Action Synopsis: Bird Conservation About Actions

Use wildlife refuges to reduce hunting disturbance

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

Study locations

Key messages

  • Three studies from the USA and Europe found that bird densities were higher in refuges where hunting was prohibited, compared to areas with hunting. In addition, two studies found that more birds used hunting-free areas during the open season and on hunting days.
  • No studies investigated the population-level impacts of these refuges.


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 site comparison study from 1940-1951 in two natural, 400 private and 13 public waterfowl refuges of wetland habitat in Illinois, USA (Bellrose 1954), found that waterfowl refuges should cover at least 400 ha if shooting is permitted. Refuges where hunting is prohibited exhibit higher waterfowl abundance (for example, duck populations increased on average by 37,075 ducks/refuge over seven years in sites where hunting became closed). Similarly, hunting-restricted refuges exhibit greater duck usage (4,010, 911 and 56 duck-days/ha over 50 days for a non-hunting refuge, a hunting refuge and a non-refuge respectively). Refuge size affects hunting impact: one smaller refuge containing higher concentrations of duck food than a larger, nearby refuge exhibits significantly lower average duck density (1,504 compared to 4,327 ducks/ha), but significantly higher hunting pressure (15 compared to 8% of the population hunted). In total, refuges cover 23,209 ha, of which 2,023 ha are open to hunting.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A study on a lake in Northern Ireland, UK, in the boreal winter of 1997-8 (Evans & Day 2002), found that significantly more wildfowl were found on a bay used as a wildlife refuge (i.e. closed to hunting) during the hunting season, compared with the closed season (average of 1,027 individuals on the lake during open season vs. 597 during the closed season). A significant increase in usage was also observed within the open season at weekends, when hunting intensity was highest, a pattern most noticeable for mallard Anas platyrhynchos and common coot Fulica atra. There was a corresponding decrease in wildfowl numbers in an area of the lake used for shooting. A total of 20 waterfowl species were recorded at the refuge, the most common being mallard, common goldeneye Bucephala clangula, tufted duck Aythya fuligula and common coot.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A controlled study from October-December in 2003 on one 10 km2 site within intensively cultivated farmland in Tauché and Sainte Blandine villages, France (Casas et al. 2009), found that northern lapwings Vanellus vanellus, golden plovers Pluvialis apricaria and little bustards Tetrax tetrax were affected by hunting activities and used hunting-free areas in response. Hunting activity increased flight probability and time spent vigilant (higher on hunting days than just before and after a hunting day), to the detriment of resting. Foraging was unaffected by hunting. The hunting-free reserve was used significantly more frequently during hunting days. Little bustards used the hunting-free reserve almost exclusively (96% of observations within hunting-free reserve). The authors suggest that reserves can mitigate the disturbance caused by hunting.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.


Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Bird Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird 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