Action

Keep safety distance to habituated animals

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    40%
  • Certainty
    10%
  • Harms
    0%

Study locations

Key messages

  • One before-and-after study in the Democratic Republic of Congo found that most reintroduced chimpanzees survived over five years after being followed from a distance of 5–100 m, alongside other interventions.
  • One controlled study in Malaysia found that the number of reintroduced orangutans declined by 33% over 31 years despite visitors being required to keep a safety distance to the animals, alongside other interventions.
  • One before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and Congo found that numbers of mountain gorillas increased by 168% over 41 years while being observed from a safety distance, alongside other interventions.

About key messages

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

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

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A before-and-after trial in 1994-1999 in mixed tropical forest in Conkouati-Douli National Park, Republic of Congo found that the majority of reintroduced central chimpanzees Pan troglodytes troglodytes that were monitored directly while maintaining a safety distance along with 16 other interventions, survived over five years. Out of 20 reintroduced chimpanzees that were radio-collared and followed at distances of 5-100 m, fourteen (70%) survived over five years after which the study ended. No statistical tests were carried out to determine whether the population decrease was significant. Rehabilitated orphaned chimpanzees underwent vaccination, treatment for parasites and veterinary screens before being translocated in four subgroups from the sanctuary to the release site with resident wild chimpanzees. Staff members were permanently present to monitor primate health, provide additional food if necessary, and detect and examine dead animals.  The area status was upgraded from a reserve to a national park in 1999. People were relocated from the release site to a nearby village. Some chimpanzees were treated when sick or injured. TV and radio advertisements were used to raise chimpanzee conservation awareness and local people were provided monetary and non-monetary benefits in exchange for their conservation support. The study does not distinguish between the effects of the different interventions mentioned above.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A controlled study in 1964-2004 in tropical forest in Kabili-Sepilok Forest Reserve, Malaysia (2) found that rehabilitated and reintroduced orangutans Pongo pygmaeus morio that were visited by tourists that had to keep safety distances to the animals along with eight other interventions, decreased by 33% over 33 years (1964-1997). Infant mortality (57%) was higher than in other wild and captive populations, and the sex ratio at birth was strongly biased towards females (proportion males=0.11) compared to other wild and captive populations. Inter-birth-interval (6.1 years) was shorter than in other orangutan subspecies or species in the wild and in captivity, but similar to wild populations of the same subspecies. Mean age at first reproduction (11.6 years) was lower than in other wild and captive populations. More than 100 tourists/day visited the rehabilitation centre, but were prohibited from touching orangutans and had to keep a minimum distance of 5 m at all times. Orangutans were provided with daily supplementary food from 2-7 feeding platforms. Individuals underwent in-depth veterinary checks and were kept in quarantine for 90 days before release into the reserve, in which other rehabilitated orangutans lived. Staff and volunteers underwent medical checks. The study does not distinguish between the effects of the different interventions mentioned above.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A controlled, before-and-after study in 1967-2008 in tropical montane forest in Volcanoes-, Mgahinga-, and Virunga National Parks in Rwanda, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (3) found that the mountain gorilla Gorilla beringei beringei population that was regularly visited by tourists and researchers which kept a safety distance to the animals along with ten other interventions, increased in size over time. Annual population growth was 4.1%, resulting in an overall population increase of 168% over 41 years. No statistical tests were carried out to determine whether this increase was significant. All visitors/researchers were expected to maintain a 7 m distance from the gorillas. As part of the ecotourism- and research programmes, gorillas were habituated to human presence, where visitors/researchers had to follow strict health procedures; these included wearing face-masks, spending only limited amounts of time with gorillas, ensuring that visitors/researchers were healthy, disinfecting visitor’s/researcher’s clothes, boots etc. Gorillas were continuously monitored by vets and received medical treatment if necessary. When gorillas died, their cause of death was clinically determined. The study does not distinguish between the effects of the different interventions mentioned above.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

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

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Primate Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Primate Conservation
Primate Conservation

Primate Conservation - Published 2017

Primate Synopsis

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust