Exclude wild mammals using ditches, moats, walls or other barricades to reduce human-wildlife conflict

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    70%
  • Certainty
    50%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of excluding wild mammals using ditches, moats, walls or other barricades to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Cameroon and Benin and one was in Cameroon.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (2 STUDIES)

  • Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study and one site comparison), in Cameroon and Benin and in Cameroon, found that fewer livestock were predated when they were kept in enclosures, especially when these were reinforced.

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 replicated, before-and-after study in 2004–2006 at a national park in Cameroon and a national park in Benin (Bauer et al. 2010) found that when livestock enclosures were reinforced, fewer livestock were predated. In Cameroon, no cattle or pigs were predated from reinforced enclosures compared to six cattle predated (by lions Panthera leo) and 20 pigs predated (three by lions, 17 by hyenas Crocuta crocuta) from non-reinforced enclosures. In Benin, four cattle were predated (by lions) and 16 pigs (2 by lions, 14 by hyenas) from reinforced enclosures compared to 13 cattle predated (12 by lions, one by hyenas) and 53 pigs (28 by lions, 25 by hyenas) before reinforcements were added. In Cameroon, 75% of pastoralists across six villages in a national park buffer zone upgraded livestock enclosures. Enclosures comprised a thick layer of thorny shrubs and/or earth walls, with a safe gate (wood, or a complete tree Acacia seyal crown as a ‘gate-plug’). Their performance was compared with that of non-reinforced enclosures over an unspecified period. In Benin, 13 enclosures were improved in 10 villages around a national park. The improved enclosures comprised sundried clay bricks covered with a clay/cement mixture (‘banco’), similar to local houses. Livestock predation figures before (2004) and after (2005–2006) improvements were collated.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A site comparison study in 2008 of savanna around a national park in Cameroon (Tumenta et al. 2013) found that barricading livestock inside enclosures overnight reduced losses through predation by lions Panthera leo. Households owning enclosures lost an average of one animal/year to lion predation compared to two animals/year for households not owning enclosures. Owning enclosures did not reduce overall numbers of livestock predated by all mammalian predators (lions, spotted hyaenas Crocuta crocuta and jackals Canis aureus) (with enclosure: 4 animals predated/year; without enclosure: 5). However, fewer animals were lost by households that owned solid enclosures (2 animals/year) than those that owned enclosures made of thorny bushes (7 animals/year). In total, 207 resident pastoralists were interviewed for this study. Pastoralists reported the incidence of predation on livestock by large carnivores as well as whether their livestock were confined in enclosures at night. Villages were selected based on the tracking of movements of radio-collared lions.

    Study and other actions tested
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

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation - Published 2020

Terrestrial Mammal Conservation

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, terrestrial 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 18

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust