Publish data on ranger performance to motivate increased anti-poacher efforts

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    60%
  • Certainty
    40%
  • Harms
    0%

Source countries

Key messages

  • One study evaluated the effects on poaching incidents of publishing data on ranger performance to motivate increased anti-poacher efforts. This study was in Ghana.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES)

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

OTHER (1 STUDY)

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, site comparison study in 2004–2006 within savanna and forest in seven protected areas and two national parks in Ghana (Jachmann 2008) found that publishing data on staff performance lead to more anti-poaching patrols and that detected of poaching incidents decreased on savanna sites but not on forest sites. Staff performance was 59% higher after reporting (11.8 effective patrol days/staff/month) than before (7.4 effective patrol days/staff/month). In two parks where performance indicators were not reported, performance increased by 11% over this period (after: 10.9; before: 9.8 effective patrol days/staff/month). In four savanna sites, the average number of detected offences related to poaching (including of mammals) was 72% lower after reporting (21 offences/patrol staff-day) than before (74 offences/patrol staff-day). In two forest sites, the average number of offences detected after reporting (179/patrol staff-day) was not significantly different to the number before (214 offences/patrol staff-day). In two parks where performance indicators were not reported, the average number of offences detected after reporting (116 offences/patrol staff-day) was not significantly different to the number before (174 offences/patrol staff-day). Publishing evaluation reports created an awareness of poor performance and generated performance-related competition between sites. Monitoring of patrol effort and illegal activity encounters commenced from mid-2004. Metrics were published at the end of 2005 and monitoring continued through 2006.

    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 17

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