# "Baboons on the road again": Survey of vehicle occupants on a road crossing a national park in Uganda

Jovia Nabuule, Fantine Benoit, Louise Robinet, Peter Isingoma, David

Mwesigye Tumusiime, Harold Rugonge, Sabrina Krief, Odile Petit, Audrey

Maille

► To cite this version:

Jovia Nabuule, Fantine Benoit, Louise Robinet, Peter Isingoma, David Mwesigye Tumusiime, et al. "Baboons on the road again": Survey of vehicle occupants on a road crossing a national park in Uganda. Revue de Primatologie, In press, 15, 10.4000/13563. hal-04813356

HAL Id: hal-04813356

https://hal.science/hal-04813356v1

Submitted on 24 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
1 English title

2 "Baboons on the road again": Survey of vehicle occupants on a road crossing a national park in Uganda

3

4

5 Titre en Français

6 "Baboons on the road again" : Enquête auprès des automobilistes sur une route traversant un parc national en Ouganda"

7

8

9 Jovia NABUULE

10 Sebitoli Chimpanzee Project / Projet pour la Conservation des Grands Singes, Sebitoli, Kibale

11 National Park, Fort Portal, Uganda

12

13 Fantine BENOIT

14 Laboratoire d'Eco-anthropologie, UMR 7206 MNHN-CNRS-Université Paris Cité, Paris, France

15

16 Louise ROBINET

17 Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive, UMR 6024 CNRS-Université Clermont

18 Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France ; Laboratoire d'Eco-anthropologie, UMR 7206 MNHN-

19 CNRS-Université Paris Cité, Paris, France

20

21 Peter ISINGOMA

22 Sebitoli Chimpanzee Project / Projet pour la Conservation des Grands Singes, Sebitoli, Kibale

23 National Park, Fort Portal, Uganda
24

25 David Mwesigye TUMUSIIME

26 Makerere University Biological Field Station, Fort Portal, Uganda ; Department of

27 Environmental Management, Makerere University, Uganda

28

29 Harold RUGONGE

30 Sebitoli Chimpanzee Project / Projet pour la Conservation des Grands Singes, Sebitoli, Kibale

31 National Park, Fort Portal, Uganda

32

33 Sabrina KRIEF

34 Sebitoli Chimpanzee Project / Projet pour la Conservation des Grands Singes, Sebitoli, Kibale

35 National Park, Fort Portal, Uganda ; Laboratoire d'Eco-anthropologie, UMR 7206 MNHN-

36 CNRS-Université Paris Cité, Paris, France

37

38 Odile PETIT

39 Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive, UMR 6024 CNRS -Université Clermont

40 Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France

41

42 Audrey MAILLE

43 Laboratoire d'Eco-anthropologie, UMR 7206 MNHN-CNRS-Université Paris Cité, Paris, France ;

44 Pôle parcs zoologiques, Direction des Jardins, Musées, Zoos, MNHN, Paris, France. Autrice

45 pour la correspondance : audrey.maille@mnhn.fr

46

47 In Revue de Primatologie, Dossier Conservation, accepté
48 Abstract

49 Infrastructures such as roads or railways fragment the forests, but they are also places of
50 encounter between humans and wildlife. Some populations of primates, especially macaques
51 and baboons, are regularly seen on roadsides. As these primates are also involved in direct
52 conflict with humans for access to space and food, it is of particular importance to understand
53 the attitudes of vehicle occupants towards these primates. In this exploratory study, we
54 interviewed 383 vehicle occupants travelling on an asphalt road crossing Kibale National Park,
55 Uganda, to assess how people perceive Olive baboons (*Papio anubis*) that are regularly
56 present on the road, and the road regulations aiming to protect them (and other animal
57 species). In addition, we daily monitored the road sides to record leftovers of anthropogenic
58 food and to census the vehicles passing by. Most of the respondents did not express any
59 negative attitudes toward baboons, although these primates regularly visit fields and gardens
60 to forage on crops in the area. Few people were concerned about the 'do not litter' regulation.
61 Although road users rarely feed them, baboons seem to remain attracted to the road because
62 littering is very common. We recommend more sensitization of road users about the increased
63 risks of accidents when baboons are attracted to the road because of anthropogenic food.

64

65 **Keywords:** Coexistence; Perceptions; Attitudes; Provisioning; Littering

66

67

68

69

70

71
72 Résumé

73 Les infrastructures telles que les routes ou les voies ferrées fragmentent les forêts, mais ce
74 sont aussi des lieux de rencontre entre les humains et les animaux qui peuplent ces forêts.

75 Certaines populations de primates, en particulier les macaques et les babouins, sont
76 régulièrement observées sur les routes. Comme ces primates sont également impliqués dans
77 des conflits avec les humains pour l'accès à l'espace et à la nourriture, il est particulièrement
78 important de comprendre l'attitude des automobilistes et autres usagers de la route à l'égard
79 de ces primates. Dans Pour cette étude exploratoire, nous avons interrogé 383 conducteurs
80 ou passagers de véhicules circulant sur une route asphaltée traversant le parc national de
81 Kibale, en Ouganda, afin d'évaluer leur perception des babouins olive (Papio anubis) qui sont
82 régulièrement présents sur la route et des réglementations routières visant à les protéger
83 (ainsi que d'autres espèces animales). Nous avons également inspecté quotidiennement les
84 bas-côtés de la route afin de répertorier les restes de nourriture d'origine anthropique et nous
85 avons recensé les véhicules qui passaient sur la route. La plupart des personnes interrogées
86 n'ont pas exprimé d'attitude négative à l'égard des babouins, bien que ces primates visitent
87 régulièrement les champs et les jardins pour se nourrir des récoltes dans cette région. Peu de
88 personnes se sont montrées préoccupées par la réglementation "ne pas jeter vos détritus".

89 Même si les usagers de la route les nourrissent rarement, il semble que les babouins restent
90 attirés par la route car les déchets alimentaires y sont très fréquents. Nous recommandons de
91 sensibiliser les usagers de la route aux risques accrus d'accidents quand les babouins sont
92 attirés sur la route par la présence de nourriture d'origine anthropique.

93

94 Mots-clés : Coexistence ; Perceptions ; Attitudes ; Approvisionnement ; Déchets.

95
96 **1. Introduction**

97 Pressures on ecosystems are intensifying at an alarming rate and with increasingly diverse
98 human activities such as deforestation, urbanization, agriculture or infrastructure
99 construction, leaving less and less space for wildlife (Newbold et al., 2015; Venter et al., 2016).

100 All these modifications and anthropogenic activities have accidental or deliberate
101 consequences on biodiversity and ecosystems, affecting all ecological scales: species
102 abundance, distribution, richness and interactions (Doherty et al., 2021). Encounters between
103 humans and wild animals are increasing which is leading to more regular interactions, which
104 in turn affects animal behaviour and ecology (Gaynor et al., 2024).

105 Development of infrastructures, such as roads or railways, results in fragmentation of
106 landscapes (Benítez-López et al., 2010). Overall, roads have a predominantly negative effect
107 on animal populations, creating barriers to gene flow, increasing wildlife mortality due to
108 collisions, and leading to a biodiversity loss (Fahrig & Rytwinski, 2009; Singh et al., 2011). In
109 such context, many species avoid road areas, which results in a reduced home range and
110 possibly dispersal capacity (Benítez-López et al., 2010, Ascensão et al., 2022). There is a
111 paucity of data on non-human primate deaths due to vehicle collisions, which has been
112 attributed not only to the rarity of such incidents, but also to a geographical bias in the
113 reporting of these deaths (Martin et al., 2012). Primate foraging strategies can be modified in
114 environments crossed by roads, which can result in changes in the distribution of daily
115 activities and consequently in population dynamics and social structure, as revealed in Moor
116 macaques (Morrow et al., 2019). Some populations of macaques (Pragatheesh, 2011; Riley et
117 al., 2021) and baboons (Maille et al., 2017; Kitegile et al., 2022) forage on the road sides and
118 beg for food from vehicle occupants. Indeed, roads are both places where humans litter food
119

and places of encounter between humans and wildlife where people can directly provide food to wildlife (Ilham, 2024).

120

121

In a variety of contexts, conflicts over access to food and space occur between humans and primates. Primates can forage on crops, sometimes strongly impacting the income of farmers through crop loss and damage (Hill, 2017). Crop-eating primates are then considered pests or vermin (Costa & Casanova, 2020) because people must devote time and energy to protect their fields (Hill, 2000; Findlay & Hill, 2020). These conflicts can physically hurt humans, who may suffer from bites or injuries when defending their crops against primates, sometimes resulting in death (Hockings et al., 2010). Conflicts of this kind are also observed in urban areas, where some primates assault tourists at sites, but may also enter buildings, homes, and invade gardens (McCarthy et al., 2009; Mormile & Hill, 2017; Mazué et al., 2023).

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

Conservation policies settled to protect primates can impose indirect costs to humans when they reduce the ability of local people to protect themselves from wildlife invasions (Hill, 2000). These policies may also outlaw ancestral practices of local populations, such as hunting for meat consumption, medicine or rituals (Kansky et al., 2016). In many cases, local populations are not aware of the reasons for conservation policies or they disagree with them, or they go against these policies because they are in conflict with the authorities in charge of conservation in the area (Madden, 2004; Redpath et al., 2013). In sum, the quality and quantity of interactions between nonhuman primates and humans, but also between humans themselves, will influence people perception of primates and how they will act towards primates (Narat et al., 2017).

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

This study focused on how people travelling on a high-traffic asphalt road crossing a protected area, Kibale National Park, perceive Olive baboons (*Papio anubis*) that are regularly present on the road (Maille et al, 2017). Olive baboons are one of the widely spread species of

141

142
143 baboons around the equator in Africa. They inhabit both savannah and rainforests with a
144 highly adaptive and flexible behaviour, which makes them able to live in areas where there is
145 intense human activity (Hill & Winder, 2019). Amongst primates in Africa, baboons are cited
146 as a major source of human wildlife conflicts (Hill, 2017; Kyokuhaire et al., 2023).

147 Our study area, the asphalted road that crosses the forest of Kibale National Park from the
148 east to the west for approximately four kilometers, is two lanes wide and represents a high
149 risk for wildlife in terms of collision. More than 150 vehicles per hour pass along this road and,
150 even though the legal speed limit inside the park is 40km/h, most drivers overspeed (80km/h
151 – 120km/h; Krief et al., 2020). Besides, this road section has a number of curves and slopes of
152 different intensities (ranging from 3.2% to 11.3%), which, combined with excessive speed,
153 increases the risk of accidents when animals cross the road (Cibot et al., 2015). A record of 48
154 animals killed due to collisions, among which five baboons, have been reported during weekly
155 patrols carried out on this road section from 2012 to 2014 (Cibot et al., 2015) and 2017 to
156 2019 (Krief et al., 2020). In addition, two plastic collection surveys, conducted at four months
157 interval, revealed an important littering rate (2406 plastic soda and water bottles were
158 collected in the second survey, which represents a littering rate of 18 bottles a day; Krief et al
159 2020).

160 As this road section is part of the Kampala - Fort Portal high way, the main transport road that
161 connects Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, it was renovated and enlarged
162 between 2017 and 2019, being widened from 13m to 20 m inclusive of the shoulder with grass
163 (Cibot et al., 2015; Krief et al., 2020). In 2020, a number of equipment was put on the road by
164 the Uganda National Roads Authority, in collaboration with Sebitoli Chimpanzee Project and
165 Uganda Wildlife Authority, in order to mitigate the impact of the renovation work and reduce
166 the risks posed by the road on both drivers and wildlife (Krief et al., 2020). Some road bumps
167 were put to help control speed of the vehicles when going through the park. In addition, road signs displaying rules that people should observe while going through the park were put on the road sides by Sebitoli Chimpanzee Project. To make it more understandable for everyone, including those who cannot read, descriptive pictures were added to the signposts.

171 The main objective of this exploratory study was to assess the perception of road users about animal species that can be encountered on the road crossing the national park, especially baboons, and road regulations aiming to protect them. In addition, to better account for human impacts on the road, we daily monitored the road sides in order to record leftovers of anthropogenic food and animals killed by collisions with vehicles, and we regularly censused the vehicles passing. We also recorded baboon presence and their location alongside the road to have a broader overview of the context of the encounters between people and baboons on the road.

179

## 2. Material and methods

181

### 2.1. Study site

183 Kibale National Park (0°13′-0°41′N and 30°19′-30°32′E) is located in Western Uganda and covers approximatively 795km². The altitude varies between 1590m in the north to 1110m in the south. Kibale National Park hosts a medium-altitude tropical forest where the climate is composed of dry and rainy seasons with a bimodal distribution across years (Chapman & Lambert, 2000). The Park is a biodiversity hot spot where endangered species are present, such as the two species of elephants (*Loxodonta africana* and *L. cyclotis*) and their hybrids (Bonnald *et al.*, 2021), chimpanzees (*Pan troglodytes*) and African golden cats (*Caracal aurata*), and a high diversity of primates, including Olive baboons (*Papio anubis*).
This study focused on the asphalted highway road section of 4.6 km that crosses the Northern part of Kibale National Park, called Sebitoli area (Sebitoli is a village neighboring the north-west border of the park). Numerous studies have been conducted in this area in the context of the Sebitoli chimpanzee project (Director: Sabrina Krief, MNHN, and Jean-Michel Krief, PCGS) in the framework of a Memorandum of Understanding with Uganda wildlife Authority and Makerere University (SJ 445-12).

197

198

Figure 1 around here

199

On this road, bumps and signposts aim to help the cohabitation between wildlife and road users (Figure 1). These signposts are well visible and were cleaned before the study began. They remind vehicle occupants that animals are likely to cross the road and that they should not feed the animals, litter, or overspeed. The 4.6km road portion presents four points with bumps and eleven with signposts that are located on each side of the road, for a total of 22 signposts that include “Do not litter” (8 signposts), “Do not feed wildlife” (6), “Do not overspeed” (2) and “Animals crossing” (6, among which 2 signposts have elephant drawings, 2 have chimpanzees and there are 2 signposts with a mosaic of antelopes, chimpanzees and elephants at the borders of the national park). Location of the bumps and signposts is mapped in Figure 2.

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

Figure 2 around here

212

## 2.2. Data collection
214 The survey was carried out between January and May 2023 by a team of three research assistants (January - March = period 1: F. Benoit, J. Nabuule, P. Isingoma; April - May = period 2: J. Nabuule, P. Isingoma). A total of 109 days was spent on the road, organized as follows: 6 days a week (Thursday being off), 6 hours a day, alternating morning (7:00 AM - 1:00 PM) and afternoon observations (1:00 PM - 7:00 PM). The first 3 weeks of observations (from 20/01/2023 to 12/02/2023) were dedicated to train the research assistants in data recording, and to identify baboon groups that used the road not only to cross but also to stay on the road for long periods (at least 15 min).

222

223 **2.2.1. General situation on the road**

224 Each day, the research team walked along the road from the research station to the eastern border of the park in order to locate baboons. At the same time, food leftovers (i.e., the food scraps discarded by humans on the road) were recorded to monitor the diversity and the amount of food available for the baboons. In addition, throughout the study, dead animals found on the road tarmac or road sides were also recorded.

229 Traffic census was carried out 7 times per day on average (minimum = 2; maximum = 16) with a balanced distribution on each side of the road. Traffic census was carried out using the Cybertracker application for Android (version 3.528). Each traffic census lasted 5 minutes and was repeated with a minimum interval of 15 minutes. If baboons were present, traffic censuses were done simultaneously with the observations of baboons. When baboons were not on the road, traffic censuses were performed as a control. These traffic censuses enabled us to count the number of pedestrians and vehicles passing by in one direction (east to west or west to east).
237 Within the research team, one person conducted traffic census, another interviewed road users and, when baboons were observed on the road, a third person recorded the location and identified group composition and age-sex classes using direct observation with binoculars (Nikon Prostaff 3S, 10x42). As such, when the baboons were present on the road, the location of the traffic census and interviews depended on their position. We used key identification to find particularities for each baboon in order to give them an identity. Each individual baboon was allocated to an age-sex class among six age-sex classes that were determined from criteria of Wallace & Hill (2016): adults (fully grown individuals), subadults (sex is identified but not fully grown), juveniles (unidentified sex, begins to be independent but still small) and infants (small and dependant, maintaining high proximity with their mother).

247 To locate the food leftovers, dead animals and baboon groups that were observed along the road, we recorded GPS points using Garmin GPSmap 64s. Locations were then mapped using QGIS (version 3.16.11).

250

251 **2.2.2. Interviews with road users**

252 The research team stopped vehicles on the road and asked drivers and passengers to answer questions. We stopped people coming from the western and eastern sides of the road, with the aim of achieving a balanced number from each side each day.

255 We chose the location of the interviews depending on the location of the baboons. We also considered the safety of road users, avoiding curvy road portions and spots where the road sides were narrow. The location of the interviews was selected with the team and it was in a way that the people were interviewed after they had gone past the baboons. Surveys were conducted at a distance of 150 metres from the baboons. To maximise the chances of respondents having seen the baboons, surveys were conducted 150 metres east of the
261 baboons for vehicles travelling west-east, and 150 metres west of the baboons for vehicles
262 travelling east-west.

263 We used a questionnaire that was written in English; however, it was conducted in two other
264 languages, Luganda (J. Nabuule) and Rutoro (P. Isingoma), for the respondents who were not
265 comfortable using English. Target respondents were at least 15 years old.

266 A complete version of the questionnaire has been attached in **Table 1**. The questionnaire was
267 a mix of both open and closed questions and was designed to collect information about:

268 - *Profile of respondents:* age group, country of origin, region of origin for Ugandans (West,
269 East, Central, and North), the reason for using the road, the frequency at which people see
270 domestic and wild animals (mentioning the animals they see);

271 - *Perceptions of baboons:* identification of the animals they have seen on the road, whether
272 they have fed the baboons (if so, identifying the food they had given to the baboons,
273 expectation to feeding baboons, reason for feeding the baboons), knowledge on baboon
274 diet, 3 words referring to baboons;

275 - *Perception of road regulations:* ability to identify and interpret signposts with animal
276 information, knowledge about the speed limit in a national park, park rules they are willing
277 to observe on their next trip (respondents were presented with stickers of signposts and
278 they were asked to rank the road rules depicting on them in an order they thought would
279 be important to them; they were then allowed to choose and keep one sticker).

280 In addition, after completing the interview, we recorded information about the vehicle (type,
281 direction of travelling, presence of children), the respondent (sex and whether driver or
282 passenger) and the other persons in the vehicle.

283 Completion of the questionnaire lasted a minimum of 4 minutes and a maximum of 7 minutes.

284 The questionnaire was deployed on KoboToolbox application
285 (https://www.kobotoolbox.org/) for Android, and ran on a smartphone. Data were saved and
286 extracted from KoboTool box website.

287 We assessed differences in number of respondents using Binomial tests, Chi-square tests of
288 independence and chi-square tests for Goodness-of-fit, with a significance threshold set at
289 0.05, using R (version 4.3.3). The statistical analyses are not predictive because, as part of an
290 exploratory study, we had no preconceived ideas about the perceptions of the people
291 interviewed. Furthermore, no hypothesis could be inspired by previous studies since, to our
292 knowledge, no other study has addressed road users' perceptions of biodiversity.

293

294

Table 1 around here

295

296 **2.3. Ethics**

297 The framework of the study was explained to each participant before starting the interview
298 (Table 1). Only individuals that gave oral consent to answer the questions were interviewed.

299 In order to guarantee anonymity, no personal information was collected, except age and
300 geographic origin. People under 15 were not interviewed, and we stopped the interview for
301 those who were under 18 if they were not accompanied by at least one of their parents.

302 Research in Kibale National Park was approved by Uganda Wildlife Authority on 3rd of January
303 2023 (reference number: COD/96/05).

304

305 **3. Results**

306

307 **3.1. General situation on the road**
At the time of the study, we counted a total of 4493 motorized vehicles out of which the most frequent were cars (36%), motorbikes (29%), big trucks (12%), minibuses (10%), small trucks (10%) and large buses (3%). We also recorded 36 pedestrians and 31 bicycles. Regular traffic censuses showed an intense traffic of 2.7 ± 1.2 vehicles per minute (162 vehicles per hour on average), which remained constant throughout the day and the study period.

A map depicting the location of food leftovers and dead animals recorded alongside the road can be found in **Figure 2**. The total number of anthropogenic food items recorded during the data collection was 1093 with an average of 11.5 ± 4.7 food leftovers per half-day, and were made up of 55% raw fruits, vegetables and seeds; 37% beverages (bottles of juice or alcohol); 3% sweets (candy and honey); 2% cooked foods; 2% meat. We found 30 dead animals along the road: twelve reptiles (including eleven snakes and one chameleon), ten birds, five mammals (including three rodents, one genet and one baboon) and three amphibians.

Two social groups of olive baboons were regularly observed in different parts of the road. One group, called "the roadies", was quite widespread on the road (Figure 2). This group has varied from 27 to 31 individuals, with two individuals (one juvenile and one infant) observed during the habituation period but died before the onset of data collection. At the end of the data collection, we observed 29 individuals in total: eleven adult females, five adult males, three sub-adult females, five juveniles and five infants. In the course of the study, two males joined the group successively, two infants were born, and six immatures (five infants and one juvenile) died including two of them because of a collision with a car. The second group, called "the campers", was composed of 20 individuals, which split in two sub-groups, one going to the road next to the research station, and the other staying in the forest near the station. The sub-group found on the road was always composed of the five same individuals: three adult females, one adult male and one juvenile. Because "the campers" were not so numerous on
the road, we focused on the larger group "the roadies" during the study period. The "roadies" group was observed on the road 56 days out of 95 days of observations, so six days out of ten.

When they were on the road, they remained on the road tarmac or sides for an average of 89.5 ± 69 minutes (mean ± SE). During the study, two accidents with motorbikes were witnessed, one involving an adult male from "the campers" group and the other one an adult male from "the roadies" group, but none was injured.

338

## 3.2. Interviews with road users

A total of 383 interviews was achieved. The maximum number of surveys attained in a day was twelve and the minimum was one (with a median of 3.5 and a mean of 4.3). A total number of 195 respondents (51 %) were traveling from the eastern side of the road and 188 respondents (49%) were traveling from the western side of the road. Because of the spatial distribution of baboons during the study, the surveys were carried out mostly at the eastern border of the national park.

Most of the people surveyed were riding a motorbike (181), followed by drivers/passengers of cars (74), big trucks (44), small trucks (52), pedestrians (31) and large buses (1). Considering that the number of vehicle types recorded in the traffic census was not balanced (Figure 3), we tested whether the proportion of respondents travelling in each vehicle type differed from the actual proportion of vehicles observed passing by the road. We found an over-representation of people riding motorbikes or pedestrians while there was an under-representation of users of cars, bicycles, mini and large buses in our survey as compared to the actual number of vehicles driving along the road (Chi-square test of goodness-of-fit: $\chi^2 = 35.1, p < 0.001$; Figure 3).

355
<caption>**Figure 3 around here**</caption>

356 Out of the 383 people interviewed, 111 surveys (29%) were carried out in the presence of 357 baboons (in this case, baboons were on the road at a maximum distance of 150 meters from 358 the place where the surveys were done) and 272 surveys (71%) were carried out when the 359 baboons were not seen on the road. 360

**3.2.1. Profile of respondents**

363 Out of the 383 respondents, a majority were men (371 men and 12 women). The respondents 364 included both drivers and passengers, but a majority of respondents were drivers (277), and 365 sometimes both passengers and drivers answered together (67) while passengers only 366 occurred even more rarely (39). The age range of the respondents was between 15 to +66; 367 the highest number of participants were in the age range of 26-35 years (155) followed by 15- 368 25 (96), 36-45 (95), 46-55 (23), 56-65 (12) + 66 (2); as such our sample of respondents was not 369 balanced in age (chi-square test of goodness-of-fit: $\chi^2 = 289.75, p < 0.001$; **Table 2**). 370

<caption>**Table 2 around here**</caption>

371 The respondents came from different African countries that included mostly Uganda (376), 372 followed by Kenya (5), Nigeria (1) and Democratic Republic of Congo (1). Although some 373 vehicles transporting non-African tourists (mostly European and North-American) were 374 regularly seen passing by, few stopped for interviews and when they did, only the Ugandan 375 driver was responding. Among the majority of respondents that were coming from Uganda, 376 most of them were from the Western region (291), followed by Central region (45), East (27), 377 and North (13). The proportions of respondents in each age group followed the same trend 378 379
regardless of which region of Uganda the participants came from (chi-square test of independence: $\chi^2 = 9.15$, p = 0.690; respondents who declared being older than 66-year-old were excluded from the analysis because they were too few; **Table 2**).

Most of the respondents used the road for work (289 = 75%), followed by category "other" (53) which possibly included school visits, burials, shopping, study trips and nature walks. The remaining respondents were on family visits (29) and tourism (12). As such, the reason for traveling on the road was not balanced in our sample of respondents (chi-square test of goodness-of-fit: $\chi^2 = 528.91$, p < 0.001).

Most of the respondents (350 = 91%) stated that they often see both wild and domestic animals. Few respondents informed us that they only get to see wild animals (19) or domestic animals (7) and some declared seeing neither wild nor domestic animals in their daily lives (7). The respondents were asked to name the animals that they often see in their daily life, which includes along the road and other places they dwell in: baboons were cited by almost half of the respondents (49%). Baboons were the more cited wild animal (188 citations), followed by elephants (182), monkeys (97; generic term used in Uganda to refer to primates that have a tail), chimpanzees (28) and other animal species (number of citations of each animal taxon is shown in **Figure 4**). The most often cited domestic animals were cows (285), goats (114) and dogs (53).

**Figure 4 around here**

### 3.2.2. Perception of baboons

For interviews carried out in the presence of baboons, almost all the respondents (104 out of 111) reported they have seen the baboons in the past minutes, which confirms that baboons
404 are usually witnessed by road users. By contrast, only 14% of the respondents (39 out of 272)
405 reported to have seen the baboons when interviews were carried out when the research team
406 did not locate baboons at a close distance. Some respondents declared that, before being
407 stopped by the research team, they have seen other animal species including chimpanzee (4),
408 monkey (5) and elephant (3).

409 Only 2 respondents reported to have provisioned the baboons with food, and both of them
410 fed baboons on bananas. When the 383 respondents were asked to name food items as part
411 of the baboon diet, 69 % (264) of them reported anthropogenic food, which included bananas
412 (111), maize (31), sweet potatoes (10), bread (3), cassava (6), chicken (2) and mangoes (2).
413 Noteworthy, 31 % (119) of the respondents mentioned natural food items such as grass (52),
414 tree leaves (33), forest fruits (12), small insects (8), flowers (1) and figs (1), showing accurate
415 knowledge of forest baboon diet.

416 The respondents were asked to mention three words that came to their mind about baboons.
417 Most of the respondents agreed to mention at least one word (331 out of 383), but only a few
418 of them mentioned a second word (122) and even less a third word (22). We classified the
419 words in six categories: "baboons as source of happiness", "baboons eliciting compassion
420 because of apparent hunger", "baboons having similarities with humans in body anatomy and
421 behaviour", "baboons eliciting a feeling of insecurity", "baboons being disgusting" (baboons
422 being nasty or having ugly body features) and "baboons as a tourism attraction" (baboons
423 being a source of income for Uganda). The number of times each category of words was
424 mentioned as first, second and third thoughts is presented in **Table 3**.

425
426
427

**Table 3 around here**
Of the respondents who agreed to quote at least one word, 60% (200 out of 331) mentioned words that referred to baboons as a source of happiness as their first thought, and some even showed compassion for the baboons (12). The first word of the other respondents referred to baboons as having physical or behavioural similarities with humans for 11% of the respondents (37), or baboons as eliciting a feeling of insecurity for 8% of the respondents (27) or being disgusting for 2% of the respondents (7). Words related to “tourism” were mentioned by 12% respondents (42) as their first thought. The last 7% of respondents (6) cited words that we did not manage to classify into the six categories.

This distribution between the six categories of words differed for respondents that accepted to cite a second word (chi-square test of goodness-of-fit: $\chi^2 = 107.03$, p < 0.001) with a decrease in words that referred to baboons as a source of happiness and an increase in words related to tourism, while the proportion of other categories of words remained stable. The number of respondents citing a third word was too low for running proper analyses.

Of the words that we did not manage to classify, some were related to religion (i.e., “baboons are goodness of God”, “cultural importance”) and others were associated with ecological concepts (i.e., “baboons are part of the food web”, “adaptation”, “unity”, “way of life”). Interestingly, some people seemed to consider baboons as a pride (i.e., “patriotism”, “beauty of my country”) whereas others despised them (i.e., “they are dustbin feeders”, “they do not like people”, “they misuse human space”). Five respondents talked about research, probably because of the context in which the interview was performed.

### 3.2.2. Perception of road regulations

Out of all the people that were interviewed, 98% (377 out of 383) confirmed that they were able to see some signposts along the road. However, depending on the location where the
interview occurred, the number of signposts they were able to see during their present travel strongly differed. Indeed, only respondents who were coming from the west and who were interviewed at the eastern border of the park (when they were exiting Kibale national park) were able to see all the signposts in the few minutes before the interview. The other respondents had not yet seen any signposts because they were either just entering the park (they were coming from the west and interviewed at the eastern border) or they were not able to see all the signposts yet (they were interviewed in more central road sections inside the park). Consequently, the following analyses on memory retention of signposts are restricted to the 122 respondents who were interviewed at the eastern border of the national park while they were travelling west to east.

The most cited sign post message was "Animals crossing" (61 responses), followed by "Do not feed the animals" (61), "Do not overspeed" (33), and "Do not litter" (31). We have collected more responses (186) than respondents (122) because people were asked to cite as many signs as they could remember. Only one respondent was not able to identify the road signs he had seen. Considering that the number of signposts displaying each message was also not balanced (i.e., 8 signposts "Do not litter", 6 "Animal Crossing", 6 "Do not feed the animals", and 2 "Do not overspeed"), we tested whether the proportion of citations of the four types of signposts from the respondents differed from the actual proportion of each type of sign post along the road (Table 4). We found an over-representation of "Do not overspeed" and an under-representation of "Do not litter" in the citations as compared to the number of signposts set on the road (Chi-square test of goodness-of-fit: $\chi^2 = 35.1, p < 0.001$).

Table 4 around here
476 The most cited animals drawn on the signs were elephants (73 responses), chimpanzees (22)
477 and antelopes (9), but eleven respondents were not able to identify the animals that were
drawn on the signs. Considering that the number of signposts showing the animal images was
478 not balanced (i.e., ten signposts displaying chimpanzees, four displaying elephants and two
479 displaying antelopes), we tested whether the proportion of citations of the three types of
480 animals from the respondents differed from the actual proportion of each type of sign post
481 along the road. There was an over-representation of elephants and an under-representation
482 of chimpanzees in the number of citations as compared to the actual number of signposts (chi-
483 square test of goodness-of-fit: χ² = 114.5, p < 0.001).
484

485 The respondents were presented with some stickers of signposts and they were asked to rank
486 the rules they would be willing to observe on their next trip on the road (afterward, they were
487 offered the sticker corresponding to the chosen rule). "I do not overspeed" was ranked
488 number one by 50% of the respondents (190), followed by "I do not feed the animals" (130)
489 and finally "I do not litter" (63). Details about ranking can be found in Table 5.

490

491

Table 5 around here

492

493 At the end of the survey, the respondents who were able to complete the survey were
494 awarded with the choice of a sticker that they picked. There were three types of stickers: "I
do not feed wildlife", "I do not overspeed", and "I do not throw my garbage". We got the same
495 ordering between the three rules as the highest number of stickers taken was for "I do not
496 overspeed" (140 = 37%), followed by "I do not feed wildlife" (125 = 33%) and "I do not throw
497 my garbage" (93 = 24%). Few respondents decided not to take any sticker (24 = 6%
498 respondents).
499
To assess the knowledge of respondents about the speed regulations, we asked them about the speed limit in the national park. The majority of respondents gave a correct answer as 311 (81 %) replied with a speed less than or equal to 40 km/h, while 66 respondents (17%) replied with a speed limit that was greater than 40 km/h (Binomial test: p < 0.001). Six respondents did not reply. The maximum speed limit mentioned was 100 km/h while the minimum speed limit mentioned was 0 km/h (this was mentioned by four pedestrians who told us they had no knowledge about speed measurement of vehicles and motorbikes).

507

## 4. Discussion

This exploratory study was conducted on a high-traffic road crossing a National Park in Uganda with the aim to investigate the knowledge and perception of people about baboons they could have encountered on this road. Many respondents reported that they often see wild animals on the road, and the animals being seen the most were the baboons. This is consistent with the high baboon presence that we witnessed on this road section. Indeed, baboons were observed on the road very often (60% of half-days of monitoring). A previous study carried out in Mikumi National Park, Tanzania, showed that savannah baboons, which mainly travel through heterogeneous landscapes (Strandburg-Peshkin et al., 2017), tend to use human-made roads to commute to their sleeping sites and exhibit goal directed movements to or away from habitat features (Kitegile et al., 2022). Groups of Moor macaques in Indonesia (Riley & Priston, 2010; Morrow et al., 2019) and rhesus macaques in India (Pragatheesh, 2011) are mainly attracted to the road by food leftovers regularly littered by road users. Additional investigation of the temporal and spatial pattern of baboon presence on the road crossing the northern part of Kibale National Park is needed to understand their motivation to come to this road.
The great majority of respondents told us that the baboon diet is composed of food crops like bananas, maize, cassava, and sweet potatoes as these are the crops they most frequently see the baboons feeding on. Several studies reported crop foraging in baboons, including some conducted in Kibale National Park in Uganda (Naughton-Treves et al., 1998; Lacroux et al., 2019; Kyokuhaire et al., 2023). Regular crop foraging in baboons could explain why the local people thought of food crops to be part of the baboon diet. A study in Wollo Ethiopia, performed through surveys of local people, indicated that baboons visited a number of crops, many being cereals like sourghum and maize (Kifle, 2021), while surveys conducted in Uganda, in Budongo Forest Reserve and in Kibale National Park, indicated that baboons preferred maize and cassava to other crops in that area (Hill, 2000; Lacroux et al., 2019). Because baboons forage on a wide range of crop species (Hill, 2017), the variation in cultivated crops according to regional sites could explain why the respondents identified bananas as the main item in the baboon diet in the Kibale region.

A wide range of studies investigating local attitudes toward primates highlighted negative perceptions of species regularly involved in crop-foraging, which are usually referred to as “pests” (e.g. orangutans in Northern Sumatra: Campbell-Smith et al., 2010; chimpanzees in Guinea-Bissau: Costa & Casanova, 2020; macaques and langurs in Sri Lanka: Dittus et al., 2019; macaques in Sulawesi: Riley & Priston, 2010; Hardwick et al., 2017). As baboons regularly visit crops in every region of Uganda (Kibale area: Lacroux et al., 2019; Kyokuhaire et al., 2023; Lake Mburo area: Kagoro-Rugunda 2004) we might have generally expected a negative perception of these primates from most of the respondents. And yet, only 10% of the respondents cited words referring to baboons as eliciting a feeling insecurity or being disgusting when they were asked to give three words about baboons. Some of the respondents told us baboons were annoying because they destroyed the crops, others stated
that baboons were either ugly or dirty animals, and a few of them reported that baboons misuse human space which made them hate the baboons. One person pointed out the dangerousness of baboons, declaring they could be deadly when disturbed. In contrast, a majority of people reported baboons as a source of happiness because they felt a sense of joy whenever they saw the baboons. We suspect that these people were delighted to see wild animals in a situation where they were not in conflict with them, as these types of encounters are becoming increasingly rare. However, this interpretation must be considered with caution because of the general context in which the interviews occurred. Firstly, people might have been afraid of being judged and punished as we introduced ourselves as researchers working in collaboration with Uganda Wildlife Authority, which is the organization responsible for enforcing the regulations in national parks. Secondly, as those who agreed to participate could not devote more than a few minutes to the interview, the time spent with each person during the survey may have been too short for them to feel confident. Third, even if most participants were from the Western region, responses could have been different between local people residing in the areas and farming adjacent to the park boundary and those living further away. In order to counteract these biases in a future study, it would be interesting to implement a longer questionnaire and to record whether the people are involved in farming (Leblan, 2011; Setchell et al., 2017).

Words related to empathy were also cited by some respondents, and this was basically because they thought that the baboons often come on the road to beg because they lack food in the forest (which is not the case, as revealed by the monthly phenology monitoring of the Sebitoli Chimpanzee Project). Alternatively, one respondent said he felt some empathy for them because he thought they feel pain as a result of their red bumps (red colour stands for burnt skin according to him). Other respondents talked about baboons having a human
572 likeness. Some were pleasantly surprised by their social life and the way they cared for their
573 infants and juveniles. However, most of the respondents who talked about resemblances with
574 humans declared they were from the islamic religion and they were taught the baboons were
575 once humans who were cursed by Allah because they were disobedient to him, which made
576 them have that kind of body structure and look. According to the Koran, God metamorphoses
577 humans for their misconduct and gives them the form of animal species reputed to be the
578 most repulsive or ignominious, such as the dog, the pig or the monkey (Benkheira, 2000; Cook,
579 1999). As such, baboon ressemblances with humans might either be associated with a positive
580 or negative representation depending on the socio-cultural identity. In order to better
581 understand the variations in perception of baboons across religions and beliefs, it would be
582 interesting in a future study to identify more precisely the religious community with which
583 each person identifies.

584 Many respondents told us that baboons attract a lot of tourists and are a source of financial
585 income for Uganda. Feeding wildlife is a mean of facilitating close observation and interaction
586 with wildlife, including by the tour operators (Orams, 2002). There are assorted reasons as to
587 why humans give food to wild animals, with recreation being one of them (Murray *et al.*,
588 2016). Very few of the local people who were interviewed in this study said that they feed the
589 baboons, although the practice appeared to be very common on this road a few years ago
590 (Maille *et al.*, 2017). This decrease in active provisioning of baboons alongside the road is
591 confirmed by data collected during traffic census: we have observed only five vehicle
592 occupants giving food to baboons in a total of 18.5 hours of scheduled observations. A few of
593 the people we interviewed attempted to explain the reasons why they had stopped feeding
594 the baboons when meeting them on the road, even though they were used to doing so before.
595 Some reported to us that they have regularly seen the baboons jump on their cars or
596 motorbikes in an attempt to get food while they were travelling on the road, and they added
597 that aggression from baboons can occur in effort of trying to get food. This goes head to
598 explain the claims of some road users about baboon aggressiveness, and the related insecurity
599 when meeting them. In addition to that, several respondents reported that they were not
600 comfortable with the idea of feeding baboons because they always thought that if people kept
601 on feeding the baboons, they would end up being poisoned by people who really hate them.

602 Wild animals may indeed be deliberately killed because they are in conflict with people, and
603 this motivation may be reinforced if they are used for bushmeat, traditional medicine, ivory,
604 horns or fur (Ogada, 2014). Finally, other road users that we have interviewed told us that
605 they had stopped feeding the wildlife though they were used to doing it before, and some
606 attributed this behavioural change to the signposts that were put by the road sides.

607 In order to improve biodiversity conservation as well as safety for road users and road
608 cleanliness, signposts were put on the road displaying messages like “Do not overspeed”, “Do
609 not litter” and “Do not feed the animals”. The biggest number of respondents confirmed they
610 had seen the signages and were able to read and tell what was written or drawn on them.

611 When people were asked about the road regulation that they would be more motivated to
612 observe on their next trip, not feeding the animals when passing by the road came as their
613 second preoccupation. Most people were even more aware of the need to reduce their speed
614 when driving through the national park, which could help to decrease the frequency of animal
615 deaths through collisions with vehicles. In addition, the vast majority of the vehicle occupants
616 surveyed had good knowledge about speed limit in a national park. By contrast, only one in
617 five people made it a priority to stop littering.

618 When people were asked to cite the signposts they could remember, very few of them cited
619 “Do not litter”, although these signposts were the most numerous along the road (8 out of 22
620 signposts). Littering is a general problem in Uganda despite the several legal provisions
621 against the vice. Such attitude explains the large number of plastic bottles (Krief et al., 2020)
622 and food leftovers that we have recorded on the roadsides. Throughout Africa, baboons are
623 attracted to anthropogenic areas because of rubbish bins (e.g., Mazué et al., 2023, Moy et al.,
624 2023). In Madhya Pradesh, India, some groups of rhesus macaques that live in the vicinity of
625 roads are even more attracted to roads during peak tourist periods, when both food waste
626 and provisioning are higher (Pragatheesh, 2011). One of the approaches of communication
627 used in national parks is interpretive signages aimed creating visitor awareness (Davis &
628 Thompson, 2011). However, signposts displaying the "Do not litter" message might not be
629 convincing enough, because of the vocabulary used or the drawing displayed on it. Those
630 signposts might also be neglected because they are not directly related to the safety of road
631 users. Indeed, legitimacy of road regulations for road users essentially depends on their ability
632 to effectively diminish the number of deaths and injuries on road. Thus, the less drivers
633 perceive road safety interventions to be effective in reducing road accidents, the less they are
634 likely to be influenced (Auzoult et al., 2015). Therefore, we recommend raising awareness of
635 the increased risk of accidents when baboons are on the road. Sensitization of communities
636 could be based on the fact that baboons are likely to be attracted to roads by anthropogenic
637 food, whether this comes from active feeding or littering.

638

639 This exploratory study provides some intriguing information about usage and perception of
640 people driving, cycling or walking on a road crossing a national park in Uganda. The majority
641 of the people surveyed lived in the region, which gives us insights into local attitudes toward
642 baboons that are the most frequently encountered wild animals on this road and in the
643 neighbouring villages. Most of the respondents did not show a negative attitude toward
644 baboons, although those primates are regularly visiting fields and gardens to forage on crops.

645 In order to gain a better understanding of the participants' level of knowledge about the

646 baboons, more questions about the ecology and behaviour of the nonhuman primate species

647 targeted in the study should also be added (Sousa *et al.*, 2014). In addition, collecting

648 qualitative data (using unstructured interviews while considering the socio-cultural variation;

649 e.g. Waters *et al.*, 2019; Ampumuza & Driessen, 2021) might help to better disentangle factors

650 driving interactions between humans and nonhuman primates in the context of roads, thus

651 facilitating changes in people's behaviour in favour of conservation. Finally, in order to gain a

652 better understanding of how geographical and cultural variations explain differences in

653 attitudes in favour of primates and other wild animals, it would be worthwhile comparing the

654 perceptions of road users in different areas where road signages have been installed to raise

655 awareness of biodiversity conservation.

656

657 **Conflict of interest**

658 We declare that there is no conflict of interest for this publication. The funders had no role in

659 study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, preparation of the manuscript and

660 decision to submit this publication.

661

662 **Acknowledgements**

663 We are grateful to Uganda Wildlife Authority for giving us the authorization to conduct

664 research in Kibale National Park, Uganda. We deeply thank Jean-Michel Krief, co-director of

665 Sebitoli Chimpanzee Project, Eric Okwir, coordinator of SCP, and field assistants for their work

666 in KNP. This project was funded by a fellowship "Prix de la recherche au Musée de l'Homme"

667 from Fondation Engie awarded to S. Krief and A. Maille. We wish like to thank Vincent Leblanc,
668 Brice Lefaux, Victor Narat, Papa Ibnou Ndiaye and an anonymous reviewer for their
669 suggestions on how to improve the manuscript.

670

671 **References**

672 Ampumuza, C., & Driessen, C. 2021. Gorilla habituation and the role of animal agency in conservation
673 and tourism development at Bwindi, South Western Uganda. *Environment and Planning E:
674 *Nature and Space*, 4(4), 1601–1621. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848620966502

675 Ascensão, F., D'Amico, M., & Barrientos, R. (2022). No Planet for Apes? Assessing Global Priority Areas
676 and Species Affected by Linear Infrastructures. *International Journal of Primatology*, 43(1), 57–
677 73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-021-00207-5

678 Auzoult, L., Lheureux, F., Hardy-Massard, S., Minary, J. P., Charlois, C. (2015) The perceived
effectiveness of road safety interventions: Regulation of drivers' behavioral intentions and
self-consciousness. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 34, 29–
40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.07.020.

682 Benítez-López, A., Alkemade, R., & Verweij, P. A. (2010). The impacts of roads and other infrastructure
683 on mammal and bird populations: A meta-analysis. *Biological Conservation*, 143(6), 1307–
1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.009

685 Benkheira M.H., 2000, *Islâm et interdits alimentaires*. Juguler l'animalité, Paris : Presses Universitaires
de France, 220 p

687 Bonnald, J., Utge, J., Kuhner, M. K., Wasser, S. K., Asalu, E., Okimat, J. P., & Krief, S. (2021). Who are
688 the elephants living in the hybridization zone? How genetics may guide conservation to better
689 protect endangered elephants. *Global Ecology and Conservation*, 32, e01917.
690 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01917

691 Campbell-Smith, G., Simanjomang, H. V. P., Leader-Williams, N., & Linkie, M. (2010). Local attitudes and
692 perceptions toward crop-raiding by orangutans (Pongo abelii) and other nonhuman primates
693

in northern Sumatra, Indonesia. *American Journal of Primatology*, 72(10), 866-876.

694

https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20822

695

Chapman, C. A., & Lambert, J. E. (2000). Habitat alteration and the conservation of African primates:

696

Case study of Kibale National Park, Uganda. *American Journal of Primatology*, 50(3), 169-185.

697

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2345(200003)50:3<169::AID-AJP1>3.0.CO;2-P

698

Cibot, M., Bortolamiol, S., Seguya, A., & Krief, S. (2015). Chimpanzees facing a dangerous situation: A

699

high-traffic asphalted road in the Sebitoli area of Kibale National Park, Uganda. *American

700

*Journal of Primatology*, 77(8), 890-900. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22417

701

Cook, M. 1999. Ibn Qutayba and the monkeys. *Studia Islamica*, 89: 43-74.

702

Costa, S., & Casanova, C. (2020). Sociozoological scales: Human&#39;s perceptions on non-humans

703

through a conservation perspective. *Peoples, Nature and Environments: Learning to Live*

704

*Together*.

705

Davis, S. K., & Thompson, J. L. (2011). Investigating the Impact of Interpretive Signs at Neighborhood

706

Natural Areas. *Journal of Interpretation Research*, 16(2), 55-66.

707

https://doi.org/10.1177/109258721101600205

708

Dittus, W. P. J., Gunathilake, S., & Felder, M. (2019). Assessing Public Perceptions and Solutions to

709

Human-Monkey Conflict from 50 Years in Sri Lanka. *Folia Primatologica*, 90(2), 89-108.

710

https://doi.org/10.1159/000496025

711

Doherty, T. S., Hays, G. C., & Driscoll, D. A. (2021). Human disturbance causes widespread disruption

712

of animal movement. *Nature Ecology & Evolution*, 5(4), 513-519.

713

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01380-1

714

Fahrig, L., & Rytwinski, T. (2009). Effects of Roads on Animal Abundance: An Empirical Review and

715

Synthesis. *Ecology and Society*, 14(1). https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268057

716

Findlay, L., & Hill, R. (2020). Field Guarding as a Crop Protection Method: Preliminary Implications for

717

Improving Field Guarding. *Human-Wildlife Interactions*, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.26077/df2c-

718

63d3
719 Gaynor, K. M., Abrahms, B., Manlove, K. R., Oestreich, W. K., Smith, J. A. (2024). Anthropogenic impacts
720 at the interface of animal spatial and social behaviour. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
721 Society B*, 379, 20220527. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0527

722 Hardwick, J. L., Priston, N. E. C., Martin, T. E., Tosh, D. G., Mustari, A. H., & Abernethy, K. E. (2017).
723 Community Perceptions of the Crop-Feeding Buton Macaque (<Emphasis
724 Type="Italic">Macaca ochreata brunnescens</Emphasis>): An Ethnoprimatological Study on
725 Buton Island, Sulawesi. *International Journal of Primatology*, 38(6), 1102–1119.
726 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-017-9999-0

727 Hill, C. M. (2000). Conflict of Interest Between People and Baboons: Crop Raiding in Uganda.
728 *International Journal of Primatology*, 21(2), 299–315.
729 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005481605637

730 Hill, C. M. (2017). Primate Crop Feeding Behavior, Crop Protection, and Conservation. *International
731 Journal of Primatology*, 38(2), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-017-9951-3

732 Hill, S. E., & Winder, I. C. (2019). Predicting the impacts of climate change on Papio baboon
733 biogeography: Are widespread, generalist primates ‘safe’? *Journal of Biogeography*, 46(7),
734 1380–1405. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbi.13582

735 Hockings, K. J., Yamakoshi, G., Kabasawa, A., & Matsuzawa, T. (2010). Attacks on local persons by
736 chimpanzees in Bossou, Republic of Guinea: Long-term perspectives. *American Journal of
737 Primatology*, 72(10), 887–896. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20784

738 Ilham, K. (2024). Roadside provisioning threatens both humans and monkeys. *Animal Conservation*,
739 27(2), 146–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12909

740 Kagoro-Rugunda, G. (2004). Crop raiding around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. *African Journal of
741 Ecology*, 42(1), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0141-6707.2004.00444.x

742 Kansky, R., Kidd, M., & Knight, A. T. (2016). A wildlife tolerance model and case study for understanding
743 human wildlife conflicts. *Biological Conservation*, 201, 137–145.
744 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.07.002
745 Kifle, Z. (2021). Human-olive baboon (*Papio anubis*) conflict in the human-modified landscape, Wollo, Ethiopia. *Global Ecology and Conservation*, 31, e01820.
746
747 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01820

748 Kitegile, A., Hassan, S. N., & Norton, G. W. (2022). A road traversing a protected area has little effect on feeding and foraging behaviour of yellow baboons. *Ecology and Evolution*, 12(12), e9405.
749
750 https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9405

751 Krief, S., Iglesias-González, A., Appenzeller, B. M. R., Okimat, J. P., Fini, J.-B., Demeneix, B., Vaslin-Reimann, S., Lardy-Fontan, S., Guma, N., & Spirhanzlova, P. (2020). Road impact in a protected area with rich biodiversity: The case of the Sebitoli road in Kibale National Park, Uganda. *Environmental Science and Pollution Research*, 27(22), 27914-27925.
752
753
754
755 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-09098-0

756 Kyokuhaire, A. M., Chapman, C. A., Omeja, P. A., Tumusiime, D. M., Abwoli, B. Y., & Lawes, M. J. (2023). Mitigating crop raiding by forest elephants and baboons at Kibale National Park. *African Journal of Ecology*, 61(1), 129-140. https://doi.org/10.1111/aje.13095

759 Lacroux, C., Guma, N., & Krief, S. (2019). Facial dysplasia in wild forest olive baboons (*Papio anubis*) in Sebitoli, Kibale National Park, Uganda: Use of camera traps to detect health defects. *Journal of Medical Primatology*, 48(3), 143-153. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmp.12408

762 Leblan, V. (2011). Les rendez-vous manqués de l'ethnologie et de la primatologie de terrain (1960-2010). *Revue de primatologie*, 3. https://doi.org/10.4000/primatologie.808

764 Madden, F. (2004). Creating Coexistence between Humans and Wildlife: Global Perspectives on Local Efforts to Address Human-Wildlife Conflict. *Human Dimensions of Wildlife*, 9(4), 247-257.
765
766 https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200490505675

767 Maille, A., Rataud, A., Krief, S., Sewuh Ndimbe, M., & Seguya, A. (2017). Behaviours Used by Olive Baboons to Raid Food on an Asphalted Road Crossing Sebitoli Area, Kibale National Park, Uganda. *Folia Primatologica*, 88, 132. https://doi.org/1159/00047909432
770 Martin, L.J., Blossey, B., Ellis, C.E. (2012) Mapping Where Ecologists Work: Biases in the Global Distribution of Terrestrial Ecological Observations. *Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment*, 10, 195-201. https://doi.org/10.1890/110154

773 Mazué, F., Guerbois, C., Fritz, H., Rebout, N., & Petit, O. (2023). Less bins, less baboons: Reducing access to anthropogenic food effectively decreases the urban foraging behavior of a troop of chacma baboons (Papio hamadryas ursinus) in a peri-urban area. *Primates*, 64(1), 91-103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-022-01032-x

777 McCarthy, M. S., Matheson, M. D., Lester, J. D., Sheeran, L. K., Li, J.-H., & Wagner, R. S. (2009). Sequences of Tibetan Macaque (Macaca thibetana) and Tourist Behaviors at Mt. Huangshan, China. *Primate Conservation*, 24(1), 145-151. https://doi.org/10.1896/052.024.0113

780 Mormile, J. E., & Hill, C. M. (2017). Living With Urban Baboons: Exploring Attitudes and Their Implications for Local Baboon Conservation and Management in Knysna, South Africa. *Human Dimensions of Wildlife*, 22(2), 99-109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2016.1255919

783 Morrow, K. S., Glanz, H., Ngakan, P. O., & Riley, E. P. (2019). Interactions with humans are jointly influenced by life history stage and social network factors and reduce group cohesion in moor macaques (*Macaca maura*). *Scientific Reports*, 9(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56288-z

787 Moy, M., Diakiw, L., Amato, K.R. (2023). Human-influenced diets affect the gut microbiome of wild baboons. *Scientific Reports*. 13(1), 11886. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-38895-z.

789 Murray, M. H., Becker, D. J., Hall, R. J., & Hernandez, S. M. (2016). Wildlife health and supplemental feeding: A review and management recommendations. *Biological Conservation*, 204, 163-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.034

792 Narat, V., Alcayna-Stevens, L., Rupp, S., & Giles-Vernick, T. (2017). Rethinking Human-Nonhuman Primate Contact and Pathogenic Disease Spillover. *EcoHealth*, 14(4), 840-850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-017-1283-4
795 Naughton-Treves, L., Treves, A., Chapman, C., & Wrangham, R. (1998). Temporal patterns of crop-raiding by primates: Linking food availability in croplands and adjacent forest. *Journal of Applied Ecology*, 35(4), 596-606. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2664.1998.3540596.x

798 Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Hill, S. L. L., Contu, S., Lysenko, I., Senior, R. A., Börger, L., Bennett, D. J.,
799 Choimes, A., Collen, B., Day, J., De Palma, A., Díaz, S., Echeverria-Londoño, S., Edgar, M. J.,
800 Feldman, A., Garon, M., Harrison, M. L. K., Alhusseini, T., ... Purvis, A. (2015). Global effects of
801 land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. *Nature*, 520(7545), 45-50.
802 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14324

803 Ogada, D. L. (2014). The power of poison: Pesticide poisoning of Africa's wildlife. *Annals of the New
804 York Academy of Sciences*, 1322(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12405

805 Orams, M. B. (2002). Feeding wildlife as a tourism attraction: A review of issues and impacts. *Tourism
806 Management*, 23(3), 281-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00080-2

807 Pragatheesh, A. (2011). Effect of human feeding on the road mortality of Rhesus Macaques on National
808 Highway—7 routed along Pench Tiger Reserve, Madhya Pradesh, India. *Journal of Threatened
809 Taxa*, 1656-1662. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2669.1656-62

810 Redpath, S. M., Young, J., Evely, A., Adams, W. M., Sutherland, W. J., Whitehouse, A., Amar, A.,
811 Lambert, R. A., Linnell, J. D. C., Watt, A., & Gutiérrez, R. J. (2013). Understanding and
812 managing conservation conflicts. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, 28(2), 100-109.
813 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021

814 Riley, E. P., & Priston, N. E. C. (2010). Macaques in farms and folklore: Exploring the human-nonhuman
815 primate interface in Sulawesi, Indonesia. *American Journal of Primatology*, 72(10), 848-854.
816 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.20798

817 Riley, E. P., Shaffer, C. A., Trinidad, J. S., Morrow, K. S., Sagnotti, C., Carosi, M., & Ngakan, P. O. (2021).
818 Roadside monkeys: Anthropogenic effects on moor macaque (Macacamaura) ranging
819 behavior in Bantimurung Bulusaraung National Park, Sulawesi, Indonesia. *Primates*, 62(3),
820 477-489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-021-00899-6
821 Setchell, J. M., Fairet, E., Shutt, K., Waters, S., & Bell, S. (2017). Biosocial Conservation: Integrating Biological and Ethnographic Methods to Study Human-Primate Interactions. *International Journal of Primatology*, 38(2), 401-426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-016-9938-5

824 Singh, M., Erinjery, J. J., Kavana, T. S., Roy, K., & Singh, M. (2011). Drastic population decline and conservation prospects of roadside dark-bellied bonnet macaques (Macaca radiata radiata) of southern India. *Primates*, 52(2), 149-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10329-011-0234-x

827 Sousa, J., Vicente, L., Gippoliti, S., Casanova, C. and Sousa, C. (2014). Local knowledge and perceptions of chimpanzees in Cantanhez National Park, Guinea-Bissau. *American Journal of Primatology*, 76, 122-134. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22215

830 Strandburg-Peshkin, A., Farine, D. R., Crofoot, M. C., & Couzin, I. D. (2017). Habitat and social factors shape individual decisions and emergent group structure during baboon collective movement. *eLife*, 6, e19505. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.19505

833 Venter, O., Sanderson, E. W., Magrach, A., Allan, J. R., Beher, J., Jones, K. R., Possingham, H. P., Laurance, W. F., Wood, P., Fekete, B. M., Levy, M. A., & Watson, J. E. M. (2016). Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. *Nature Communications*, 7(1), 12558. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12558

837 Wallace, G., & Hill, C. (2016). *Deterring Crop-Foraging Wildlife. Lessons from farms in north-western Uganda* (Oxford Brookes University). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3837.0321

839 Waters, S., El Harrad, A., Bell, S., & Setchell, J. M. (2019). Interpreting People's Behavior Toward Primates Using Qualitative Data: A Case Study from North Morocco. *International Journal of Primatology*, 40(3), 316-330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10764-019-00087-w

842
843
844 **Figure captions (English)**

845
846 **Figure 1.** Pictures of signposts set along the road crossing Kibale National Park. Top row: The three signposts showing an “Animal crossing” message with various animals depicted (left: mosaic of chimpanzee, antelopes and elephant; middle: elephant; right: chimpanzee). Bottom row: Signposts showing road regulations (left and right: “Do not feed the wildlife”, middle: “Do not litter”; the signposts showing the “Do not overspeed” message cannot be pictured because they were stolen at the time of photography).

852
853 **Figure 2.** Maps showing the location of research station, road signs and bumps along the road crossing Kibale National Park, together with marks depicting presence of baboons, food remains/leftovers and road deaths (dead animals). GPS points recorded in period 1 (22/01 to 06/04/2023: A) and period 2 (from 08/04 to 31/05/2023: B) are presented separately for clarity, to avoid overlapping of the many landmarks depicted. Map made with OpenStreetMap in QGIS.

859
860 **Figure 3.** Distribution of vehicle types for the people interviewed (red) as compared to the actual road traffic (blue).

862
863 **Figure 4.** Most often seen domestic and wild animals reported by respondents (N= 383)

864
865
866
867
868 **Légendes des figures (Français)**

869
870 **Figure 1.** Photos des panneaux de signalisation placés le long de la route traversant le parc national de Kibale. Rangée du haut: Les trois panneaux affichant un message « Animal crossing » avec différents animaux représentés (à gauche: mosaïque de chimpanzés, d'antilopes et d'éléphants; au milieu: éléphant; à droite: chimpanzé). Rangée du bas: Panneaux indiquant les règles de circulation (à gauche et à droite: « Ne pas nourrir les animaux sauvages », au milieu: « Ne pas jeter de détritus » ; les panneaux indiquant le message "Ne pas dépasser la vitesse autorisée" ne peuvent être photographiés car ils avaient été volés au moment de la prise de photographies).

878
879 **Figure 2.** Cartes montrant l'emplacement de la station de recherche, les panneaux de signalisation et les ralentisseurs le long de la route traversant le parc national de Kibale, ainsi que les repères indiquant la présence de babouins, de restes de nourriture et d'animaux retrouvés morts sur la route. Les points GPS enregistrés au cours de la période 1 (du 22/01 au 06/04/2023: A) et de la période 2 (du 08/04 au 31/05/2023: B) sont présentés séparément pour plus de clarté, afin d'éviter le chevauchement des nombreux points de repère représentés. Carte réalisée avec OpenStreetMap dans QGIS.

886
887 **Figure 3.** Répartition des types de véhicules pour les personnes interrogées (en rouge) par rapport au trafic routier réel (en bleu).

889
890 **Figure 4.** Animaux domestiques et sauvages les plus souvent observés par les répondants (N=383)
892 **Table captions (English)**

893

894 **Table 1.** Questionnaire used for data collection.

895

896 **Table 2.** Age groups in relation to the regions of origins of the Ugandan respondents.

897

898 **Table 3.** Number of respondents who cited words from each of the six categories: "baboons as source of happiness", "baboons as a tourism attraction", "baboons having similarities with humans", "baboons eliciting a feeling of insecurity" "baboons eliciting compassion", "baboons being disgusting". The values correspond to quotations as first, second and third word.
899
900
901 Categories are presented in order of importance (from the greatest to the lowest number of respondents) for the first word cited.
902
903

904

905 **Table 4.** Citations of each type of sign post: observed values (percentages and number of responses) and expected values (percentages and number of each type of sign post on the road).
906
907

908

909 **Table 5.** Choice of rules to be observed on the respondent's next trip. Values are first, second and third choice.
910

911

912

913

914

915

916
917 **Légendes des tableaux (Français)**

918

919 **Table 1.** Questionnaire utilisé pour la collecte de données.

920

921 **Table 2.** Groupes d'âge des répondants ougandais en fonction de leur région d'origine.

922

923 **Table 3.** Nombre de répondants ayant cité des mots de chacune des six catégories: "Les babouins comme une source de joie", "les babouins comme une attraction touristique", "Les babouins comme ayant des similitudes avec les humains", "Les babouins suscitant un sentiment d'insécurité" "Les babouins suscitant de la compassion", "Les babouins étant dégoutants". Les valeurs correspondent aux nombre de citations en tant que premier, deuxième et troisième mot. Les catégories sont présentées par ordre d'importance (du plus grand au plus petit nombre de répondants) pour le premier mot cité.

930

931 **Table 4.** Citations de chaque type de panneau : valeurs observées (pourcentages et nombre de réponses) et valeurs attendues (pourcentages et nombre de chaque type de panneau sur la route).

934

935 **Table 5.** Règlementations que les répondants se sont engagés à respecter lors de leur prochain trajet. Les valeurs correspondent au nombre de répondants ayant placé la règlementation en tant que premier, deuxième ou troisième choix.

938

939

940
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1</figcaption></figure>

941

942

943

944

945

946
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2</figcaption></figure>

947

948

949

950

951

952
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3</figcaption></figure>

953

954

955

956

957

958

959

960

961

962

963

964

965

966

967

968

969

970

971

972
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4</figcaption></figure>

973

974

975
<table><thead><tr><td>Question</td><td>Type of question</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Hello, I am a student working for a research project led by the National Museum of Natural History in France, in partnership with Makerere University and the Uganda Wildlife Authority. Here you are on a road that crosses Kibale National Park. We would like to ask you a few questions about this road. This interview will take 5 minutes only and your answers will, of course, be anonymous. At the end of the interview, we will give you a small present. Do you agree to continue?</td><td>Yes / No<br>(if "No", interview stopped)</td></tr><tr><td>Is it your first time to do this survey?</td><td>Yes / No<br>(if « Yes », interview stopped)</td></tr><tr><td>We will first ask you few questions to better know who you are. How old are you?</td><td>Age category</td></tr><tr><td>Where are you from?</td><td>Closed question</td></tr><tr><td>What country? (If not from Uganda)</td><td>Open question</td></tr><tr><td>What part of Uganda? (If from Uganda)</td><td>Closed question</td></tr><tr><td>In your daily life, do you often see any wild or domestic animals?</td><td>Yes / No</td></tr><tr><td>What animals?</td><td>Open question (free listing)</td></tr><tr><td>Now we would like to know why you are on this road today. What is the reason for your travel?</td><td>Closed question</td></tr><tr><td>There are often animals on this road. Have you seen any animals on the road during the past minutes?</td><td>Yes / No</td></tr><tr><td>Do you know the name of these animals? (Ask for a physical description of the animals for confirmation of the species)</td><td>Open question</td></tr><tr><td>What animals? (for interviewer only)</td><td>Closed question</td></tr><tr><td>Did you feed them? (if they have seen baboons)</td><td>Yes / No</td></tr><tr><td>With what food? (if they have fed baboons)</td><td>Open question (free listing)</td></tr><tr><td>Did you expect to feed the baboons with this food while traveling? (if they have fed baboons)</td><td>Yes / No</td></tr><tr><td>Why did you feed the baboons? (if they have fed baboons)</td><td>Open question</td></tr><tr><td>There are many baboons in this forested area. Do you know what food baboons usually eat?</td><td>Open question (free listing)</td></tr><tr><td>May you tell us 3 words that baboons make you think about?</td><td>Open question (limited listing)</td></tr><tr><td>There have been some developments on this road recently. Have you seen some road signs?</td><td>Yes / No</td></tr><tr><td>What was written or drawn on those signs? (if seeing signs)</td><td>Open question (limited listing)</td></tr><tr><td>What animals were drawn on the signs?</td><td>Open question (limited listing)</td></tr><tr><td>To your knowledge, what is the speed limit in a national park (in km/h)?</td><td>Number</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>In a national park, you must limit your speed to 40 km/h, and it is forbidden to throw the garbage and feed the animals. What would you be willing to do on your next trip down this road?</td><td>Closed question (ranking)</td></tr><tr><td>I am therefore delighted to offer you one sticker that you might display on your vehicle, your house or even a notebook or computer! Please choose between "I do not overspeed", "I do not throw my garbage", "I do not feed animals", "I LOVE UGANDAN WILDLIFE »</td><td>Closed question</td></tr><tr><td>Thank you very much for taking a few minutes to answer us. We wish you a good trip! Drive safe! Any comments</td><td>Open question</td></tr><tr><td>Location : road section (for interviewer only)</td><td>Closed question</td></tr><tr><td>Direction of vehicle (for interviewer only)</td><td>East to West / West to East</td></tr><tr><td>Type of vehicle (for interviewer only)</td><td>Closed question</td></tr><tr><td>Sex of respondent (for interviewer only)</td><td>Male / Female</td></tr><tr><td>Who was the respondent? (for interviewer only)</td><td>Driver / Passenger</td></tr><tr><td>Number of passengers (for interviewer only)</td><td>Number</td></tr><tr><td>Children in the vehicle? (for interviewer only)</td><td>Yes/ No</td></tr></table>
980 Table 2

981

<table><thead><tr><th>Age group</th><th>Central</th><th>East</th><th>North</th><th>West</th><th>TOTAL</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>15-25</td><td>9</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>83</td><td>96</td></tr><tr><td>26-35</td><td>19</td><td>13</td><td>7</td><td>114</td><td>153</td></tr><tr><td>36-45</td><td>13</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>66</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>46-55</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>19</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>56-65</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>8</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>+66</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>45</td><td>27</td><td>13</td><td>291</td><td>376</td></tr></tbody></table>

982

983
984 Table 3

985

<table><thead><tr><th>Words cited</th><th>Source of happiness</th><th>Tourism attraction</th><th>Similarities with humans</th><th>Feeling of insecurity</th><th>Compassion</th><th>Disgust</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>First word</td><td>200</td><td>42</td><td>37</td><td>27</td><td>12</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Second word</td><td>14</td><td>60</td><td>21</td><td>12</td><td>11</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Third word</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>8</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>217</td><td>106</td><td>56</td><td>42</td><td>25</td><td>8</td></tr></tbody></table>

986

987
988 Table 4

989

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Observed value (citations)</th><th>Expected value (actual signposts)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><em>Animal crossing</em></td><td>50% [61 responses]</td><td>27% [6 signposts]</td></tr><tr><td><em>Do not feed the animals</em></td><td>50% [61 responses]</td><td>27% [6 signposts]</td></tr><tr><td><em>Do not overspeed</em></td><td>27% [33 responses]</td><td>10% [2 signposts]</td></tr><tr><td><em>Do not litter</em></td><td>25% [31 responses]</td><td>36% [8 signposts]</td></tr></tbody></table>

990

991
992 Table 5

993

<table><thead><tr><th>Rule</th><th>I do not overspeed</th><th>I do not feed the animals</th><th>I do not litter</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>First choice</th><td>190</td><td>130</td><td>63</td></tr><tr><th>Second choice</th><td>93</td><td>160</td><td>130</td></tr><tr><th>Third choice</th><td>100</td><td>93</td><td>190</td></tr></tbody></table>

994