Retain wildlife corridors in residential areas

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

61%
Certainty

30%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Residential and commercial developments can fragment home ranges of mammal species, making access to some resources difficult or dangerous. Retention of wildlife corridors, such as undeveloped land, riversides, woodland strips or other habitat through which mammals can pass, may help to reduce or mitigate some of these impacts of development.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on mammals of retaining wildlife corridors in residential areas. This study was in Botswana.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)

Use (1 study): A replicated study in Botswana found that retained wildlife corridors in residential areas were used by 19 mammal species, including African elephants.

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 study in 2012–2014 in seven semi-arid residential and agricultural sites in northern Botswana (Adams et al. 2017) found that retained wildlife corridors in residential areas were used by African elephants Locondonta africana and 18 other mammal species. There were 2,619 camera-trap images of elephants captured, over 516 days. Elephant activity peaked in August, when 13 elephants/day were detected. Nineteen mammal species in total were recorded, including civet Civettictis civetta and buffalo Syncerus caffer (other species not named). Seven corridors that crossed urban and agricultural areas between a forest reserve and a major river were monitored using camera traps. The seven corridors were either fenced or otherwise ran between developed areas. They were 750–1,700 m long and 3–250 m wide. Camera traps were attached to trees or posts at 1.5–1.8 m high and operated for 24 hours/day from 1 November 2012 to 30 April 2014.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Adams T.S., Chase M.J., Rogers T.L. & Leggett K.E. (2017) Taking the elephant out of the room and into the corridor: can urban corridors work? Oryx, 51, 347–353.

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
Protect mammals close to development areas (e.g. by fencing) Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Translocate problem mammals away from residential areas (e.g. habituated bears) to reduce human-wildlife conflict Action Link	Likely to be ineffective or harmful	11	Synopsis Link
Retain wildlife corridors in residential areas Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link