Increase resources for managing protected areas

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

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

80%
Certainty

30%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Enforcement of regulations, such as those regarding hunting, can be a challenge for protected areas. This intervention covers increases in those resources, such as funding sufficient staff.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on mammals of increasing resources for managing protected areas. This study was in Tanzania.

COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Species richness (1 study): A site comparison study in Tanzania found that mammal species richness was higher in a well-resourced national park, than in a less well-resourced forest reserve.

POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY)

Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study Tanzania found that there were greater occupancy rates or relative abundances of most mammal species in a well-resourced national park than in a less well-resourced forest reserve.

BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)

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 site comparison study in 2013–2014 in two forested protected areas in the Udzungwa Mountains, Tanzania (Hegerl et al. 2017) found that in a well-resourced protected national park, there was greater mammal species richness and occupancy rates or relative abundances for most mammal species compared to those in a forest reserve managed with fewer resources. Estimated mammal species richness was higher in the national park (29 species) than in the forest reserve (18 species). Modelled occupancy rates (a measure of the proportion of sites used by species) were higher in the national park compared to the forest reserve for three species and were lower for one species. For species occurring at both sites, but in insufficient numbers to perform occupancy modelling, relative abundances were higher in the national park compared to the forest reserve for five species and were lower for one species. One site was a 177-km² forest within a well-resourced national park where poaching was considered to be rare. The other was a 200-km² forest reserve, managed with fewer resources and where poaching for bushmeat occurred. Each area was surveyed using camera traps, over 917 camera-trap days in the national park and 850 camera-trap days in the forest reserve, between July 2013 and February 2014.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Hegerl C., Burgess N.D., Nielsen M.R., Martin E., Ciolli M. & Rovero F. (2017) Using camera trap data to assess the impact of bushmeat hunting on forest mammals in Tanzania. Oryx, 51, 87-97.

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
Increase size of protected area Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Encourage habitat protection of privately-owned land Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Retain buffer zones around core habitat Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link