Provide education programmes to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of providing education programmes to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats. One study was in South Africa and one was in the USA.



  • Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in South Africa found that educating ranchers on ways of reducing livestock losses, along with stricter hunting policies, increased leopard density.
  • Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in South Africa found that educating ranchers on ways of reducing livestock losses, along with stricter hunting policies, reduced leopard mortalities.



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 2002–2009 in a temperate broadleaf forest and grassland site in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa (Balme et al. 2009) found that educating ranchers on methods for reducing livestock losses, along with implementing stricter hunting policies, increased leopard Panthera pardus density and reduced leopard mortalities. Four years after both livestock husbandry workshops and hunting policy changes were implemented, there were 11.2 leopards/100 km2, compared to 7.1/100km2 in the first year of implementation. Nine leopards were killed during the first three years after livestock husbandry workshops and hunting policy changes were implemented compared to 23 over the previous two years. In January–July 2005, workshops were held to teach improved husbandry techniques to local landowners. Before January 2005 leopards could be killed legally if they had killed livestock. After January 2005 permits were only granted if the same leopard was confirmed (using inspections and camera traps) to have killed three or more livestock within two months and if the landowner could provide evidence that they were trying to reduce attacks on livestock. Thirty-five leopards were radio-collared and monitored between April 2002 and December 2007. Camera traps were used in January–March 2005, January–March 2007, and March–May 2009 to estimate changes in the leopard population size.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in 2008 of a residential area in Colorado, USA (Baruch-Mordo et al. 2011) found that visiting properties to educate about the danger of garbage to black bears Ursus americanus did not increase use of wildlife-resistant dumpsters. Where educational visits were carried out, the trend in availability of garbage to wildlife (before visits: 13–15% of households; after visits: 16–26%) did not differ from those in neighbourhoods that were not visited (before visits: 9–15% of households; after: 16–17%). Similarly, there was no difference in use of bear-resistant containers between neighbourhoods that were visited (before visits: 11–17% of households; after: 16–23%) or not visited (before visits: 14–19% of households; after: 17–18%). In two neighbourhoods, 91% and 87% of residences were visited and residents were spoken to or had educational material delivered. Two further neighbourhoods, did not receiving any visits. Household garbage disposal facilities were surveyed in July–September 2008, before and after visits. Garbage was regarded as accessible if placed outside containers, or in non-bear-resistant containers.

    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 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