Is Rehabilitating Orang Utans Worth While?

Aveling, Rosalind; Mitchell, A. G.

doi:10.1017/s0030605300017506

Cited by 27 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reintroduced species can become conservation symbols (e.g., Seddon and van Heezik 2013); they can be used as an educational tool (e.g., Aveling and Mitchell 1982); and they can have direct economic, particularly touristic, assets (e.g., Montag et al 2005). The way people evaluate these symbols, programs, or tangible benefits may be based on esthetic and utilitarian values as well as intrinsic ones, and on affective as well as rational considerations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phoenix flagships: Conservation values and guanaco reintroduction in an anthropogenic landscape

Lindon

Root‐Bernstein

2014

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple forms of valuation contribute to public acceptance of conservation projects. Here, we consider how esthetic, intrinsic, and utilitarian values contribute to public attitudes toward a proposed reintroduction of guanaco (Lama guanicoe) in a silvopastoral system of central Chile. The nexus among landscape perceptions and valuations, support for reintroductions, and management of anthropogenic habitats is of increasing interest due to the proliferation of conservation approaches combining some or all of these elements, including rewilding and reconciliation ecology, for example. We assessed attitudes and values through an online questionnaire for residents of Santiago, Chile, using multiple methods including photo-montages and Likert scale assessments of value-based statements. We also combined the questionnaire approach with key informant interviews. We find strong support for the reintroduction of guanacos into the Chilean silvopastoral system ('espinal') in terms of esthetic and intrinsic values but less in terms of utilitarian values. Respondents preferred a scenario of espinal with guanacos and expressed interest in visiting it, as well as support for the reintroduction project on the basis that guanacos are native to central Chile. We suggest that reintroduced guanacos could serve as a 'phoenix flagship species' for espinal conservation, that is, a flagship species that has gone regionally extinct and is known but not associated with the region in the cultural memory. We consider how the lack of local cultural identity can both help and weaken phoenix flagships, which we expect to become more common.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phoenix flagships: Conservation values and guanaco reintroduction in an anthropogenic landscape

Lindon

Root‐Bernstein

2014

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much of the challenge in determining conservation objectives for this taxon comes from the fact that, due to the remoteness of their habitats, it is extremely difficult to get accurate population estimates, which are necessary for monitoring efforts, as well as determining at what density a population must be to avoid the deleterious effects of inbreeding depression (Aveling & Mitchell 1982;Ancrenaz et al 2004;Meijaard et al 2012).…”

Section: Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 1963, the Fauna Conservation Ordinance declared that it was illegal to capture, keep, or kill, an orangutan in Sabah, Malaysia (Aveling & Mitchell 1982). Since then, the international trade of orangutans has also become illegal under CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), and protected areas have been established in an effort to maintain current populations.…”

Section: Orangutan Conservation Effortsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although some researchers (e.g., Aveling 1982;Frey 1978) have stated that rehabilitant tourism had been managed effectively to bring in money and educate visitors, others argued that these benefits did not offset the negative effects on the orangutans' health and rehabilitation (MacKinnon 1977;Rijksen 1982;Schoneveld-de Lange et al 2016). Many experts recommended for wholesale changes to be made, starting with prohibiting tourist-orangutan contact (Rijksen & Rijksen-Graatsma 1975;MacKinnon 1977;Aveling & Mitchell 1982, Rijksen 1982). In addition, it was recommended that tourism not be allowed at centers with orangutans who are eligible for release back into the wild, or in natural areas with reintroduced rehabilitant orangutans (Caldecott & Miles 2005).…”

Section: Traditional Orangutan Tourismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During the onset of orangutan tourism in the 1960's and 70's, it was thought that wild orangutans should be left alone due to their endangered status, and that they had little appeal to tourists anyway, given the fact that they are so solitary and it is difficult to detect them in the wild, making them unlikely to generate high revenues (Frey 1978;Aveling 1982;Aveling & Mitchell 1982;Rijksen 1982;Russon & Susilo 2014;Schoneveld-de Lange et al 2016). …”

Section: Wild Orangutan Ecotourismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is ecotourism an outdated solution to orangutan conservation in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo?

Thompson¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Putting the Spotlight on Internally Displaced Animals (IDAs): A Survey of Primate Sanctuaries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas

Trayford

Farmer

2012

American J Primatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As anthropogenic activity makes deeper incursions into forests, fragmenting habitat, wildlife is forced into closer proximity to humans leading to increased incidences of human-wildlife conflict and wildlife displacement. These same incursions facilitate poaching for the commercial trade in dead and live animals. As a direct result, the number of sanctuaries and internally displaced animals (IDAs) in need of sanctuary placement and rehabilitation are increasing. We focus on internally displaced primates given the prevalence of primate-focused facilities and anthropomorphic considerations surrounding this taxonomic group. Surveys were distributed globally to map the extent and range of native primate sanctuaries and species. Over 70 facilities care for more than 6,000 native primates comprising 64 species, with almost half listed as endangered or critically endangered. As not all sanctuaries were identified at the time of the survey distribution, we estimate that the actual number of facilities is closer to double this number with a captive population in excess of 10,000 individual primates. Native primate sanctuaries hold significant numbers of primates in long-term captive care, with less than half (37%) identified as candidates for release. The surveyed sanctuary population accounts for 35% of the world's captive primates, as compared to ISIS-registered (where ISIS is International Species Information System) zoological facilities, although we estimate that the actual population is closer to 58%. For some species, the sanctuary population represents the only population in captivity. We discuss the prevalence of range-state sanctuaries and their primate populations, and issues surrounding their future development and management.

show abstract

Is Rehabilitating Orang Utans Worth While?

Cited by 27 publications

References 2 publications

Phoenix flagships: Conservation values and guanaco reintroduction in an anthropogenic landscape

Phoenix flagships: Conservation values and guanaco reintroduction in an anthropogenic landscape

Is ecotourism an outdated solution to orangutan conservation in Sabah, Malaysian Borneo?

Putting the Spotlight on Internally Displaced Animals (IDAs): A Survey of Primate Sanctuaries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About