Establish areas for conservation which are not protected by national or international legislation (e.g. private sector standards & codes)
Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 2
View assessment score
Hide assessment score
How is the evidence assessed?
Background information and definitions
This intervention includes the protection of areas through schemes other than national or international legislation. These could include e.g. community reserves, sanctuaries or offset sites.
Supporting evidence from individual studies
A before-and-after trial in 1984-1987 in tropical montane forest in the Virunga ecosystem in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo found that mountain gorillas Gorilla beringei beringei, protected by a conservation project funded by a consortium of organizations and initiated in 1979 along with other interventions, increased from 242 to 279 individuals (15% increase) from 1981 to 1986. Average group size increased by 17 % (8.5-9.2 individuals) and immature proportion increased by 8% (39.7-48.1) over the same time period. Regular total counts of this population were conducted since 1973. Anti-poaching guards regularly patrolled the area and removed snares. They were also provided with cars, a radio network, uniforms, more rations and other equipment, which allowed them to increase patrol frequency and effectiveness. In 1985, a gorilla viewing tourism program was started, during which three gorilla groups were habituated for tourist viewing. The study does not distinguish between the effects of the different interventions mentioned above.Study and other actions tested
A before-and-after trial in 1985-1998 in secondary semi deciduous riparian forest in the Community Baboon Sanctuary, Belize, South America found that the black howler monkey population Alouatta pigra, which was protected by the local communities surrounding it alongside ten other interventions, increased by 138% over 13 years. The population increased from 840 to more than 2,000 individuals (138%), although no statistical tests were carried out to determine whether this difference was significant. Additional interventions included preserving forest buffer strips along property boundaries, strips of forest across large cleared areas and a forest corridor along the river, constructing pole bridges over man-made gaps, preserving important howler food trees in large clearings, involving local communities in the management of the sanctuary, creation of a museum for education purposes, an eco-tourism and research program, presence of permanent staff, and monetary (income from tourism and craft industries) benefits to local communities for sustainably managing their forest and its wildlife communities. The study does not distinguish between the effects of the different interventions mentioned above.Study and other actions tested
Referenced paperHorwich R.H. & Lyon J. (1998) Community-based development as a conservation tool: The Community Baboon Sanctuary and the Gales Point, Manatee project. in: Timber, tourists and temples. Conservation and development in the Maya Forest of Belize, Guatemala and Mexico. Island Press, Covelo, CA.
Where has this evidence come from?
List of journals searched by synopsis
All the journals searched for all synopses
This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:Primate Conservation
Primate Conservation - Published 2017