative by comparison to global averages. For that, we conducted separate one-sample t-test to compare each variable (IPR,
GDP, HDI, and CPI) in our sample against the global average. We used Shapiro–Wilk’s test to test normality and Levene’s test for
homogeneity of variances, considering the assumptions for Pearson’s correlation and T-test.
V. Nijman et al.
Environmental Development 48 (2023) 100925
5
Based on our best-t model and the variables selected as the main predictors of the online trade score (namely IPR and human
population size), we used the function gamlss.predict to predict the online trade score for all non-assessed countries (N =94). Countries
that did not have information available for the selected predictor variables were excluded from the prediction (Greenland, North
Korea, South Sudan, Somalia, Western Sahara and Eswatini).
For all statistical analyses, we used R 3.6.3 software (http://www.R-project.org/). We used the R-packages gamlss (Version 5.1–6)
for the GAMLSS and the prediction and vegan (Version 2.5–6) for Pearson correlation, one sample T-Test, homoscedasticity test and
normality test. We assumed signicance when p <0.05. We used Quantum GIS 2.18.9 (https://quantum-gis.en.softonic.com/) to
create the map with the online primate trade score predictions.
2.4. Ethical considerations
Traditionally, researchers interested in the live primate trade have visited pet shops, wholesale traders (exporters), or brick-and-
mortar animal markets (e.g., D’Cruze et al., 2021; Duarte-Quiroga and Estrada, 2003; Nijman et al., 2017; Shepherd, 2010). Where
trade happens openly, all involved have a reasonable expectation that they can be observed by others, just like when visiting any other
public space (Burkell et al., 2014; Siriwat et al., 2019). A small percentage of trade does occur out of sight, in back alleys, or at traders’
premises, and can only be observed when one is accepted as part of the group. The online trade that has emerged in recent years is not
all that different from the trade in open, public spaces. It is in the best interest of the sellers to ensure that potential customers have the
opportunity to see and buy whatever they have on offer. While a proportion of wildlife trade occurs out of sight, in the “back alleys of
the Internet”, or even on the hidden or ‘dark’ web, that proportion is small (Harrison et al., 2016; Stringham et al., 2023). While the
online trade in primates as pets mostly occurs in the open, in some countries, one has to request access to private online groups. As
noted by Siriwat et al. (2019), joining these groups often merely involves sending a request after which access will be granted within a
24-h period.
Due to the potentially sensitive content, we used guidelines from Roulet et al. (2017) for covert observations and the recom-
mendations of Kosinski et al. (2015) for online research. The assessment of the online trade in primates was conducted without direct
interaction with any of the vendors, group members, or administrators (other than when requesting membership).
Although the majority of our data were available in the public domain, some groups required access requests. In these instances,
covert observation was deemed justiable as it was necessary to obtain accurate estimates of trade and to ensure the quality of data
collected. All data was collected manually and no webscraping or application programming interfaces (APIs) were used. The data
collected was minimized where possible, no personal data were collected, and no data were permanently stored. We anonymized data
after collection, and we do not publish any information that may be attributed to any one individual or group (buyer or seller). Since
the data used for this specic study were available in the public domain, no research ethics permission was needed. This study did not
include any direct research on animal or human subjects. The authors declare that they have no conicts of interest.
3. Results
3.1. Overview of studies on the online trade in live primates
We identied 20 studies that reported on the online sale of primates from a total of 24 countries; 12 focused on primates, often
specic taxa, and eight focused on a wide range of wildlife, including primates (Table 1). In 14 of the 24 countries, fewer than 100
individual primates were found offered for sale, but it was often unclear from the methodology how frequently online platforms were
checked (i.e., daily, weekly, irregular) or how many platforms were monitored. Countries where a relatively large number of pet
primates were offered for sale were the USA, Malaysia, Thailand, South Africa, Ukraine and Russia. Auction sites and Facebook were
the most popular platforms to monitor, and presumably purchase, primates. In Indonesia and Turkey, Instagram was a popular
platform for trading primates as pets. The UK was the only country for which we could nd multiple studies covering over a decade. In
most cases, the studies involved at least several months of sampled data or monitoring, but only six covered a period of one year or
more.
3.2. Global assessment of the ease of online purchasing of primates
We obtained 130 online trade scores from 45 assessors for 77 countries during a single day of investigation per country, including
38 primate range countries. When compared to the averages of socio-economic factors for 171 countries for which data were available,
our sample countries had a slightly higher IPR (54.9 ±SD 28.2 vs 46.8 ±SD 29.5: t-value =2.5, df =74, P =0.02), a higher HDI
(0.761 ±SD 0.135 vs 0.716 ±SD 0.155; t-value =2.9, df =75, P =0.005), but a similar GDP per capita (US$ 27,780 ±SD 26,419 vs
US$ 22,181 ±SD 22,207: t-value =1.9, df =75, P =0.1), and similar levels of corruption (80.4 ±SD 50.8 vs 88.3 ±SD 51.1; t-value
= − 1.4, df =74, P =0.18). Therefore, while our sample was slightly biased towards countries with higher levels of Internet access and
human development, we believe that this database is still globally representative.
Facebook, Instagram, and online pet shops were the most common platforms where primates were available for sale. The overall
online trade score differed little between primate range countries (mean of 2.56 ±SD 2.01) and non-range countries (mean of 1.98 ±
SD 1.88). We found a positive relationship between the trade score and the IPR, HDI, and the country’s human population (Table 2;
Fig. 1). We did not nd relationships between the online trade score and either the CPI, GDP per capita, primate richness or between
range and non-range countries.
V. Nijman et al.
Environmental Development 48 (2023) 100925
6
Table 1
Previous research concerning the online trade in live primates. Only studies in which at least ve primates were offered for sale were included.
Primate range countries are italicized. *These numbers may include primates that are not alive. ** these number included previous months in which
advertisements were consult (not only the month of social media use); considering that some ads may be deleted over time, this value may under-
estimate the total number of individuals to be recorded.
Country/region Species Legality of keeping primates as
pets
Platform Length of
monitoring
Number of
individuals
recorded
Reference
Asia
India Slow and
slender
lorises
All slow and slender lorises are
protected
RicePuller 10 months 86 Morgan and Nijman
(2020)
Nepal Bengal slow
lorises
Bengal slow loris is protected RicePuller 10 months 8 Morgan and Nijman
(2020)
Thailand Wide range
of wildlife
Primates are protected; captive-
bred primates can be traded
Facebook 1 month 198 Phassaraudomsak and
Krishnasamy (2018)
Thailand Primates and
carnivores
Primates are protected; captive-
bred primates can be traded
Facebook 18 months 380 Siriwat et al. (2019)
Indonesia Apes All protected Instagram, Facebook 32 months** 127 Nijman et al. (2021)
Malaysia Gibbons All gibbons are protected Instagram, Facebook 13 months 5 Smith (2018)
Malaysia Wide range
of wildlife
Most primates are protected Facebook 5 months 27 Krishnasamy and
Stoner (2016)
Malaysia All primates Most primates are protected Facebook 10 months 736 Zainol et al. (2018)
Turkey Slow lorises Unknown Instagram 11 months 135 Kitson and Nekaris
(2017)
United Arab
Emirates
Wide range
of wildlife
Unknown Auction sites 6 weeks 8 IFAW (2014)
Japan Slow lorises Some species can be kept as
pets
Online pet shops 3 months 56 Musing et al. (2015)
Africa
Algeria Barbary
macaque
Barbary macaques are
protected
Classied ads 6 months 7 Bergin et al. (2018)
South Africa Mammals Legal Facebook, South
African advertising
websites
12 months 115 Shivambu et al. (2021)
Cameroon, Chad,
DRC, Gabon,
and Nigeria
Wide range
of wildlife
Some species protected –
license required/Some species
protected/Unknown/All
protected/License required
Classied/listings, E-
commerce, Forum
Online marketplace
39 months 80* Woolloff et al., (2022)
Europe
UK All primates Certain primates can be traded Classied ads 4 days 40 Soulsbury et al. (2009)
UK All primates Certain primates can be traded Classied ads – 146 Travers and Turner
(2005)
UK All primates Certain primates can be traded Specialists’ website 1 day 44 Anonymous (2012)
UK Wide range
of wildlife
Certain primates can be traded Auction sites 6 weeks 6* IFAW (2008)
Germany Wide range
of wildlife
Primates cannot be kept as pets Auction sites 6 weeks 7* IFAW (2008)
Poland Wide range
of wildlife
Certain primates can be kept as
pets
Auction sites 6 weeks 27 IFAW (2014)
Russia Wide range
of wildlife
Unknown Classied ads, online
pet shops
3 months >128 Krever and Ivannikova
(2020)
Russia Wide range
of wildlife
Unknown Auction sites 6 weeks 117 IFAW (2014)
Ukraine Wide range
of wildlife
Unknown Auction sites 6 weeks 219 IFAW (2014)
America
USA Primates Some primates can be traded in
certain States
Specialists’ websites 12 months 551 Seaboch and Cahoon
(2021)
USA Wide range
of wildlife
Some primates can be traded in
certain States
Auction sites 6 weeks 18* IFAW (2008)
Canada Wide range
of wildlife
Certain primates can be kept as
pets in some provinces
Auction sites 6 weeks 6* IFAW (2008)
Colombia Wide range
of wildlife
Unknown Auction sites 6 weeks 28* IFAW (2008)
Brazil Wide range
of wildlife
Certain primates can be traded
only by certied breeder under
a quota
Facebook, WhatsApp 4 months >81 Wyatt et al. (2022)
V. Nijman et al.
Environmental Development 48 (2023) 100925
7
We then predicted the online trade scores for countries we could not directly assess with modelling while accounting for its IPR, and
human population, to provide a global picture of the prevalence of online primate trade. We found that USA, South Africa, Russia, and
Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand) stand out as the hotspots for the ease of online purchase of primates,
followed by some South American and European countries (see Table 3). Online trade of live primates was minimal in most of con-
tinental Africa and South Asia (Fig. 2).
Table 2
Details on the Generalized Additive Model for Location, Scale and Shape (GAMLSS) of the drivers of primate online trade scores and drivers of prices
of marmosets and capuchins sold.
Response variable Predictor variables Estimate Std. Error t-value P value ΔAIC (ΔAIC
null
)
c
Online Trade Score
a
(Intercept) −0.022 0.245 −0.9 0.920 3.20 (12.03)
Internet penetration rate 0.008 0.004 2.7 0.009*
Human development index 1.815 0.745 2.4 0.017*
Human population 0.172 0.044 3.9 0.001*
Corruption perception index −0.004 0.004 0.8 0.40
GDP per capita 0.001 0.003 −0.1 0.89
Primate richness −0.001 0.004 −0.3 0.76
Range/non-range country
d
−0.013 0.231 −0.1 0.96
Asking price
b
(Intercept) 3.170 0.529 6.0 <0.001* 4.31 (38.21)
Online Trade Score 0.691 0.093 7.5 <0.001*
GDP per capita 0.040 0.007 6.0 <0.001*
Range/non-range
d
−0.516 0.304 −1.7 0.097
Primate species
d
−0.591 0.300 −2.0 0.055
*p <0.05.
a
Zero-adjusted Gamma distribution (link function log).
b
Gamma distribution (link function log).
c
ΔAIC is the difference between the AIC of the best model and the second-best ranked model and ΔAICnull is the difference between the AIC of the
selected model and the AIC of the null model.
d
Reference classes: Non-range countries and capuchin.
Fig. 1. Relationship between the online primate trade score and (a) the Internet Penetration Rate, (b) Human Development Index, (c) human
population, (d) Corruption Perception Index, (e) GDP per capita and (f) primate species richness. Points are normalized partial residuals. Y-axis is
plotted as original values at a log (ln) scale. The shaded area represents the 95% condence interval. Only relationships (a), (b) and (c) are sig-
nicant (see Table 2 for details).
V. Nijman et al.
Environmental Development 48 (2023) 100925
8
3.3. Price of primates traded online
The primates most frequently recorded in trade were capuchins, marmosets, squirrel monkeys (genus Saimiri), tamarins (Saguinus),
slow loris (Nycticebus, Xanthonycticebus), macaques (Macaca); with capuchins and marmosets the groups that appeared most consis-
tently across a large range of countries. The mean price for a capuchin (mean US$ 2957 ±SD 4900) or a marmoset (mean US$ 1859 ±
SD 2181) differed greatly between countries. At the country level, this price was positively correlated with both the ease of purchasing
primates online and GDP per capita (Table 2; Fig. 3). Although not statistically signicant, asking prices for capuchins tended to be
higher than that for marmosets (p =0.055), and these two primate taxa tended to cost more in non-primate-range countries than in
primate-range countries (p =0.097) (Fig. 3).
Table 3
Assessed countries deemed by at all independent assessors to have a high online presence of the live primate pet trade (scores 6 or 7 on a 0 to 7 scale),
with respective country-level characteristics. See Methods for variable denitions.
Country Internet penetration rate
(%) (2020)
GDP per
capita
Human Development
Index
Corruption
Perception Index
Online Trade Score
mean ±SD
Most commonly traded
primates
Indonesia 63* 12,302 0.707 40 7.0 ±0.0 Macaques, slow lorises
Russia 71 29,181 0.824 28 6.5 ±0.7 Lemurs, slow lorises
USA 96 65,281 0.920 69 6.5 ±1.0 Marmosets, capuchins
Malaysia 81 29,228 0.804 53 6.0 ±0.0 Slow lorises
Thailand 82 19,228 0.765 36 6.0 ±0.0 Slow lorises, marmosets
South
Africa
55 12,999 0.705 44 6.0 ±0.0 Marmosets, capuchins
Japan 94 43,236 0.915 73 6.0 ±1.0 Marmosets, squirrel
monkeys
*
Internet penetration rate is higher in the western part of Indonesia (Sumatra, Java, Bali), where primates are native, compared to eastern
Indonesia (Moluccas, Papua), where primates are not native.
Fig. 2. Online trade scores representing the prevalence of online primate trade (0 - no trade present at all; 7 - easily available, multiple platforms,
multiple vendors, multiple species, a substantial number of individual primates offered for sale) accounting for the Internet Penetration Rate and
human population size. Dashed countries represent the 77 countries scored by independent assessors and countries with no dashes represent those
with scores predicted through modelling. Countries or territories in grey were excluded from the prediction due to the absence of data (see Sup-
plementary Table S1 for details).
V. Nijman et al.
Environmental Development 48 (2023) 100925
9
4. Discussion
4.1. An overview of the online trade in primates
Our results indicate that the practice of selling live primates online is widespread across both range and non-range countries;
however, published research specically addressing this issue is limited at present. Primate specic studies of online trade thus far
have often been restricted to specic taxa (Table 1) and appear to have a bias towards Asia (Musing et al., 2015; Phassaraudomsak and
Krishnasamy, 2018; Siriwat et al., 2019; Zainol et al., 2018; Nijman et al., 2021). Comparing the results from these studies and
extrapolating to a wider range of taxa or regions is hampered by varying methodology and lack of detail in written methods. In the
literature consulted, when methodology was discussed, there was signicant variation in the strength of efforts to assess the online
primate trade, from single-instance website checks to long-term, consistent monitoring.
Our assessment of the prevalence of the online trade and the ease to which live primates can be purchased online illustrates that
primates are kept as pets in a large number of sampled countries and allowed us to extrapolate with statistical modelling to the rest of
the globe. In our model, South and North America, Europe, and Southeast Asia are identied as areas where primates are easily
purchased online, albeit with marked differences between individual countries. Continental Africa (sans South Africa) and South Asia
stand out as regions with relatively low levels of online trade in pet primates (scores 0 and 1). Primates are commonly kept as pets and
traded in physical markets in these regions, so this result may reect the generally low levels of Internet penetration (Nekaris and
Bergin, 2017; Casanova and Sousa, 2007). We highlight that in these regions, the knowledge of local communities in sourcing, selling,
Fig. 3. Relationship between the asking price of an individual marmoset and capuchin (in US$) and (a) the online trade score (ranging from 0 to 7)
and (b) GDP per capita of the country in which these were offered for sale; and difference of asking prices between (c) primate-range countries and
non-primate-range countries; and (d) primate taxa. Only relationships (a) and (b) are statistically signicant (see Table 2 for details). The shaded
area represents the 95% condence interval.
V. Nijman et al.
Environmental Development 48 (2023) 100925
10
and purchasing primates for the pet trade plays a more important role here than communicating via the Internet (Ceballos-Mago and
Chivers, 2010; Norconck et al., 2020; Raˇ
cevska et al., 2020; Reuter and Schaefer, 2016).
Our research reveals a signicant, positive relationship between HDI and online trade score, with the highest effect size among the
variables tested. Generally, higher levels of HDI are associated with greater health and education standards and higher gross national
income per capita, which are typical indicators of developed countries. This nding contradicts the initial expectation that a lower
HDI, which correlates with weaker conservation efforts and surveillance, would result in increased levels of primate trade (Estrada
et al., 2020). Our results align with the ndings of (Bachmann et al., 2022) who examined the Africa-Europe South-North gradient of
wildlife hunting, demonstrating that hunting for entertainment purposes also increases as HDI rises. People with higher standard of
living have more disposable income to spend on luxury items such as pets, and exotic pets are often seen as a status symbol (Spee et al.,
2019). This relationship suggests that the primary driver behind the global online trade may be the demand for primates as pets in
developed countries (often non-range countries for primates), driven by the desire for entertainment or status, rather than the
prevalence of supply in countries where poverty leads to an inevitable exploitation of wildlife. These ndings have important im-
plications for conservation efforts, as by acknowledging this trend and implementing targeted interventions, it is possible to work
towards reducing the demand for primates as pets in developed countries.
We did not nd a statistical correlation between the online trade score and afuence, and while GDP is taken into account in the
HDI, this suggests that merely GDP alone does not account for the variation observed. This may be because in our study we did not
distinguish between the legal and illegal trade (see section 4.3). Previous research has shown that low GDP tends to be associated with
illegal trade, while higher GDP is more likely to be associated with legal trade (Estrada, 2009; Morcatty et al., 2020). Therefore, further
investigations that clearly distinguish the legality status of the animals sold are necessary to unveil whether, and how, GDP inuence
the online trade of primates.
All countries with an IPR below 50%, such as Sierra Leone, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Madagascar, had scored low on the level of
online primate trade but once the IPR was above 50%, scores 5 and above were found frequently (Fig. 1). This suggests that there may
exist a minimum threshold of Internet access needed at the country level before a shift in trade can occur from traditional brick-and-
mortar markets to online platforms (cf. Nijman et al., 2019). A clear caveat to this, however, is that IPR is a country-level statistic and
certainly within some countries there are marked differences in access to the Internet across geographic regions. For instance,
Indonesia as a whole has an IPR of 63%, but that average is lowered because of very rural or less developed islands, while in urban
areas of the island of Java, where over half of the population of Indonesia resides, the IPR can be higher than 70%. We expect a similar
pattern in countries like Tanzania, Egypt, or Pakistan, where the overall country-wide level of Internet access is still limited, but there
are large urban cities (i.e., Dar-el-Salaam, Cairo/Alexandria, and Karachi/Lahore) where Internet access is more universal, and
e-commerce is much better established.
In addition to varying levels of Internet access within countries, while the assessed online trade scores represented the entire
country, we acknowledge that certain countries have large variation in prevalence of online pet primate trade across geographic
regions as well. For example, in China, primate trade in general appears more prevalent in the south than in the north and east (Ni
et al., 2018), and we expect that this pattern is reected in the online primate trade as well. In Thailand, trade in primates (and
carnivores) was concentrated in the capital of Bangkok and the far southern provinces, close to the Malaysian border (Siriwat et al.,
2019).
4.2. Online international trade
While the focus of this study was on domestic trade in pet primates, it is clear that this trade has at least two important international
components. Firstly, while captive breeding for pets exists, we cannot discount the likelihood of international trafcking occurring
before animals are posted online in non-range countries. Secondly, prospective buyers may have the option to order pet primates
online from sellers based in nearby countries, allowing for post-sale international trade.
We found no difference between the ease of purchasing a pet primate in primate range countries compared to non-range countries
and no correlation to the number of native primate species in the country, which contradicts previous ndings from research on
primate trade in physical markets (e.g., Svensson et al., 2021). Some of the countries that had a very high online trade score, i.e., where
various primate species are almost universally available online, were non-range countries such as the USA and Russia. Additionally, in
certain primate-range countries such as Japan and South Africa, the majority of primates offered for sale online were Neotropical
primates, mainly capuchins, marmosets and squirrel monkeys. Those species had previously been recorded widely offered for sale in
many countries (de Souza Fialho et al., 2016; do Nascimento et al., 2013). Slow lorises were not only prevalent in range countries such
as Indonesia or Malaysia but were also commonly recorded in Japan and Russia (cf. Musing et al., 2015; Nekaris et al., 2013). This then
suggests signicant movement of primates from range countries to non-range countries, and, in certain countries, the establishment of
commercial breeding of non-native primates to meet the demand for the domestic pet trade (e.g., Norconk et al., 2023).
One aspect that was agged by several assessors was the ease of ordering pet primates online with the vendors from neighbouring
countries; for example, a prospective pet owner in Singapore would be able to do an online search for vendors based in the Malaysian
State of Johor immediately north of Singapore or the Indonesian province of Riau, just to the south. With a frequent ow of goods
between these regions, delivery of a pet primate was not seen as problematic. Additionally, prospective buyers in Cyprus, a country
that is part of the EU, could order primates online from Turkey through Northern Cyprus. Northern Cyprus is recognised as a nation
only by Turkey and due to its strong political and economic ties to that country, this provides Cypriot buyers access to species pur-
portedly brought in from Turkey, such as slow lorises and marmosets. Within the EU and also the Mercosur (the Southern Common
Market, a South American trade bloc established in 1991), border inspections are limited and considerable differences in legislation
V. Nijman et al.
Environmental Development 48 (2023) 100925
11
with regards to keeping primates as pets allow for virtual cross-border shopping in neighbouring countries (Svensson et al., 2023). As
such, the ease of purchasing primates online is dependent in part on the socio-political situation in these countries and does not provide
a complete picture of the ability of purchasing them.
We consider in this study open or public groups/platforms or closed groups that could be joined by minimal effort, based on the
assumption that these types of groups would be more accessible and representative of the overall landscape of online wildlife trade.
The trade in highly selective or secret groups or platform still occurs, particularly in regions with more stringent enforcement mea-
sures, and it may not have been captured by our trade score index. While this is true only for the illegal trade, and we cover legal and
illegal trade, we acknowledge that our results of higher trade score index may be biased towards regions with less policing.
Asking prices of pet primates that are offered for sale online differ substantially, ranging from less than US$100 to over US$10,000.
This is probably related to age, with younger ones usually more expensive than older individuals, in addition to species, country of sale,
origin (captive-bred or wild-caught), and legality. While it may be legal to keep and trade primates as pets in many countries, there are
serious risks attached to this trade as attested by the successful establishment of feral primate populations outside their native ranges
(e.g. mona monkeys Cercopithecus mona in Grenada: Gunst et al., 2016; squirrel monkeys, vervets Chlorocebus pygerythrus and rhesus
macaques Macaca mulatta in Florida: Anderson et al., 2017; rhesus macaques and patas monkeys Erythrocebus patas in Puerto Rico:
Gonz´
alez-Martínez, 2004; green monkeys Chlorocebus sabaeus on the Cape Verde Islands: Hazevoet and Masseti, 2011). Many
non-native primates are readily available on the Internet in a wide range of countries, increasing the likelihood of the introduction of
primates to new locations.
Greater contact with non-human primates, both within and outside of primate range countries, has the potential to facilitate the
transfer of pathogens and diseases from primates to humans (de Souza Jesus et al., 2022; Morcatty et al., 2022a). This is evidenced by
the monkeypox virus (Smith et al., 2009), herpes B virus (Huff and Barry, 2003), simian T-cell lymphotropic virus (Schillaci et al.,
2005), simian foamy virus (Engel et al., 2006) and the general spread of diseases that are linked to the global trade in wildlife (Karesh
et al., 2005; Pavlin et al., 2009). While these transmissions were from primate to human, the reverse has also been observed when a pet
common marmoset was infected with human herpesvirus 1 and died as a consequence of it (Huemer et al., 2002). Physical trauma due
to bites and scratches by pet primates is another cause of concern when there is an increase in the number of primates that are being
kept as pets (e.g., Leung et al., 2015; Mease and Baker, 2012).
4.3. Legality of the online trade in primates
The issue of primate trade legality in the countries we assessed is a complex matter, without a clear-cut answer, as illustrated in
Table 1 of the literature review. For example, in Brazil, while all wild primate species are protected and cannot be traded, there exists a
legal trade in captive-bred primates of a limited number of species and individuals under a permit system. Therefore, online primate
trade can be legal, as long as the seller has the required permits, and the animals are genuinely captive-bred. In contrast, Indonesia does
not protect all wild primate species, but commercial trade in wild-caught primates is regulated through a quota system. However, for
numerous species, these quotas have been set to zero for at least a decade, making a substantial part of the commercial trade in both
protected and unprotected species illegal. In countries like the Netherlands, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand primates cannot be
kept as pets, all trade in primates for pets is illegal and these regulations are generally well-enforced.
In many other countries, while the majority of primate species are restricted, some exceptions are permitted for smaller species,
such as marmosets and capuchins, which can be kept by private individuals as pets. In certain states in the USA, i.e., Alabama, Kansas,
Nevada, West Virginia, there are virtually no restrictions on the keeping of any primate as pets and indeed as many as 100 chimpanzees
Pan troglodytes are kept as a pet in private hands in these parts of the USA (Rainer et al., 2014). In other states, i.e., Louisiana, Min-
nesota, Maryland, there are restrictions in place that preclude private individuals from keeping all species of primate as pets. In
Denmark it is legal to keep tamarins and marmosets as pets; in the UK all smaller primates, up to the size of a capuchin or a ring-tailed
lemur Lemur catta, can be legally kept as pets, whereas in Chile, despite the high trade score achieved in this study, all primate species
are prohibited to be kept as pets. In Thailand, all primates native to the country are protected and cannot be traded legally, but exotic
primates can, provided their import into the country is compliant with CITES legislation or are captive-bred in Thailand (Siriwat et al.,
2019).
In countries where regulatory frameworks are based on specic criteria, determining whether each primate advertised online
represents legal or illegal trade is challenging. In addition, it is important to note that the issue of wildlife trade is not solely related to
illegality. Legal trade can also be unsustainable, leading to negative impacts on biodiversity and ecological systems. As such, there is a
need to ponder the concepts of legality, threat, and sustainability in order to better understand the intricate issues at play (Hughes
et al., 2023). A more detailed and comprehensive study would be necessary to ascertain the legality of primate trade in such countries.
4.4. Recommendations to improve regulation of the online sale of primates as pets
A clear recommendation from our study is to commence a discussion on the need for increased regulation of trade in primates
within many of the primate range countries, and indeed of several non-primate range countries, largely due to increased Internet-based
sales. At the national level, environmental and governing bodies are urged to better enforce existing species-protection laws and legal
frameworks to monitor and manage the rising sale of non-native species. Primates are excellent agship species to anchor this debate
(Chapman et al., 2020). Our results also show that the issue of online trade in live primates is international and will require multilateral
coordination and intervention (Fukushima et al., 2021). We identied an unbalanced effort among studies already published, and a
lack of in-depth information for several countries. Therefore, an increase in collaborative research and, more importantly, the
V. Nijman et al.
Environmental Development 48 (2023) 100925
12
establishment of a common protocol to assess the traded species is required to facilitate coordinated decision-making efforts.
Many endangered primate species are explicitly and openly advertised for sale on websites appealing to buyers in multiple
countries. Pet traders increasingly resort to the Internet in a wide range of countries. Improved packaging and infrastructure allow live
primates to be ordered on the Internet and shipped to one’s door in a matter of days. Especially for some of the smaller primate species
(e.g. slow lorises) rising trade demands, including via the Internet, have seen an increase in wild-animal harvesting leading to their
near extinction in various parts of Asia (Thach et al., 2018; Nekaris et al., 2010), similar to what has happened to Barbary macaques
Macaca sylvanus (Van Lavieren et al., 2016). Although we could not always identify individuals to the species level, some taxa, such as
the genus Sapajus, include Critically Endangered or Endangered species (such as buff-headed capuchin S. xanthosternos and crested
capuchin S. robustus, respectively) which inhabit areas where trade was recorded or neighbouring regions. The Critically Endangered
buff-headed capuchin may constitute a signicant proportion of the illegal pet trade; for instance, it represents an alarming 54.8% of
the total number of capuchin monkeys illegally held as pets in Brazil’s Bahia state, as documented by do Nascimento et al. (2013).
Although other taxa, such as marmosets may not be currently classied as threatened, the combination of trade with other existing
anthropogenic threats, such as habitat loss and invasive species introduction, may pose a signicant risk and condemn these species to
population declines in the near future.
Alongside better assessments, improved legislation and law enforcement, the social media component in this type of trade must be
considered if we aim to curb the illegal online trade in primates and its underlying impacts. The role of social media in the wildlife
trade has become more apparent in recent years (Bergin et al., 2018; Chng and Bouhuys, 2015; Krishnasamy and Stoner, 2016;
Moloney et al., 2021; Nijman et al., 2019; Siriwat and Nijman, 2018; Svensson et al., 2022). A critical aspect of this problem is that
most of the primate-related content that garners millions of views and likes portrays these animals as pets or individuals in anthro-
pogenic environments, often close to humans (Nunes et al., 2023). Such portrayal signicantly inuences public perceptions and
potentially contributes to the trade (Aldrich et al., 2023). Online platforms that facilitate wildlife trade, such as social media platforms,
should take responsibility not only for the illegal content advertised but also for the inuence exerted on people (Morcatty et al.,
2022b). Some platforms, including Facebook and Instagram, have joined the Global Coalition to End Wildlife Trafcking Online and
aimed to reduce online wildlife trafcking by 80 percent by 2020. However, these platforms do not take proactive measures to counter
crime, such as sharing all data with the police, due to their privacy policies. As a result, platforms often rely on deleting posts or user
proles (if they are detected) as their primary approach to addressing this issue. Taking advantage of this inuence, they must support
widespread campaigns on the consequences of the illegal trade and the complexity and responsibility assumed when purchasing a wild
pet, as advocated by several authors (e.g., Nekaris et al., 2013; Svensson et al., 2022; Waters and El-Harrad, 2013).
Various strategies, such as machine vision models based on deep neural networks, have been developed and are continuously
rened to detect and investigate posts of legally protected species, including primates, that are being sold online (Kulkarni and Di
Minin, 2022). Because monitoring both domestic and international Internet trade requires a technologically innovative framework and
constant improvement, a coordinated strategy could be strengthened within or parallel to CITES. This framework could serve as a
common baseline for all countries, which could fortify it with additional mechanisms according to their domestic needs.
It is therefore essential to have a collaborative approach to monitor trade at both national and international levels to maximize
effectiveness, including all relevant stakeholders, such as government agencies, law enforcement, conservation organizations, and
private sector companies. By doing so, we can hope to reduce the harmful impact of the unsustainable online trade in primates and
other affected taxa and promote primate species conservation.
Author statement
VN, TQM, MSS, KAIN conceived the study; MSS, VN, SS, KAIN conducted the literature survey; VN, TQM, HREB, HAR, AAng, AArd,
SA, DB, SB, FBP, MC, ND, FES, KF, GF, AF, SDG, MFH, ER, BR, GRR, CRS, SS, PS, JHS, SAMMT, AST, AVW, AW, NY, MZ, MSS, KAIN
provided country-level data on the online trade; TQM, HREB, FBP, MSS, MC, KAIN, VN analysed the data; VN, TQM, MSS, KAIN drafted
the paper; HREB, FBP edited the paper, all authors commented on writing and approved nal submission.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing nancial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
inuence the work reported in this paper
Data availability
All data is available in the supplementary material
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr Alejandro Estrada for discussions at the 8th European Federation of Primatology meeting in Oxford in September 2019
that led to the development of the research. Meg Barrett, Dr Elene Bersacola, Dr Camille Coudrat, Evros Damianou, Terence Fuh Neba,
Gaspard van de Hamme, Kelly M. Martin, Daniel Nielsen, Sam Un, and Dr Sam Shanee for helping with the assessment of the online
trade in primates either by active searching or with linguistic help. Dr Paul Garber commented on an earlier version of this paper.
Funding was received from WCS Graduate Scholarship Program, a program of the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Christensen
V. Nijman et al.
Environmental Development 48 (2023) 100925
13
Conservation Leaders Scholarship (TQM), Wildlife Conservation Network Scholarship Program through the Sidney Byers Scholarship
award (TQM), Funds for Women Graduates from the British Federation of Women Graduates (TQM), National Council for Scientic
and Technological Development (CNPq) grant numbers 201475/2017-0 and 302140/2020-4 (HREB, FES), European Union’s Horizon
2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 801505 (FES); International Pri-
matological Society Conservation grant (FES); the Margot Marsh Biodiversity Foundation grant numbers SMA–CCO–G0023 and SMA-
CCOG0037 (FES), Primate Conservation Inc. #1713 and #1689 (FES). Cambridge Student Conference on Conservation Science Miriam
Rothschild Travel Bursary Programme (2019) (AST, AArd), Cleveland Zoo and Metroparks Zoo Society (KAIN, VN, AArd), People’s
Trust for Endangered Species (KAIN, VN, AArd), International Primate Protection League (KAIN, AArd, VN), Primate Action Fund
(MSS, VN, CRS), Global Challenges Fund (MC), Oxford Brookes University Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Research Event
Fund (VN), The Rufford Foundation (GRR, FES), Primate Society of Great Britain (GRR), American Society of Primatologists (GRR),
Ocean Park Conservation Foundation Hong Kong (GRR), Oxford Brookes University Habitat Country Scholarship (GRR), Sasakawa
Great Britain Foundation (BCR). We thank the two anonymous reviewers for constructive comments and suggestions for improvement.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2023.100925.
References
Aldrich, B.C., Feddema, K., Fourage, A., Nekaris, K.A.I., Shanee, S., 2023. In: Primate portrayals: narratives and perceptions of primates in entertainment. Primates in
Anthropogenic Landscapes: Exploring Primate Behadvioural Flexibility across Human Contexts. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 307–326.
Ament, J.M., Collen, B., Carbone, C., Mace, G.M., Freeman, R., 2019. Compatibility between agendas for improving human development and wildlife conservation
outside protected areas: insights from 20 years of data. People Nature 1 (3), 305–316.
Anderson, C.J., Hostetler, M.E., Johnson, S.A., 2017. History and status of introduced non-human primate populations in Florida. SE. Nat. 16, 19–36.
Anonymous, 2012. Primates as Pets – Is There a Case for Regulation? Looe. RSPCA and Wild Futures.
Anonymous, 2020. E-Commerce Statistics for Individuals. EuroStat, Brussels, Belgium.
Bachmann, ME, Kulik, L, Gatiso, T, Nielsen, MR, Haase, D, Heurich, M, et al., 2022. Analysis of differences and commonalities in wildlife hunting across the Africa-
Europe South-North gradient. PLoS Biol 20 (8), e3001707. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001707.
Barnes, M.D., Craigie, I.D., Harrison, L.B., Geldmann, J., Collen, B., Whitmee, S., et al., 2016. Wildlife population trends in pro- tected areas predicted by national
socio-economic metrics and body size. Nat. Commun. 7, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12747.
Bergin, D., Atoussi, S., Waters, S., 2018. Online trade of Barbary macaques Macaca sylvanus in Algeria and Morocco. Biodivers. Conserv. 27, 531–534.
Blair, M.E., et al., 2017. Applying systems thinking to inform studies of wildlife trade in primates. Am. J. Primatol. 79, e22715.
Boulton, A.M., Horrocks, J.A., Baulu, J., 1996. The barbados vervet monkey (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus): changes in population size and crop damage, 1980–1994.
Int. J. Primatol. 17, 831–844.
Burkell, J., Fortier, A., Wong, L.L.Y.C., Simpson, J.L., 2014. Facebook: public space, or private space? Inf. Commun. Soc. 17 (8), 974–985.
Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R., 2004. Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Socio. Methods Res. 33, 261–304.
Cardoso, P., Amponsah-Mensah, K., Barreiros, J.P., Bouhuys, J., Cheung, H., Davies, A., et al., 2021. Scientists’ warning to humanity on illegal or unsustainable
wildlife trade. Biol. Conserv. 263, 109341.
Casanova, C., Sousa, C., 2007. Action Plan for the Conservation of Chimpanzees, Red Western Colobus and King Colobus in Guinea-Bissau Republic. IBAP (Institute for
the Protection of Biodiversity and Protected Areas), Guinea-Bissau.
Ceballos-Mago, N., Chivers, D.J., 2010. Local knowledge and perceptions of pet primates and wild Margarita capuchins on Isla de Margarita and Isla de Coche in
Venezuela. Endanger. Species Res. 13 (1), 63–72.
Chapman, C.A., Bicca-Marques, J.C., Dunham, A.E., Fan, P., Fashing, P.J., Gogarten, J.F., Guo, S., Huffman, M.A., Kalbitzer, U., Li, B., Ma, C., 2020. Primates can be a
rallying symbol to promote tropical forest restoration. Folia Primatol. 91, 669–687.
Chng, S.C., Bouhuys, J., 2015. Indian star tortoises: shop sales fall as Internet trade increases. Trafc Bull. 27 (2), 73.
Cooney, R., et al., 2017. From poachers to protectors: engaging local communities in solutions to illegal wildlife trade. Conserv. Lett. 10, 367–374.
Cronin, K.A., Leahy, M., Ross, S.R., Wilder Schook, M., Ferrie, G.M., et al., 2022. Younger generations are more interested than older generations in having non-
domesticated animals as pets. PLoS One 17 (1), e0262208.
D’Cruze, N., Galarza, F.E.R., Broche, O., El Bizri, H.R., Megson, S., Elwin, A., et al., 2021. Characterizing trade at the largest wildlife market of Amazonian Peru.
Global Ecol. Conserv. 28, e01631.
de Lima Enext, G.A., 2017. National Report on E-Commerce Development in Brazil. United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, Vienna, Austria.
de Souza Fialho, M., Ludwig, G., Valença-Montenegro, M.M., 2016. Legal international trade in live neotropical primates originating from South America. Primate
Conserv. 30, 1–6.
de Souza Jesus, A., de Oliveira-Ramalho, El Bizri, Valsecchi, J., Mayor, P., 2022. Environmental and biological drivers of prevalence and number of eggs and oocysts
of intestinal parasites in red howler monkeys from Central Amazonia. Folia Primatologica 93 (2), 121–138.
do Nascimento, R.A., Schiavetti, A., Monta˜
no, R.A.M., 2013. An assessment of illegal capuchin monkey trade in Bahia State, Brazil. Neotrop. Biol. Conserv. 8 (2),
79–87.
Duarte-Quiroga, A., Estrada, A., 2003. Primates as pets in Mexico City: an assessment of the species involved, source of origin, and general aspects of treatment. Am. J.
Primatol. 61 (2), 53–60.
El Bizri, HR, Morcatty, TQ, Valsecchi, J, Mayor, P, Ribeiro, JES, et al., 2020. Urban wild meat consumption and trade in central Amazonia. Conserv. Biol. 34 (2),
438–448.
Engel, G., Hungerford, L.L., Jones-Engel, L., Travis, D., Eberle, R., Fuentes, A., Grant, R., Kyes, R., Schillaci, M., 2006. Risk assessment: a model for predicting cross-
species transmission of simian foamy virus from macaques (M. fascicularis) to humans at a monkey temple in Bali, Indonesia. Am. J. Primatol. 68 (9), 934–948.
Estrada, A., 2009. In: Garber, P., Estrada, A., Bicca-Marques, J.C., Heyman, E. (Eds.), Primate conservation in south America: the human and ecological dimensions of
the problem, South American Primates. Comparative Perspectives in the Study of Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation. Springer, London, pp. 463–505.
Estrada, A., Garber, P.A., Chaudhary, A., 2020. Current and future trends in socio-economic, demographic and governance factors affecting global primate
conservation. PeerJ 8, e9816.
Estrada, A., Garber, P.A., Rylands, A.B., Roos, C., Fernandez-Duque, E., Di Fiore, A., Nekaris, K.A.I., Nijman, V., Heymann, E.W., Lambert, J.E., 2017. Impending
extinction crisis of the world’s primates: why primates matter. Sci. Adv. 3 (1), e1600946.
Estrada, A., Garber, P.A., Mittermeier, R.A., Wich, S., Gouveia, S., Dobrovolski, R., et al., 2018. Primates in peril: the signicance of Brazil, Madagascar, Indonesia and
the Democratic Republic of the Congo for global primate conservation. PeerJ 6, e4869.
V. Nijman et al.
Environmental Development 48 (2023) 100925
14
Fukushima, C.S., Tricorache, P., Toomes, A., Stringham, O.C., Rivera-T´
ellez, E., Ripple, W.J., et al., 2021. Challenges and perspectives on tackling illegal or
unsustainable wildlife trade. Biol. Conserv. 263, 109342.
Goga, S., Paelo, A., Nyamwena, J., 2019. Online Retailing in South Africa: an Overview. Centre for Competition, Regulation and Economic Development. University of
Johannesburg, South Africa.
Goyal, A., 2015. Rising trends of online shopping in India. Biz and Bytes 6 (2), 125–131.
Gonz´
alez-Martínez, J., 2004. The introduced free-ranging rhesus and patas monkey populations of southwestern Puerto Rico. Puert. Rico Health Sci. J. 23 (1), 39–46.
Gunst, N., Forteau, A.M., Philbert, S., Vasey, P.L., Leca, J.B., 2016. Decline in population density and group size of mona monkeys in Grenada. Primate Conserv. 30,
7–13.
Harrison, J.R., Roberts, D.L., Hernandez-Castro, J., 2016. Assessing the extent and nature of wildlife trade on the dark web. Conserv. Biol. 30 (4), 900–904.
Hazevoet, C.J., Masseti, M., 2011. On the history of the green monkey Chlorocebus sabaeus (L., 1766) in the Cape Verde Islands, with notes on other introduced
mammals. Zoologia Caboverdiana 2 (1), 12–24.
Hongfei, Y., 2017. National Report on E-Commerce Development in China. United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, Vienna, Austria.
Hughes, A., Auliya, M., Altherr, S., Scheffers, B., Janssen, J., Nijman, V., Sheperd, C., D’cruze, N., Sy, E., Edwards, D.P., 2023. Determining the sustainability of legal
wildlife trade. J. Environ. Manag. 341, 117987.
Huemer, H.P., Larcher, C., Czedik-Eysenberg, T., Nowotny, N., Reinger, M., 2002. Fatal infection of a pet monkey with human herpesvirus 1. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 8
(6), 639.
Huff, J.L., Barry, P.A., 2003. B-virus (Cercopithecine herpesvirus 1) infection in humans and macaques: potential for zoonotic disease. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 9 (2), 246.
IFAW, 2014. Wanted: dead or alive – investigating online wildlife trade. International Fund for Animal Welfare, London.
Ingram, D.J., Coad, L., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Parry, L., Wilkie, D., Bakarr, M.I., et al., 2021. Wild meat is still on the menu: progress in wild meat research, policy, and
practice from 2002 to 2020. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 46, 221–254.
IFAW, 2008. Killing with Keystrokes. International Fund for Animal Welfare, London, UK.
Karesh, W.B., Cook, R.A., Bennett, E.L., Newcomb, J., 2005. Wildlife trade and global disease emergence. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 11 (7), 1000.
Kitade, T., Naruse, Y., 2020. Crossing the Red Line: Japan’s Exotic Pet Trade. TRAFFIC, Tokyo, Japan.
Kitson, H., Nekaris, K.A.I., 2017. Instagram-fuelled illegal slow loris trade uncovered in Marmaris, Turkey. Oryx 51 (3), 394.
Kosinski, M., Matz, S., Gosling, S., Popov, V., Stillwell, D.J., 2015. Facebook as a research tool for the social sciences: opportunities, challenges, ethical considerations,
and practical guidelines. Am. Psychol. 70, 543–556.
Krishnasamy, K., Stoner, S., 2016. Trading Faces: A Rapid Assessment on the Use of Facebook to Trade Wildlife in Peninsular Malaysia. TRAFFIC, Petaling Jaya,
Malaysia.
Krever, V.G., Ivannikova, T.O., 2020. Wildlife Trade in the Russian Federation. WWF Russia, Moscow, Russia.
Kulkarni, R., Di Minin, E., 2022. Towards Automatic Detection of Wildlife Trade Using Machine Vision Models arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.11324.
LaFleur, M., Clarke, T.A., Reuter, K.E., Schaefer, M.S., 2019. Illegal trade of wild-captured Lemur catta within Madagascar. Folia Primatol. 90 (4), 199–214.
Leung, G.H., Baird, R.W., Druce, J., Anstey, N.M., 2015. Zika virus infection in Australia following a monkey bite in Indonesia. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Publ.
Health 46 (3), 460–464.
Likert, R., 1932. Technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 4, 1–55.
Mayor, P., El Bizri, H.R., Morcatty, T.Q., Moya, K., Benday´
an, N., Solis, S., Vasconcelos Neto, C.F.A., Kirkland, M., Arevalo, O., Fang, T.G., P´
erez-Pe˜
na, P.E.,
Bodmer, R.E., 2022. Wild meat trade over the last 45 years in the Peruvian Amazon. Conserv. Biol. 36 (2), e13801.
Mease, L.E., Baker, K.A., 2012. Monkey bites among US military members, Afghanistan, 2011. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 18 (10), 1647.
Miniwatts Marketing Group, 2020. Internet World Stats: Usage and Population Statistics. http://www.Internetworldstats.com/stats.htm; (Accessed January 2021).
Moloney, G.K., Tuke, J., Dal Grande, E., Nielsen, T., Chaber, A.L., 2021. Is YouTube promoting the exotic pet trade? Analysis of the global public perception of popular
YouTube videos featuring threatened exotic animals. PLoS One 16 (4), e0235451. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235451.
Morcatty, T.Q., Pereyra, P.E., Ardiansyah, A., Imron, M.A., Hedger, K., Campera, M., Nekaris, K.A.I., Nijman, V., 2022a. Risk of viral infectious diseases from live bats,
primates, rodents and carnivores for sale in Indonesian wildlife markets. Viruses 14 (12), 2756.
Morcatty, T.Q., Peters, G., Nekaris, K.A.I., Cardoso, P., Fukushima, C.S., El Bizri, H.R., Nijman, V., 2022b. Tech companies liable for illegal wildlife trade. Science 377
(6607), 721-721.
Morcatty, T.Q., Feddema, K., Nekaris, K.A.I., Nijman, V., 2021. Online trade in wildlife and the lack of response to COVID-19. Environ. Res. 193, 110439.
Morcatty, T.Q., Bausch Macedo, J.C., Nekaris, K.A.I., Ni, Q., Durigan, C.C., Svensson, M.S., Nijman, V., 2020. Illegal trade in wild cats and its link to Chinese-led
development in Central and South America. Conserv. Biol. 34 (6), 1525–1535.
Morgan, B., Nijman, V., 2020. In: Nekaris, K.A.I., Burrows, A.M. (Eds.), Little people and rice magic: the Internet trade in slender lorises in South Asia, Ecology,
Evolution and Conservation of Lorises and Pottos. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 357–360.
Musing, L., Suzuki, K., Nekaris, K.A.I., 2015. Crossing international borders: the trade of slow lorises, Nycticebus spp., as pets in Japan. Asian Primates 5, 12–24.
Nekaris, K.A.I., 2013. In: Mittermeier, R.A., Rylands, A.B., Wilson, D.E. (Eds.), Galagidae, Handbook of the Mammals of the World: 3. Primates. Lynx Ediciones,
Barcelona, pp. 184–209.
Nekaris, K.A.I., Bergin, D., 2017. Primate trade (Asia). Int. Encyclopedia Primatol. 1–8 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119179313.WBPRIM0132.
Nekaris, K.A.I., Campbell, N., Coggins, T.G., Rode, E.J., Nijman, V., 2013. Tickled to death: analysing public perceptions of ‘cute’ videos of threatened species (slow
lorises–Nycticebus spp.) on Web 2.0 Sites. PLoS One 8 (7), e69215.
Nekaris, K.A.I., Shepherd, C.R., Starr, C.R., Nijman, V., 2010. Exploring cultural drivers for wildlife trade via an ethnoprimatological approach: a case study of slender
and slow lorises (Loris and Nycticebus) in South and Southeast Asia. Am. J. Primatol. 72 (10), 877–886.
Ni, Q., Wang, Y., Weldon, A., Xie, M., Xu, H., Yao, Y., Zhang, M., Li, Y., Li, Y., Zeng, B., Nekaris, K.A.I., 2018. Conservation implications of primate trade in China over
18 years based on web news reports of conscations. PeerJ 6, e6069.
Nijman, V., 2020. Overview of global wildlife trade. In: State of the Apes, vol. V. Arcus Foundation, Cambridge, UK.
Nijman, V., 2021. Illegal and legal wildlife trade spreads zoonotic diseases. Trends in Parasitology 37 (5), 359–360.
Nijman, V., Morcatty, T., Smith, J.H., Atoussi, S., Shepherd, C.R., Siriwat, P., Nekaris, K.A.I., Bergin, D., 2019. Illegal wildlife trade – surveying open animal markets
and online platforms to understand the poaching of wild cats. Biodiversity 20 (1), 58–61.
Nijman, V., Nekaris, K.A.I., Donati, G., Bruford, M., Fa, J., 2011. Primate conservation: measuring and mitigating trade in primates. Endanger. Species Res. 13 (2),
159–161.
Nijman, V., Smith, J.H., Foreman, G., Campera, M., Feddema, K., Nekaris, K.A.I., 2021. Monitoring the trade of legally protected wildlife on Facebook and Instagram
illustrated by the advertising and sale of apes in Indonesia. Diversity 13 (6), 236.
Nijman, V., Spaan, D., Rode-Margono, E.J., Nekaris, K.A.I., 2017. Changes in the primate trade in Indonesian wildlife markets over a 25-year period: fewer apes and
langurs, more macaques and slow lorises. Am. J. Primatol. 79 (11), e22517.
Norconk, M.A., Atsalis, S., Tully, G., Santill´
an, A.M., Waters, S., Knott, C.D., Ross, S.R., Shanee, S., Stiles, D., 2020. Reducing the primate pet trade: actions for
primatologists. Am. J. Primatol. 82 (1), e23079.
Norconk, M.A., Atsalis, S., Savage, A., 2023. Can we eliminate the primate pet trade in the United States? Am. J. Primatol., e23525
Nunes, V.F., Lopes, P.F., Ferreira, R.G., 2023. # Capuchinmonkeys on Social Media: A Threat for Species Conservation. Anthrozo¨
os, pp. 1–19.
Pavlin, B.I., Schloegel, L.M., Daszak, P., 2009. Risk of importing zoonotic diseases through wildlife trade, United States. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 15 (11), 1721.
Phassaraudomsak, M., Krishnasamy, K., 2018. Trading Faces: A Rapid Assessment on the Use of Facebook to Trade in Wildlife in Thailand. TRAFFIC, Petaling Jaya,
Malaysia.
Phelps, J., Webb, E.L., Bickford, D., Nijman, V., Sodhi, N.S., 2010. Boosting CITES. Science 330 (6012), 1752–1753.
Racevska, E., Longosoa, T.H., Hill, C.M., Donati, G., 2020. The importance of local ecological knowledge for species conservation: a case study of the lemur
community in Southeast Madagascar. Folia Primatol. 91, 289–290.
V. Nijman et al.
Environmental Development 48 (2023) 100925
15
Rainer, H., White, A., Lanjouw, A., 2014. State of the Apes: Extractive Industries and Ape Conservation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp. 291–292
Reuter, K.E., Schaefer, M.S., 2016. Captive conditions of pet lemurs in Madagascar. Folia Primatol. 87 (1), 48–63.
Roulet, T.J., Gill, M.J., Stenger, S., Gill, D.J., 2017. Reconsidering the value of covert research: the role of ambiguous consent in participant observation. Organ. Res.
Methods 20 (3), 487–517.
Scheffers, B.R., Oliveira, B.F., Lamb, I., Edwards, D.P., 2019. Global wildlife trade across the tree of life. Science 366 (6461), 71–76.
Schillaci, M.A., Jones-Engel, L., Engel, G.A., Paramastri, Y., Iskandar, E., Wilson, B., Allan, J.S., Kyes, R.C., Watanabe, R., Grant, R., 2005. Prevalence of enzootic
simian viruses among urban performance monkeys in Indonesia. Trop. Med. Int. Health 10 (12), 1305–1314.
Seaboch, M.S., Cahoon, S.N., 2021. Pet primates for sale in the United States. PLoS One 16 (9), e0256552.
Shepherd, C.R., 2010. Illegal primate trade in Indonesia exemplied by surveys carried out over a decade in North Sumatra. Endanger. Species Res. 11 (3), 201–205.
Shirey, P.D., Lamberti, G.A., 2011. Regulate trade in rare plants. Nature 469 (7331), 465–467.
Siriwat, P., Nijman, V., 2018. Illegal pet trade on social media as an emerging impediment to the conservation of Asian otter species. J. Asia Pac. Bus. 11 (4), 469–475.
Siriwat, P., Nijman, V., 2020. Wildlife trade shifts from brick-and-mortar markets to virtual marketplaces: a case study of birds of prey trade in Thailand. J. Asia Pac.
Bus. 13 (3), 454–461.
Siriwat, P., Nekaris, K.A.I., Nijman, V., 2019. The role of the anthropogenic Allee effect in the exotic pet trade on Facebook in Thailand. J. Nat. Conserv. 51, 125726.
Shivambu, N., Shivambu, T.C., Downs, C.T., 2021. Assessing the Potential Impacts of Non-native Small Mammals in the South African Pet Trade. University of
KwaZulu-Natal. Ph.D. Thesis.
Smith, J.H., 2018. An Interdisciplinary Examination and Assessment of Current Conservation Initiatives for Javan Gibbons (Hylobates moloch). Oxford Brookes
University, Oxford, UK. PhD Thesis.
Smith, K.F., Behrens, M., Schloegel, L.M., Marano, N., Burgiel, S., Daszak, P., 2009. Reducing the risks of the wildlife trade. Science 324 (5927), 594–595.
Soulsbury, C.D., Iossa, G., Kennell, S., Harris, S., 2009. The welfare and suitability of primates kept as pets. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 12 (1), 1–20.
Spee, L.B., Hazel, S.J., Dal Grande, E., Boardman, W.S., Chaber, A.L., 2019. Endangered exotic pets on social media in the Middle East: presence and impact. Animals 9
(8), 480.
Stasinopoulos, D.M., Rigby, R.A., 2007. Generalized additive models for location, scale and shape (GAMLSS) in R. J. Stat. Software 23, 1–46.
Stringham, O.C., Maher, J., Lassaline, C.R., Wood, L., Moncayo, S., Toomes, A., Heinrich, S., Watters, F., Drake, C., Chekunov, S., Hill, K.G.W., Decary-Hetu, D.,
Mitchell, L., Ross, J.V., Cassey, P., 2023. The dark web trades wildlife, but mostly for use as drugs. People Nat. 5 (3), 999–1009.
Svensson, M.S., Morcatty, T.Q., Nijman, V., Shepherd, C.R., 2021. Shedding light on the trade in nocturnal galagos. Primate Conserv. 35, 13.
Svensson, M.S., Morcatty, T.Q., Nijman, V., Shepherd, C.R., 2022. The next exotic pet to go viral. Is social media causing an increase in the demand of owning
bushbabies as pets? Hystrix 33 (1), 51–57.
Svensson, M.S., Nijman, V., Shepherd, C.R., 2023. Insights into the primate trade into the European Union and the United Kingdom. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 69 (3), 51.
t Sas-Rolfes, M., Challender, D.W., Hinsley, A., Veríssimo, D., Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2019. Illegal wildlife trade: scale, processes, and governance. Annu. Rev. Environ.
Resour. 44, 201–228.
Thạch, H.M., Le, M.D., V˜
u, N.B., Panariello, A., Sethi, G., Sterling, E.J., Blair, M.E., 2018. Slow loris trade in Vietnam: exploring diverse knowledge and values. Folia
Primatol. 89 (1), 45–62.
Transparency International, 2019. Corruption Perception Index 2019. Transparency International, Berlin. Available from. https://www.transparency.org/cpi2019.
accessed August 2020.
Travers, W., Turner, D., 2005. The sources of and market for primates as pets. In: Born to Be Wild: Primates Are Not Pets. International Fund for Animal Welfare,
London, UK, pp. 32–45.
UNDP, 2019. Human Development Report 2019. United Nations Development Programme, New York.
Van Lavieren, E., Bergin, D., Nijman, V., 2016. In: Aguirre, A.A., Sukumar, R. (Eds.), The trade in Barbary macaques and the link to the Moroccan diaspora in Europe,
Tropical Conservation: Perspectives on Local and Global Priorities. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp. 324–326.
Waters, S., El-Harrad, A., 2013. A note on the effective use of social media to raise awareness against the illegal trade in Barbary macaques. Afr. Primates 8, 67–68.
Wyatt, T., Miralles, O., Mass´
e, F., Lima, R., da Costa, T.V., Giovanini, D., 2022. Wildlife trafcking via social media in Brazil. Biol. Conserv. 265, 109420.
Woolloff, A, Nkoke, S, Musing, L, Svensson, MS, 2022. Cyber enabled wildlife trade in Central African countries and Nigeria. TRAFFIC, Cambridge.
World Bank, 2019. GDP Per Capita, PPP, 2019. World Development Indicators. The World Bank Group, Washington, D.C. Available from. https://data.worldbank.
org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.KD. accessed August 2020.
World Bank, 2020. Population, Total, 2020. World Development Indicators. The World Bank Group, Washington, D.C. Available from. https://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/SP.POP.TOTL. accessed August 2020.
Zainol, M.Z., Ruppert, N., Fadzly, N., 2018. Assessment of Illegal Online Primate Trade in Malaysia. Poster at the 26th Congress of the International Primatological
Society, Nairobi.
V. Nijman et al.