Taufet-Rosdi and Md-Zain HUMAN-LONG-TAILED MACAQUE INTERACTIONS AND ECOTOURISM POTENTIAL IN THE GUNUNG KERIANG RECREATIONAL PARK, KEDAH, PENINSULAR MALAYSIA

Abstract

The long-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis) is among the Cercopithecidae primates that can be found in Gunung Keriang Recreational Park (GKRP), Kedah, Peninsular Malaysia. Its population size, human-primate interactions, and public perceptions have never been revealed. This study aimed to estimate the population size, evaluate interactions between macaques and visitors, determine the perception of visitors and locals toward primates, and assess the potential of GKRP as ecotourism site. The population size of long-tailed macaques was estimated through census walk, whereas the interactions between visitors and macaques were evaluated through scanning sampling technique. The perception of visitors and local people and the potential of GKRP as ecotourism site were determined through a questionnaire. Results indicated that 72 individuals of M. fascicularis were found ranging in GKRP. The interactions between visitors and macaques in GKRP were primarily constituted of positive interactions. Contrast perceptions between visitors and local people toward GKRP primates were obtained that were due to different experiences with primates encountered by both respondent groups. Visitors were inclined to accept macaques, whereas a majority of locals dislike them. GKRP has a potential to become an established ecotourism site considering values this recreational park has given to the visitors. Research findings were anticipated to increase the knowledge on human-primate interactions and ecotourism management that ultimately contributed toward the management of long-tailed macaques and their natural habitat.

Full text

Taufet-Rosdi and Md-Zain J. Anim. Plant Sci., 33 (4) 2023
1021
HUMAN–LONG-TAILED MACAQUE INTERACTIONS AND ECOTOURISM
POTENTIAL IN THE GUNUNG KERIANG RECREATIONAL PARK, KEDAH,
PENINSULAR MALAYSIA
N. E. A. Taufet-Rosdi and B. M. Md-Zain
*
Department of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Faculty of Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia
Corresponding author’s email: abgbadd@ukm.edu.my
ABSTRACT
The long-tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis) is among the Cercopithecidae primates that can be found in Gunung
Keriang Recreational Park (GKRP), Kedah, Peninsular Malaysia. Its population size, human–primate interactions, and
public perceptions have never been revealed. This study aimed to estimate the population size, evaluate interactions
between macaques and visitors, determine the perception of visitors and locals toward primates, and assess the potential
of GKRP as ecotourism site. The population size of long-tailed macaques was estimated through census walk, whereas
the interactions between visitors and macaques were evaluated through scanning sampling technique. The perception of
visitors and local people and the potential of GKRP as ecotourism site were determined through a questionnaire. Results
indicated that 72 individuals of M. fascicularis were found ranging in GKRP. The interactions between visitors and
macaques in GKRP were primarily constituted of positive interactions. Contrast perceptions between visitors and local
people toward GKRP primates were obtained that were due to different experiences with primates encountered by both
respondent groups. Visitors were inclined to accept macaques, whereas a majority of locals dislike them. GKRP has a
potential to become an established ecotourism site considering values this recreational park has given to the visitors.
Research findings were anticipated to increase the knowledge on human–primate interactions and ecotourism
management that ultimately contributed toward the management of long-tailed macaques and their natural habitat.
Keywords: Macaca fascicularis, long-tailed macaques, human–primate interaction, ecotourism
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Publis
hed
first
online
April
18,
2023
Published
final
August
04,
2023
INTRODUCTION
As the human population increases
exponentially over time, there is an obvious need for
space for more human settlements. Thus, deforestation
can indirectly cause the available ranging domain for
most primates to be reduced (Fuentes and Hockings,
2010). Reduction of primary food and limitation of safe
habitat forced primates to live in human vicinity (Fuentes
and Hockings, 2010). This adversity has also affected
Malaysian Cercopithecidae primates as they are often
observed to adapt and live in anthropogenic areas (Md
Zain et al., 2010a; Md-Zain and Ch’ng, 2011; Hambali et
al., 2014).
Cercopithecidae or Old World Monkey can be
classified into two major subfamilies, namely,
Cercopithecinae and Colobinae. In Peninsular Malaysia,
many studies on Cercopithecidae particularly the long-
tailed macaque (Macaca fascicularis) and the dusky
langur (Trachypithecus obscurus) have been conducted to
document their population status (Karuppannan et al.,
2014; Md-Zain et al., 2010b), social organization (Anuar
and Karimullah, 2011), activity budget (Md-Zain et al.,
2010b), habitat use and ranging pattern (Hambali et al.,
2014; Hambali et al., 2016; Mohd-Daut et al., 2021),
feeding ecology (Ruslin et al., 2019; Mohd-Daut and Md-
Zain, 2021), and population genetics (Abdul-Latiff et al.,
2014a,b). As for the context of interactions between
human and primates, studies were generally conducted on
the human–primate conflict (Hambali et al., 2012; Md-
Zain et al., 2014; Abdul-Nasir et al., 2021), monkey
school (Ruslin et al., 2017), and social interactions
between human and primate (Md-Zain et al., 2010a).
Relatively, the occurrence of human–primate interactions
is inevitable when human and primate live within the
same area especially in the human-influenced landscape
(Sha and Hanya, 2013). Hence, this study is anticipated to
contribute in refreshing the studies of human–primate
interactions and the potential primate ecotourism in
Malaysia.
Primate ecotourism has been incorporating
primates as main attractions for visitors (Matheson,
2017). Primate tourism has been viewed as an ecotourism
provided that the endeavor occurs in an undisturbed
Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 33(4): 2023, Page: 1021-1032
ISSN (print): 1018-7081; ISSN (online): 2309-8694
https://doi.org/10.36899/JAPS.2023.4.0695

Taufet-Rosdi and Md-Zain J. Anim. Plant Sci., 33 (4) 2023
1022
natural area in addition to involving the experiences of
tourist with wildlife and the rationale of tourist for
traveling to such place (Matheson, 2017). Primate
tourism is a product of community-based conservation
initiative along with the potential to attain primate
conservation goals in conjunction with financial and
educational benefits for local communities (Berman et
al., 2007; Hill, 2002).
Macaca fascicularis is the most common
Cercopithecinae in Peninsular Malaysia (Anuar and
Karimullah, 2011). The long-tailed macaques adopt a
semi-terrestrial lifestyle and can be commonly found near
the coastal lowland forest; primary or secondary forest
and mangrove swamp (Ruslin et al., 2019). As they
occupy a wide range of habitat, the long-tailed macaques
are ecologically opportunistic and have adapted
particularly well in living sympatrically with human
(Gamalo et al., 2019). In Peninsular Malaysia, several
primate ecotourism sites have been identified and studied
including Bukit Malawati Kuala Selangor (Hambali et
al., 2014; Mohd-Daut and Md-Zain, 2021) and Penang
Botanical Gardens (Md-Zain and Ch’ng, 2011).
However, human–primate interaction survey at a
recreational park based on geopark site in Peninsular
Malaysia has yet to be revealed. Gunung Keriang is one
of the best geopark attraction sites for visitors in Kedah
as the hill is composed of limestone aged from Early
Permian to Early Triassic and the presence of free long-
tailed macaques (Metcalfe, 1984). Thus, this study aimed
to determine the population size of long-tailed macaques
(M. fascicularis) as well as the human–primate
interactions that occur in Gunung Keriang Recreational
Park (GKRP). In addition, visitors’ and locals’ perception
toward the free-ranging primates and values that they
perceived at GKRP were evaluated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study site and focal group: Primate survey was focused
at GKRP, Kedah, Peninsular Malaysia (Figure 1). GKRP
has become a popular recreational park and interface
zone for human and primates. This park has convenient
tracks for the observers to perform the behavioral data
collections as long-tailed macaque (M. fascicularis) and
dusky langur (T. obscurus) were commonly identified to
be free-roaming. The primate group size was obtained
through census walk along the existing roads in GKRP.
All the primate group was named according to the zone
(Zone A and Zone B) where they are commonly found.
Zone A is situated near the main entrance where the
Muslim graveyard, crystal shops, and medium-sized field
are located, whereas Zone B comprises a playground,
larger field, food stalls, and a man-made pond.
Figure 1. The Gunung Keriang site attracts tourists to its recreational park and long-tailed macaques.

Taufet-Rosdi and Md-Zain J. Anim. Plant Sci., 33 (4) 2023
1023
Data collections were obtained through direct
sighting in the morning (0800–1200 h) and in the evening
(1500–1800 h) from April to September 2019. To ensure
that the data acquired were accurate, repeated census and
tally counter were used during the counting. Individual
characters such as the shape of the face and any visible
defects or injuries were used to differentiate among
individuals and to avoid multiple counting. Sex and age
were recorded based on body size assessment, genitalia,
and level of development of primary and secondary sex
organs (Sha et al., 2009). A relative age scale and sex
determination for M. fascicularis were based on Schillaci
et al. (2007).
Behavioral interaction data collections: Human–
primate interaction survey was focused only on long-
tailed macaques. Dusky langurs were not seen to be
involved in any interactions with human that fit their
native shy behavior (Md-Zain and Ch’ng, 2011). The
observation was slow as the time of waiting for the
interaction to occur was extended in which the interface
event commonly happens in the evening when visitors
started to visit the park. Behavioral interaction was
observed using scan sampling technique (Altman, 1974)
for every 30 s for 10 min with 5 min rest. Observations
on all macaques were only possible when the study
groups are present within the GKRP. The macaques
sometimes spent their time on the limestone mountain
that was inaccessible for the observer. Observation was
stopped when the macaques were out of sight. Two
different categories of human–primate interactions that
were recorded comprised macaques-to-visitors and
visitors-to-macaques. The categories of social behaviors
included monitoring and watching, approaching, feeding,
avoidance, and aggressive behavior (Hanson and Riley,
2017; Kaburu et al., 2019; Md-Zain et al., 2010a).
Behavioral data collections were collected along selected
routes following the presence of high human and
macaque activities that include two zones (Zone A and
Zone B) in GKRP. Data were analyzed using Kruskal–
Wallis test to determine the statistical differences.
Questionnaire survey: Questionnaires were distributed
to visitors and local residents in GKRP. The
questionnaires were constructed to evaluate i) rationale
for visiting GKRP, ii) perception and attitudes toward the
free-ranging primates, and iii) opinions on the potential
of ecotourism in GKRP. As for the rationale of visiting
the park, the section was only administered to the visitor
respondents. The answers for the questions were
constructed according to Likert scale: strongly agree,
agree, moderately agree, disagree, and strongly disagree.
Additionally, the aspect of knowledge regarding primates
that interest respondents is investigated. As for the
perception and attitude toward primates’ section,
questions were assigned into five dimensions according
to previous studies on human–primate interactions
(Kumara et al., 2018; Lee and Davey, 2015; Sengupta
and Radhakrishna, 2018; Thanh An et al., 2018). A total
of 14 questions were posed to measure the perception and
attitude toward macaques in which items 1–2 belong to
the dimension of knowledge, items 3–4 belong to the
dimension of the value of enjoyment, items 5–7 belong to
the dimension of fear and expectation, items 8–11 belong
to the dimension of nuisances, and items 12–14 belong to
the dimension of attitude toward the macaques. A total of
100 feedbacks were collected from the visitor group,
whereas only 51 feedbacks were collected from the local
group.
RESULTS
Cercopithecidae of GKRP: Two groups of M.
fascicularis were identified to be roaming in GKRP. The
survey counts for M. fascicularis in Zone A were 44
individuals, whereas 28 individuals were in Zone B
(Table 1). Both social units are multimale–multifemale
and habituated to human and anthropogenic food sources.
The accounted age structure of the long-tailed macaques
in both zones was 26.4% adults, 25% sub-adults, 36.1%
juveniles, and 12.5% infants. It was calculated that the
sex ratio was 1.71 adult females per adult males.
Immature macaques that constituted of sub-adults,
juveniles, and infants accounted for 73.6% of the
population, with the ratio of immature individuals per
adult of 2.79. Only one group of T. obscurus was
identified to be roaming around in GKRP. There were 35
dusky langurs counted that constituted of 31.4% adults,
25.7% sub-adults, 34.3% juveniles, and 8.6% infants. The
ratio of the immature individuals to the adults is 2.18
with 68.6% of immature langurs living in GKRP and 1.2
of adult females per group. The group often split up into a
few small groups in the morning to forage when there is
less visitor in the park.
Interaction between macaques and visitors: The
interactions between visitors and macaques happened
inconsistently and usually occurred in the evening. The
Kruskal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
test showed significant variations (p < 0.00, p = 62.37, df
= 4, α = 0.05) between the distribution of frequency and
the behavior elicited by macaques during the interface
event with human. During the presence of visitors,
macaques were observed to elicit monitoring and
watching behaviors the most with 55.36%, followed by
feeding (22.7%) and approaching (20.77%) (Figure 2).
Avoiding and aggressive behaviors were accounted as the
least produced interactions by macaques with 1.07% and
0.11%, respectively.

Taufet-Rosdi and Md-Zain J. Anim. Plant Sci., 33 (4) 2023
1024
Table 1. Long-tailed macaque and dusky langur individual ages around the Gunung Keriang.
Social unit ID Adult male Adult female Sub Adult Juvenile Infant Total
Long-tailed macaque (ZONE A)
4
6
15
14
5
44
Long-tailed macaque (ZONE B)
3
6
3
12
4
28
Total
7
12
18
26
9
72
Dusky langur
5
6
9
12
3
35
Figure 2. Long-tailed macaques’ behavior during interactions of macaques and visitors.
There was also a significant difference between
the distribution frequency and the behavior elicited by
visitors during the interface event with macaques (p <
0.00, p = 62.04, df = 4, α = 0.05). The prevalent social
interactions prompted by the visitors toward the
macaques were monitoring and watching (91.68%),
whereas feeding, approaching, and aggressive behavior
were allocated for 6.15%, 1.82%, and 0.23%,
respectively. In addition, visitors were observed to show
0.11% of avoiding interactions toward macaques that
denote avoiding as the least frequent interactions
prompted by visitors toward macaques. Additionally, a
statistically positive weak correlation between the
frequency of macaques-to-visitors interactions and the
frequency of visitors-to-macaques interactions was found
(r = 0.336, n = 11200, p < 0.001, Figure 3). This suggests
that the increase in the frequency of visitor-to-macaque
interactions corresponded with the increase of macaque-
to-visitor interactions.
Perception toward macaques: Cronbach's alpha for all
questions in this section scored 0.887 that suggests that
the items have relatively high internal consistency.
Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA describes that there
were significant differences between groups of
respondents with several items enquired. All dimensions
except the attitude toward macaques contained at least

Taufet-Rosdi and Md-Zain J. Anim. Plant Sci., 33 (4) 2023
1025
one item that was significantly different between groups of respondents (Table 2).
Figure 3. Positive relationship between the frequency of macaques and visitors’ interactions.
Table 2. Perception and attitudes toward macaques across groups.
Item (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.887)
Median (IQR) Kruskal-Wallis
Visitor Local
residents p-value
I
am
aware
of
the
pr
esence
of
macaques
in
Gunung
Keriang.
5
(1)
4(1)
6.23
0.013
*
I
can
recognize
macaques
very
well.
3
(1)
4(2)
7.66
0.006
*
I
like
the
presence
of
macaques
in
Gunung
Keriang.
4
(2)
2(2)
48.57
0.000
*
I like the response prompted by the macaques when they were
provisioned
with
food.
4 (2) 4(2) 5.96 0.015
*
I
am
not
afraid
of
macaques
in
Gunung
Keriang.
4
(2)
3(2)
16.35
0.000
*
I
can
cross
a
group
of
macaques
without
fear.
4
(1)
3(2)
2.14
0.143
The
macaques
in
Gunung
Keriang
are
tame.
3
(1)
3(2)
1.71
0.191
I
did
not
observe
any
nuisances
of
macaques
at
Gunung
Keriang.
4
(2)
2(2)
33.69
0.000
*
I have never been disturbed (chased or bitten) by macaques in Gunung
Keriang.
4 (2) 4(2) 6.02 0.014
*
I have never seen other people being disturbed (chased or bitten) by
macaques
in
Gunung
Keriang.
4 (2) 2(1) 25.88 0.000
*
My
stuff
has
never
been
stolen
by
macaques.
4
(2)
2(2)
12.61
0.000
*
I
think
people
should
feed
macaques
in
Gunung
Keriang.
4
(2)
3(2)
6.96
0.008
*
I
always
bring
food
to
feed
the
macaques.
3.5
(2)
3(2)
4.56
0.033
*
I
feed
the
macaques
in
Gunung
Keriang.
4
(3)
3(2)
4.40
0.036
*
Most of the respondents indicated agreement
that they were aware of the presence of macaques in
GKRP (Visitor: Mdn = 5, IQR = 1; Local: Mdn = 4, IQR
= 1). However, there were disparities between groups of
respondents in which most visitors stated that they were
unsure (Mdn = 3, IQR = 1), whereas local residents
generally agreed (Mdn = 4, IQR = 2) that they can
discriminate M. fascicularis. Opinions were also divided
among respondents in which many visitors expressed
agreement (Mdn = 4, IQR = 2), whereas local
respondents showed disagreement (Mdn = 2, IQR = 2) in
denoting likeness toward the presence of macaques. In
perceiving that macaques hold the value of enjoyment,
both groups of respondents stated agreement that they
like the responses elicited by macaques during food
provisioning activity (Visitor: Mdn = 4, IQR = 2; Local:
Mdn = 4, IQR = 2).
With respect to fear, most of the visitors (Mdn =
4, IQR = 2) were not afraid and can cross macaque troops
without fear (Mdn = 4, IQR = 1), whereas local residents
were mostly neutral (Mdn = 3, IQR = 2). However, in
signifying that macaques were tame, both groups of
respondents appeared unsure (Visitor: Mdn = 3, IQR = 1;
Local: Mdn = 3, IQR = 2). As for the aspect of nuisances,

Taufet-Rosdi and Md-Zain J. Anim. Plant Sci., 33 (4) 2023
1026
results indicated that macaques did not cause
disturbances to the park in which most visitors agreed
(Mdn = 4, IQR = 2), whereas local residents stated
otherwise (Mdn = 2, IQR = 2). Both visitors and locals
admitted never been chased or bitten by macaques
(Visitor: Mdn = 4, IQR = 2; Local: Mdn = 4, IQR = 2).
Opinions were also split between visitors and locals in
denoting that their things have not been stolen by
macaques in which most visitors agreed (Mdn = 4, IQR =
2).
Many visitors believed (Mdn = 4, IQR = 2),
whereas half of local respondents were uncertain (Mdn =
3, IQR = 2) that the macaques should be provisioned with
food. Despite that, both respondent groups showed
indecisiveness in prepared food to be given to macaques
(Visitor: Mdn = 3.5, IQR = 2; Local: Mdn = 3, IQR = 2).
With respect to proclaiming that the respondents fed the
free-roaming macaques, the result was polarized among
the visitors, although most of them agreed in doing that
(Mdn = 4, IQR = 3). As for the local respondents, they
were discovered to be neutral in denoting that they have
been feeding the macaques before (Mdn = 3, IQR = 2).
Ecotourism potential in GKRP: Kruskal–Wallis test
shows no significant differences measured on motivation
and rationale of respondents in deciding to come to
GKRP (Table 3). A large group of respondents agreed
that their motivation of going to the park was to indulge
in the natural environment as well as to get away from a
busy life. They were also aware about the presence of
macaques prior to coming to the park (Mdn = 4, IQR =
1). Many visitors agreed in visiting the park to see the
free-roaming macaques (Mdn = 4, IQR = 2). With respect
to outdoor and recreational activities as the motivation in
coming to GKRP, the responses given by most of the
visitors strongly agreed (Mdn = 3.5, IQR = 1). Moreover,
almost all of the respondents noted that their visitation to
the park was voluntary (Mdn = 5, IQR = 0).
Table 3. Visitor’s rationale visiting Gunung Keriang Recreational Park.
Item Median (IQR) Kruskal-Wallis
p-value
I
visit
Gunung
Keriang
to
see
the
natural
environment.
4(1)
1.13
0.889
I
visit
Gunung
Keriang
to
see
the
macaques.
4(2)
4.69
0.321
I
visit
Gunung
Keriang
for
relaxation
and
to
get
away
from
a
busy
life.
4.5(1)
2.99
0.560
I
visit
Gunung
Keriang
for
hiking/exercise.
3(2)
4.52
0.340
I
visit
Gunung
Keriang
voluntarily,
not
forced
by
anyone.
5(0)
8.41
0.078
Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA described
significant differences across groups of respondents on
every query in the questionnaires (Table 4). Cronbach's
alpha for the items addressed in this section was 0.801
that indicates a reliable scale. The majority of visitors
strongly agreed, whereas locals appeared to indicate
agreement that the presence of primates does not destruct
the sight in GKRP (Visitor: Mdn = 5, IQR = 1; Local:
Mdn = 4, IQR = 2). Both groups also agreed that it is
worthwhile to visit the park and watch the wild primates
(Visitor: Mdn = 4, IQR = 1; Local: Mdn = 4, IQR = 2).
As for proclaiming that the park has the potential to be a
primate tourism site, both groups agreed about the matter
(Visitor: Mdn = 5, IQR = 1; Local: Mdn = 4, IQR = 0).
The respondents from both visitor and local groups also
agreed visiting the park again (Visitor: Mdn = 5, IQR =
1; Local: Mdn = 4, IQR = 0). Both groups of respondents
also agreed on the necessity to preserve the natural
environment for future generations to see wild primates
(Visitor: Mdn = 5, IQR = 1; Local: Mdn = 4, IQR = 0).
Table 4. Perception of visitors and local residents on Gunung Keriang Recreational Park.
Item
Median
(IQR)
Kruskal
-
Wallis
Visitor
Local
residents
p
-
value
The presence of macaques and langur does not spoil the view at Gunung
Keriang.
5(1) 4(2) 32.74 0.000
*
It is worth visiting Gunung Keriang to see the macaque’s and langur’s
behavior.
4(1) 4(2) 20.13 0.000
*
Gunung
Keriang
might
be
a
potential
primate
tourism
site.
5(1)
4(0)
30.36
0.000
*
I
will
visit
Gunung
Keriang
again
in
the
future.
5(1)
4(0)
8.24
0.004
*
If we do not preserve the natural environment well, the chances for our
future generations to see wild primates (e.g., macaques and langurs) will
progressively
decrease.
5(1) 4(0) 29.70 0.000
*
Note:
*
signifies significant differences across groups (group = visitors, local residents) (alpha = 0.05).
Respondents’ interest is varied on the long-tailed macaques of GKRP. They wanted to know more on the behavior of the primates (N
= 72, 47.68%) and human–primate relationships (N = 41, 27.15%). Other aspects that constituted of human’s effect, primates’

Taufet-Rosdi and Md-Zain J. Anim. Plant Sci., 33 (4) 2023
1027
relationships among each other, threats, and reason why primates are roaming in the area scored 3.31% (N = 5), 7.28% (N = 11), 5.3%
(N = 8), and 9.27% (N = 14), respectively (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Respondents’ interest regarding primates in Gunung Keriang Recreational Park.
DISCUSSION
Primates of GKRP: The 72 accounted macaques for
both groups were not considered as high-density group.
This is probably influenced by the GKRP size that is a
small fragmented recreational park. The average
individual of wild non-provision M. fascicularis was
accounted to be an average of 30 individuals with few
cases exceeding 40 individuals (Van Schaik et al., 1983).
A group size of macaques that has approximately 100
individuals is extremely large, and this generally occurs
due to the high density of accessible and provisioned
anthropogenic food (Hansen et al., 2015). M. fascicularis
has been acknowledged to adapt living in an area within
human vicinity and human-impacted landscapes
(Hambali et al., 2012; Sinha and Vijayakrishnan, 2017),
and this circumstance did occur in GKRP. Both macaque
and langur groups adopted a sympatric lifestyle in GKRP
and adapted in tolerating each other’s presence in the
same habitat (Ruslin et al., 2019). No hardly any conflicts
were observed between the long-tailed macaques and
dusky langurs in GKRP. Interspecific competition on
resources could induce conflicts between different
species in the same habitat. Ruslin et al. (2019)
demonstrated dietary overlap between these two groups
that then suggested that the reason for low resources
competition was due to different food alternatives. T.
obscurus could easily shift to eating leaves, whereas M.
fascicularis could shift to anthropogenic food, although
both species adopted similar dietary preferences on fruits
(Ruslin et al., 2019).
Human–primate interactions: The macaques were
inclined to roam in the park when there were food
provisioned activity and presence of visitors. This shows
that the adaptation of macaques being concurrent with the
presence of visitors was likely led by the food
provisioning activity. However, macaques in GKRP were
not entirely dependent on the anthropogenic food as the
park is located along the edge of the limestone hills that
bear natural food. As an opportunistic primate, macaques
can still majorly rely on their natural food and adjusted to
feed on anthropogenic food when the opportunity came
up (Yeager, 1996). Provisioning that is generally being
associated with visitors was believed to be the factor of
human–primate interactions (Fuentes et al., 2008;
McCarthy et al., 2009). Zhao (2005) believed that
macaques have adapted to condition themselves in seeing
visitors as food resources. In conjunction to this, it was
suggested that the long-tailed macaques in GKRP have
been accustomed to associate food with visitors in their
vicinity. This is pertinent with the finding in which
monitoring and watching visitors became the most
prevalent behavior shown by the macaques.
As feeding and approaching being the second
and the third behavior mostly demonstrated, this shows
that the act of long-tailed macaques monitoring and
watching visitors was linked with the tendency of
macaques to anticipate food from visitors. Macaques’
feeding activity indeed happened during the human–
macaque interactions. The association of long-tailed
macaques with human presence has been established in

Taufet-Rosdi and Md-Zain J. Anim. Plant Sci., 33 (4) 2023
1028
previous studies (Fuentes et al., 2008; McCarthy et al.,
2009; O’Leary and Fa, 1993). O’Leary and Fa (1993)
found that macaques at Gibraltar tend to spend less time
being on the ground when they were not in the vicinity
with visitors. Macaques were inclined to adjust their
activity pattern in accordance with the visitation routines
by human (O’Leary and Fa, 1993). Macaques tend to
come out from their natural roaming area and travel to the
area with visitors for food before returning to the forest
(Qingming et al., 2012).
In GKRP, food provisioning was not as common
as watching and monitoring behavior. It was also hard to
see aggressive behavior of macaques in GKRP. High
density of natural food around the area may have
contributed to less aggression. Macaques do not entirely
depend on the anthropogenic food. Reduced aggressive
behavior was also correlated with the increased number
of visitors that is associated with a large amount of
provisioned food during human–macaque interactions
(Hansen et al., 2015). However, in other cases, increased
provisioned activity can also induce the agonistic
behavior of macaques (Fa, 1992; Hsu et al., 2009). These
varying findings on the connotation of aggression with
the number of visitors and food provisioning described
that macaques’ aggression can be influenced by many
factors.
As for visitor-to-macaque interactions, visitors
also demonstrated least aggression toward macaques in
GKRP. This was correlated with the least aggression
prompted by the macaques during interactions. Most
visitors indicated that they have not encountered losing a
belonging to macaques that eliminate the need for them
to be aggressive to macaques. Generally, long-tailed
macaques’ aggression was influenced by the act of
aggression demonstrated by human, whereas human
aggression toward macaques was influenced by the
potential of belongings being damaged (Beisner et al.,
2015).
Although GKRP has become the interface zone
of human–primate interactions, food provisioning activity
accounted for only 6.15%, and this was considered very
low compared to other studies. O’Leary and Fa (1993)
found that the activity of feeding the macaques accounts
for half of the entire interactions recorded. Compared to
the activity of watching macaques that occurs frequently
in this study, feeding activity was not even accounted a
third of the total percentage of interactions recorded. This
could also justify the lack of aggressive behavior shown
by macaques during the human–macaque interactions in
GKRP. The more intense the food provisioning activity,
the more aggressive behavior could be elicited by the
macaques. Hsu et al. (2009) found the correlation of
increased food provisioning with the increased agonistic
behavior.
Perceptions toward primate: Both groups of
respondents relatively have different perceptions over
macaques in GKRP. Visitors generally showed positive
perception toward macaques, whereas a majority of
residents dislike the primates. This is due to the different
circumstances that have been encountered by both
visitors and residents. Contrast perception between
visitors and locals was consistent with the finding in
China (Qingming et al., 2012) and Singapore (Sha et al.,
2009). Most visitors encountered less negative
interactions or nuisances from the macaques as they only
visit the park for only a few hours. Generally, visitors
were regarded as a group of people who travel to a place
other than their usual environment without staying there
(McIntyre, 1993). In contrast, the residents who lived
along the edge of GKRP are confronted with the
nuisances caused by the primates. The nuisances include
stolen crop and poultry eggs as well as annoyances since
the macaques were commonly noticed to have jumped
from roof to roof and creating noises. Although it was not
observed during this study, the locals indicated that the
macaques would occasionally enter their home and steal
food. This is relevant with the feedbacks obtained from
the questionnaires. According to the locals, long-tailed
macaques were also accountable for the damage of
properties and facilities around the area.
As the visitors of GKRP showed positive
perceptions toward macaques, this could be justified with
the aesthetic values that were associated with animals in
their natural habitat (Qingming et al., 2012). Based on the
behavioral observations, the frequent behavior
demonstrated by visitors during the interface was
watching and monitoring. This type of behavior does not
have a direct impact on the provocation that could be
demonstrated by the macaques, hence explaining the
positive perceptions given by the visitors to the
macaques. The perception of visitors could also be linked
with the indications given by them that describe that the
free-roaming macaques are tame as most of them have
not encountered an attack from the macaques. In addition,
primate energetic characteristics were known to have the
capabilities in giving wonders and enjoyment to the
visitors, thus inducing the visitors’ approval toward the
primates (Lee and Davey, 2015).
Most visitors admit that they fed the macaques,
although they did not initially bring or prepare food for
the macaques beforehand. It can be implied that the
thought of feeding the macaques came after seeing the
macaques roaming in the GKRP and waiting for visitors
to give them food. As the park was recognized as a
recreational park, there were food vendors and mini
restaurants operating there where the visitors were
believed to obtain the food before directly feeding the
macaques. In other places, it has been established that the
visitors have also been inclined to feed primates and feel
satisfied in doing so as the activity was considered as

Taufet-Rosdi and Md-Zain J. Anim. Plant Sci., 33 (4) 2023
1029
enjoyment (Dittus et al., 2019; Marechal, 2016; Sengupta
and Radhakrishna, 2018).
Despite the dislike, most locals denote neutral
response in approving feeding the free-roaming macaques
in the area or supporting the act. It was suggested that the
visitors perceived that by giving a solid answer on either
agreeing or disagreeing that they have been feeding the
macaque as a cumbersome answer especially considering
that most of them dislike the primates. In addition, the
lack of knowledge and awareness was believed to
contribute to the indecisiveness of residents on how food
provisioning and nuisances behavior of primates were
corresponding with each other.
Ecotourism potential: Most of the visitors who
participated in the survey indicated that the reason for
visiting GKRP was to indulge with the natural
environment and to see the free-roaming primates,
consistent with the finding found by Lee and Davey
(2015). Opportunity to see wildlife in their habitat and
being in the natural environment have often been the
most important features behind the visitation to the
ecotourism area (Moscardo and Saltzer, 2004). There was
a residential area along the park and Gunung Keriang; the
area was not considered to be severely fragmented and
still sustains the value of its natural elements. Natural
elements have the potential of providing the value of
healing and happiness to human (Stalhammar and
Pedersen, 2017), hence justifying the anticipated value of
relaxation sought by the visitors of GKRP. Additionally,
satisfaction of the visitors on the mentioned values
obtained during the visitation can be measured by the
indication of the visitors about making a return visit to
GKRP in which the majority of them agreed to do so.
Interpretations obtained by the visitors as well as
the residents through the interaction with either primates
or natural elements in GKRP were believed to make them
aware of the importance of conserving the natural
environment for the benefit of future generations.
However, it could be supposed that the enlightenments on
the importance of conservation have already been
comprehended before the visitation. Visits to an
ecotourism area that have the potential of rewarding
environmental education could induce or heighten the
awareness on the significances of protecting nature that
then implicitly taught the visitors about the commitment
that the public can do to help the effort (Mondino and
Beery, 2018).
The majority of respondents were interested to
know more about the behavior of primates in GKRP.
Although environmental and wildlife education
encompassed a plethora of aspects that can be anticipated
to learn by the visitors, the experiences of direct
interactions and seeing the lifestyle of primates in their
innate habitat were believed to encourage them to sought
information on the primates’ behavior. Visitors were
inclined to enjoy watching the primates and describe their
experiences with primates as enjoyment (Lee and Davey,
2015). Thus, it was believed that this factor instigated the
motivation to learn more regarding primates’ behavior
among respondents.
Conclusion: GKRP has become a place for human–
primate interactions and M. fascicularis living
particularly well in the vicinity of human. It was found
that the human–primate interactions in GKRP primarily
constituted of positive interactions. Both visitors and
residents have different perceptions toward the free-
roaming primates in GKRP. This was due to the different
experiences faced by both groups of respondents that
greatly influenced their perceptions and attitudes toward
the primates. GKRP is believed to have the potential to
become a popular ecotourism site considering the values
the place has been given to the visitors. GKRP provides
aesthetic values to the visitors especially when the place
keeps its natural elements with the majestic limestone
mountains along with the presence of free-ranging
primates. Although GKRP is not yet an established
ecotourism place, it is worth to note that people approved
on the values that GKRP bears that include the preserved
natural element of Gunung Keriang and the presence of
free-ranging primates. GKRP should be managed by the
local authority to be as an effective ecotourism place
where the locals can have the opportunity to grasp
benefits.
Acknowledgments: We are grateful to YBhg. Dato’
Abdul Kadir bin Abu Hashim, Director General of the
Department of Wildlife and National Parks. We also
thank the Department of Wildlife and National Parks for
granting research permit (JPHL and TN (IP):100-34/1.24
Jld 8). The authors acknowledge Universiti Kebangsaan
Malaysia for providing the necessary funding, facilities,
and assistance. This research was supported by grant
GUP-2019-037 and ST-2021-017.
REFERENCES
Abdul-Latiff, M. A. B., F. Ruslin, V. V. Fui, M. H. Abu,
J. J. Rovie-Ryan, P. Abdul-Patah, M. Lakim, C.
Roos, S. Yaakop and B. M. Md-Zain (2014a).
Phylogenetic relationships of Malaysia’s long-
tailed macaques, Macaca fascicularis, based on
cytochrome b sequences. ZooKeys (407): 121.
DOI: 10.3897/zookeys.407.6982
Abdul-Latiff, M. A. B., F. Ruslin, H. Faiq, M. S. Hairul,
J. J. Rovie-Ryan, P. Abdul-Patah, S. Yaakop and
B. M. Md-Zain (2014b). Continental monophyly
and molecular divergence of Peninsular
Malaysia’s Macaca fascicularis fascicularis.
BioMed Res. Intl.,: 1-18. DOI:
10.1155/2014/897682

Taufet-Rosdi and Md-Zain J. Anim. Plant Sci., 33 (4) 2023
1030
Abdul-Nasir, N. S., N.A. Osman, Z.A. Hashim, Z.
Baharudin, M.I. Abdullah, Z. Isa and B.M. Md-
Zain (2021). Assessing perceptions and
solutions to human-long tailed macaques
(Macaca fascicularis) conflict in the Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia campus, Bangi, Selangor,
Malaysia. Malayan Nature J. 73: 187-197.
Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior:
sampling methods. Behaviour 49(3-4): 227-267.
DOI: 10.1163/156853974x00534
Anuar, S. and K. Karimullah (2011). Social organization
and mating system of Macaca fascicularis
(Long-tailed macaques). International J. Biology
3(2): 23-31.
Berman, C. M., J. Li, H. Ogawa, C. Ionica and H. Yin
(2007). Primate tourism, range restriction, and
infant risk among Macaca thibetana at Mt.
Huangshan, China. International J. Primatology
28(5): 1123-1141.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-007-9199-4
Beisner, B. A., A. Heagerty, S. K. Seil, K. N.
Balasubramaniam, E. R. Atwill, B. K. Gupta, P.
C. Tyagi, N. P. Chauhan, B. S. Bonal, P. R.
Sinha and B. McCowan (2015). Human–wildlife
conflict: Proximate predictors of aggression
between humans and rhesus macaques in India.
American J. Physical Anthropology 156(2): 286-
294. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22649
Dittus, W. P., S. Gunathilake and M. Felder (2019).
Assessing public perceptions and solutions to
human-monkey conflict from 50 years in Sri
Lanka. Folia Primatologica 90(2): 89-108. DOI:
10.1159/000496025
Fa, J. E. (1992). Visitor‐directed aggression among the
Gibraltar macaques. Zoo Biology 11(1): 43-52.
https://doi.org/10.1002/zoo.1430110106
Fuentes, A. and K.J. Hockings (2010). The
ethnoprimatological approach in primatology.
American J. Primatology 72(10): 841-847. DOI:
10.1002/ajp.20844
Fuentes, A., S. Kalchik, L. Gettler, A. Kwiatt, M.
Konecki and L. Jones‐Engel (2008).
Characterizing human–macaque interactions in
Singapore. American J. Primatology 70(9): 879-
883. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.20575
Gamalo, L. E., J. Baril, J. Dimalibot, A. Asis, B. Anas, N.
Puna and V. G. Paller (2019). Nuisance
behaviors of macaques in Puerto Princesa
Subterranean River National Park, Palawan,
Philippines. J. Threatened Taxa 11(3): 13287-
13294.
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.4702.11.3.13287-
13294
Hambali, K., A. Ismail, B. M. Md-Zain, S. Zulkifli and
A. Amir (2014). Ranging behavior of long-tailed
macaques (Macaca fascicularis) at the entrance
of Kuala Selangor Nature Park. Malaysian
Applied Biology 43(2): 129-142.
Hambali K., A. Ismail, S. Zulkifli, B. M. Md-Zain, and
A. Amir (2012). Human-macaque conflict and
pest behaviour of long-tailed macaques (Macaca
fascicularis) in Kuala Selangor Nature Park.
Tropical Natural History 12(2): 189-205.
Hambali, K., B. M. Md-Zain, and A. Amir (2016). Daily
movement, sleeping sites and canopy level use
of habituated silvered-leaf monkeys
(Trachypithecus cristatus) in Bukit Malawati,
Kuala Selangor, Malaysia. J. Sustainability
Science and Management 11(2): 21-30.
Hansen, M. I., H. A. Wahyudi, S. Supriyanto and A. R.
Damanik (2015). The interactions between long-
tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) and
tourists in Baluran National Park, Indonesia. J.
Indonesian Natural History 3(2): 36-41.
Hanson, K. T. and E. P. Riley (2017). Beyond neutrality:
The human-primate interface during the
habituation process. International J. Primatology
39(5): 852-877. DOI:10.1007/s10764-017-0009-
3
Hill, C. M. (2002). Primate conservation and local
communities-ethical issues and debates.
American Anthropologist 104(4): 1184-1194.
https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2002.104.4.1184
Hsu, M. J., C. C. Kao and G. Agoramoorthy (2009).
Interactions between visitors and Formosan
Macaques (Macaca cyclopis) at Shou-Shan
Nature Park, Taiwan. American J. Primatology
71(3): 214-222. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.20638
Kaburu, S. S. K., B. Beisner, K. N. Balasubramaniam, P.
R. Marty, E. Bliss-Moreau, L. Mohan, S. K.
Rattan, M. E. Arlet, E.R. Atwill and B.
McCowan (2019). Interactions with humans
impose time constraints on urban-dwelling
rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Behaviour
156(12): 1255-1282.
https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003565
Karuppannan, K., S. Saaban, A. R. Mustapa, F. A. Zainal
Abidin, N. A. Azimat and C. J. Keliang (2014).
Population status of long-tailed macaque
(Macaca fascicularis) in Peninsular Malaysia. J.
Primatology 3(1): 1-4.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2167-6801.1000118
Kumara, H. W. R., C. A. D. Nahallage and M. A.
Huffman (2018). Perceptions and attitudes
among venders towards non-human primates in
Mihintale Wildlife Sanctuary in Sri Lanka.
International J. Multidisciplinary Studies 5(2):
123-129. http://doi.org/10.4038/ijms.v5i2.105
Lee, W. N. and G. Davey (2015). Chinese visitors’
experiences of nature and wild macaques:
Inspiration and personal growth for living in
Hong Kong. Human Dimensions of Wildlife

Taufet-Rosdi and Md-Zain J. Anim. Plant Sci., 33 (4) 2023
1031
20(3): 206-219.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2015.1004468
Marechal, L., S. Semple, B. Majolo and A. MacLarnon
(2016). Assessing the effects of tourist
provisioning on the health of wild Barbary
macaques in Morocco. Plos One 11(5): 1-19.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155920
Matheson, M. D. (2017). Primate tourism. In Fuentes, A.
(ed.). The International Encyclopedia of
Primatology. pp 1074-1081. Wiley Blackwell;
United Kingdom.
McCarthy, M. S., M. D. Matheson, J. D. Lester, L. K.
Sheeran, J. H. Li and R. S. Wagner (2009).
Sequences of Tibetan Macaque (Macaca
thibetana) and visitor behaviors at Mt.
Huangshan, China. Primate Conservation
24(10): 145-152.
https://doi.org/10.1896/052.024.0113
McIntyre, G. (1993). Sustainable tourism development.
World Tourism Organization. Madrid.
Md-Zain, B. M., N. Mohd-Daut and S. Md-Nor (2010a).
Characterizing Silvered leaf monkey-visitor
interactions at Bukit Melawati, Kuala Selangor,
Malaysia. J. Wildlife and Parks 26: 83-94.
Md-Zain, B. M., N. A. Sha'ari, M. Mohd-Zaki, F. Ruslin,
N. I. Idris, M. D. Kadderi and W. M. R. Idris
(2010b). A comprehensive population survey
and daily activity budget on long-tailed
macaques of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. J.
Biological Sciences 10(7): 608-615. DOI:
10.3923/jbs.2010.608.615
Md-Zain, B. M. and C. E. Ch’ng (2011). The activity
patterns of a group of Cantor’s dusky leaf
monkeys (Trachypithecus obscurus halonifer).
International J. Zoological Research 7(1): 59-67.
DOI: 10.3923/ijzr.2011.59.67
Md-Zain, B. M., F. Ruslin and W. M. R. Idris (2014).
Human-macaque conflict at the main campus of
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. Pertanika J.
Tropical Agricultural Science 37(1): 73-85.
Metcalfe, I. (1984). The Permian-Triassic Boundary in
Northwest Malaya. Warta Geologi 10(4): 139-
147.
Mohd-Daut, N. and B. M. Md-Zain (2021). Notes on diet
and anthropogenic food consumption of
habituated Silvered langurs (Trachypithecus
cristatus) at Bukit Melawati, Kuala Selangor,
Selangor, Malaysia. Malayan Nature J. 73: 1-5.
Mohd-Daut, N., I. Matsuda, K. Z. Abidin and B. M. Md-
Zain (2021). Population dynamics and ranging
behaviours of provisioned Silvered langur
(Trachypithecus cristatus) in Peninsular
Malaysia. Primates 62(6): 1019-1029.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-021-00934-6
Mondino, E. and T. Beery (2018). Ecotourism as a
learning tool for sustainable development. The
case of Monviso Transboundary Biosphere
Reserve, Italy. J. Ecotourism 18(2): 107-121.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14724049.2018.1462371
Moscardo, G. and R. Saltzer (2004). Understanding
wildlife tourism markets. In Higginbottom, K.
(ed.). Wildlife Tourism: Impacts, management
and planning. pp. 167-185. Common Ground
Publishing; Australia.
O’Leary, H. and J. E. Fa (1993). Effects of tourist on
Barbary macaques at Gibraltar. Folia
Primatologica 61(2): 77-91. DOI:
10.1159/000156733
Qingming, C., X. Honggang and G. Wall (2012). A
cultural perspective on wildlife tourism in
China. Tourism Recreation Research 37(1): 27-
36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2012.1108168
5
Ruslin, F., M. A. Azmi, I. Matsuda, R. Amir and B. M.
Md-Zain (2017). Monkey school: Training
phases for coconut-picking macaques (Macaca
nemestrina). Malayan Nature J. 69(4): 301-306.
Ruslin, F., I. Matsuda and B. M. Md-Zain (2019). The
feeding ecology and dietary overlap in two
sympatric primate species, the long-tailed
macaque (Macaca fascicularis) and dusky
langur (Trachypithecus obscurus obscurus), in
Malaysia. Primates 60(1): 41-50. DOI:
10.1007/s10329-018-00705-w
Schillaci, M. A., L. Jones-Engel, B. P. Y.-H. Lee, A.
Fuentes, N. Aggimarangsee, G. A. Engel and T.
Sutthipat (2007). Morphology and somatometric
growth of long-tailed macaques (Macaca
fascicularis fascicularis) in Singapore.
Biological J. the Linnean Society 92(4): 675-
694. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-
8312.2007.00860.x
Sengupta, A. and S. Radhakrishna (2018). The hand that
feeds the monkey: Mutual influence of humans
and rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta) in the
context of provisioning. International J.
Primatology 39(5): 817-830.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-018-0014-1
Sinha, A. and S. Vijayakrishnan (2017). Primates in
urban settings. In: Fuentes, A. (ed.). The
International Encyclopedia of Primatology. pp.
1-8. John Wiley and Sons, Inc; New York.
Sha, J. C. M., M. D. Gumert, B. Lee, A. Fuentes, S.
Rajathurai, S. Chan and L. Jones-Engel (2009).
Status of the long-tailed macaque Macaca
fascicularis in Singapore and implications for
management. Biodiversity and Conservation
18(11): 2909-2926.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9616-4
Sha, J. C. M. and G. Hanya (2013). Diet, activity, habitat
use, and ranging of two neighboring groups of

Taufet-Rosdi and Md-Zain J. Anim. Plant Sci., 33 (4) 2023
1032
food‐enhanced long‐tailed macaques (Macaca
fascicularis). American J. Primatology 75(6):
581-592. DOI: 10.1002/ajp.22137
Stalhammar, S. and E. Pedersen (2017). Recreational
cultural ecosystem services: How do people
describe the value? Ecosystem Services 26: 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.05.010
Thanh An, L., J. Markowski, M. Bartos, T. Q. Thoai, T.
H. Tuan and A. Rzenca (2018). Tourist and local
resident preferences for the Northern yellow-
cheeked gibbon (Nomascus annamensis)
conservation program in the Bach Ma National
Park, Central Vietnam. Tropical Conservation
Science 11: 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082918776564
Van Schaik, C. P., M. A. Van Noordwijk, R. J. de Boer
and I. Den Tonkelaar (1983). The effect of
group size on time budgets and social behaviour
in wild long-tailed macaques (Macaca
fascicularis). Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology 13(3): 173-181.
Yeager, C. P. (1996). Feeding ecology of the long-tailed
macaque (Macaca fascicularis) in Kalimantan
Tengah, Indonesia. International J. Primatology
17(1): 51-62.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02696158
Zhao, Q. K. (2005). Tibetan macaques, visitors, and local
people at Mt. Emei: Problems and
countermeasures. In Paterson, J. (ed.).
Commensalism and conflict: The human-primate
interface, pp.376-399. American Society
Primatology.