Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Legally protect habitats

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Study locations

Key messages

  • Four studies (two replicated) from Europe found population increases following habitat protection, more positive population trends in protected habitats, compared with outside, or with increases amounts of protected habitats.
  • A literature review reported that a large number of cranes (Gruidae) of seven species used nature reserves in China, whilst a replicated, randomised and controlled study from Argentina found that some guilds of birds were found at higher species richnesses in protected forests, some at higher densities, and that some showed no differences.

About key messages

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

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

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A before-and-after study in the western Pyrenees, Spain (Donázar & Fernández 1990), found that the population of griffon vultures Gyps fulvus increased from 282 pairs (in 23 colonies) in 1969-75 to 1,097 pairs (46 colonies) in 1989 following the initiation of multiple conservation interventions including the creation of reserves at nine breeding colonies (one in 1976, eight in 1987). This study is also discussed in more detail in ‘Use legislative regulation to protect wild populations’, ‘Restrict certain pesticides or other agricultural chemicals’ and ‘Provide supplementary food to increase adult survival’.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A 1998 literature review (Davis 1998) found that 25,500-31,800 cranes (Gruidae) of seven species used 32 nature reserves, established mainly for crane conservation, in China in 1994. This review is also discussed in ‘Use education programmes and local engagement to help reduce pressures on species’, ‘Use legislative regulation to protect wild populations’, ‘Mark power lines to reduce incidental mortality’, ‘Provide supplementary food to increase adult survival’ and ‘Release captive-bred individuals’.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, randomised, controlled study in 1992-4 in Buenos Aires Province, Argentina (Cueto & Casenave 2000), found that total bird abundance and species richness was significantly higher in September, December and March in a protected old-growth tala-coronillo woodland (free of human disturbance for >100 years) than in a woodland selectively logged for Celtis tala until 1960. Insect-eating bird density and species richness was higher in the protected woodland than in the exploited woodland and fruit-eating birds showed higher total density in the protected woodland in spring and summer but species richness was similar between both woodland types. There were no differences between sites for seed-eating birds.

    Study and other actions tested
  4. A replicated study in 1997 in 19 nature reserves across England (Ausden & Hirons 2002) found that they held consistently higher densities of northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus, common redshank Tringa totanus and common snipe Gallinago gallinago than the non-reserve Environmentally Sensitive Areas (an agri-environment scheme designation) surrounding them (densities approximately 730% higher for lapwing, 520% higher for redshank and 1600% higher for snipe). In addition, population trends were generally positive in reserves (except for snipe), but negative outside them (lapwing: 0.9-7.4% annual increase inside reserves vs. 0.7-13% decline outside; redshank: 3.9-8.6% increase vs. 1.8-18.6% decrease; snipe: 6.1-16.8% decrease in reserves vs. 7.3-29.7% decrease outside). The authors note that snipe have declined by approximately 70% across all reserves, due mainly to declines at a single reserve with a large population and on reserves with mineral soils (i.e. those with little organic matter). However, declines outside reserves were considerably higher than those on reserves (20% vs. 10% annually). This study is discussed in detail in ‘Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures’ and ‘Maintain traditional water meadows’.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. A controlled, before-and-after study from 1970-2000 across Europe (Donald 2007) found that targeted species in European Union (EU) countries, which were legally obliged to increase coverage of special protected areas (SPAs), had significantly more positive population trends after implementation of the directive and compared to non-EU countries (no implementation). Statistical models suggested that for every additional 1% increase in SPA area, the chances of all species experiencing positive population growth increased by 4%, with a 7% increase for target species. The authors argue that the stronger response of the target species provides direct evidence for the effectiveness of the EU Bird (79/409/EEC, est. 1979) and Habitats (92/43/EEC, est. 1992) Directives. Although non-target species’ trends did not differ between EU and non-EU countries there was some evidence that these populations were more positive in EU countries with more extensive SPA networks.

    Study and other actions tested
  6. A 2007 site comparison study of 677 plots covering 38,705 ha across southern England (Wilson et al. 2007) found that for three wader species, population trends were most favourable in nature reserves, compared with farmland under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas scheme. Between 1982 and 2002, common redshank Tringa totanus declined by 70% in the wider countryside but increased by 160% in nature reserves outside Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus showed a 48% decline in the wider countryside, and increased only in nature reserves outside Environmentally Sensitive Areas (by 55%) and reserves with Environmentally Sensitive Area enhancement (121%). Common snipe Gallinago gallinago breeding numbers decreased everywhere (commonly with declines of 90% or more), although declines were smaller in nature reserves outside Environmentally Sensitive Areas (?66%) and reserves in Environmentally Sensitive Area enhancement (?24%).

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.


Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Bird Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird Conservation
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

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

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

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

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

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

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust