Use signs or access restrictions to reduce disturbance to mammals

Overall effectiveness category Likely to be beneficial
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

80%
Certainty

40%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Access to areas by people can cause disturbance to some mammals. This may cause them to alter behaviour, including through reducing their use of such areas. To limit this disturbance, access may be restricted, including through using signage or physical barriers.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects of using signs or access restrictions to reduce disturbance to mammals. This study was in the USA.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

Use (1 study): A replicated, paired sites, site comparison study in the USA found that removing or closing roads increased use of those areas by black bears.

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

A replicated, paired sites, site comparison study in 2006–2009 of a forest in Idaho, USA (Switalski & Nelson 2011) found that removing or closing roads increased use of those areas by black bears Ursus americanus. More bears were detected on former roads that had been removed (4.6 detections/100 camera-trap days) than on paired open roads (0.3). Similarly, there were more on closed than on paired open roads when roads were closed by a barrier (closed: 1.5; open: 0.6 detections/100 camera-trap days) or by a gate (closed: 0.5; open: 0 detections/100 camera-trap days). Eighteen closed roads were paired with open roads. Closed roads included seven removed by reprofiling in the previous 10 years, five closed by barriers and six that were gated. Closed roads were sampled by camera-trapping 1.6 km along from their intersection with the paired open road. Open roads were sampled <100 m along from this intersection. One camera trap was used at each site between 1 April and 30 June and again between 30 August and 3 November, annually in 2006–2009.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Switalski T.A. & Nelson C.R. (2011) Efficacy of road removal for restoring wildlife habitat: Black bear in the Northern Rocky Mountains, USA. Biological Conservation, 144, 2666-2673.

Please cite as:

Littlewood, N.A., Rocha, R., Smith, R.K., Martin, P.A., Lockhart, S.L., Schoonover, R.F., Wilman, E., Bladon, A.J., Sainsbury, K.A., Pimm S. and Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Terrestrial Mammal Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for terrestrial mammals excluding bats and primates. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

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:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Exclude or limit number of visitors to reserves or protected areas Action Link	Beneficial	5	Synopsis Link
Use signs or access restrictions to reduce disturbance to mammals Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	1	Synopsis Link
Treat mammals to reduce conflict caused by disease transmission to humans Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link