Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce legislation to protect birds against persecution Two before-and-after studies have evaluated effects of legislative protection on bird species in Europe. Both found that legislation protects bird populations. One found increased population levels of raptors in Scotland, following protective legislation. One found increased survival of kestrels in Denmark stricter protection, but not necessarily population-level responses. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F101https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F101Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:55:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage volunteers to collect amphibian data (citizen science) Five studies in Canada, the UK and USA found that amphibian data collection projects engaged 100–10,506 volunteers and were active in 16–17 states in the USA. Five studies in the UK and USA found that volunteers undertook 412 surveys, surveyed 121–7,872 sites, swabbed almost 6,000 amphibians and submitted thousands of amphibian records. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F760https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F760Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:11:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage landowners and other volunteers to manage land for amphibians Two before-and-after studies (including one replicated study) in Estonia and Taiwan found that habitat management with participation of volunteers increased natterjack toad and Taipei frog populations. One controlled study in Mexico found that engaging landowners in aquatic habitat management increased axolotl weight. Six studies in Estonia, the USA and UK found that between eight and 41,000 volunteers were engaged in aquatic and terrestrial habitat restoration programmes for amphibians. Individual programmes restored up to 1,023 ponds or over 11,500 km2 of habitat.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F777https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F777Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:39:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage leaf litter development in new planting We found no evidence for the effect of encouraging leaf litter development in new planting on forests. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.    Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1204https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1204Thu, 19 May 2016 13:32:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage use of traditional hunting methods rather than using guns We found no evidence for the effects of encouraging the use of traditional hunting methods rather than using guns on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1469https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1469Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:29:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage farmers and landowners to manage land for bats One study evaluated the effects of engaging farmers and landowners to manage land for bats on bat populations. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One study in the UK found that during a five-year project to engage farmers and landowners to manage land for bats, the overall population of greater horseshoe bats at four maternity roosts in the area increased (but see summary below). BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Change in human behaviour (1 study): One study in the UK found that a landowner engagement project resulted in 77 bat-related management agreements covering approximately 6,536 ha of land. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1936https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1936Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:15:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce regulations to prevent trafficking and trade of bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of enforcing regulations to prevent trafficking and trade of bats on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1971https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1971Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:20:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage online vendors to remove bat specimens for sale We found no studies that evaluated the effects of encouraging online vendors to remove bat specimens for sale on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1978https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1978Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:26:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage natural regeneration in former plantations We found no studies that evaluated the effects of encouraging natural regeneration in former plantations on bat populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1988https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1988Wed, 05 Dec 2018 11:06:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage policymakers to make policy changes beneficial to bats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of engaging policymakers to make policy changes beneficial to bats or human behaviours directly beneficial to bats. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2041https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2041Wed, 05 Dec 2018 18:36:41 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage with stakeholders when designing Marine Protected Areas We found no studies that evaluated the effects of engaging with stakeholders when designating a Marine Protected Area on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2243https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2243Wed, 23 Oct 2019 08:41:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce port controls We found no studies that evaluated the effects of enforcing port controls on marine fish populations.  ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2766https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2766Wed, 03 Feb 2021 10:03:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce legislation to prevent the trafficking and trade of marine and freshwater mammal products We found no studies that evaluated the effects of enforcing legislation to prevent the trafficking and trade of marine and freshwater mammal products. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2781https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2781Thu, 04 Feb 2021 16:16:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage stakeholders/fishers in scientific research and data collection We found no studies that evaluated the effects of engaging fishers in scientific data collection on marine fish populations.  ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2813https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2813Fri, 05 Feb 2021 10:08:31 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce legislation to control illegal fishing using gear or methods that are harmful to mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of enforcing legislation to control illegal fishing using gear or methods that are harmful to mammals on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2832https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2832Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:05:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce existing legislation for habitat protection We found no studies that evaluated the effects of enforcing existing legislation for habitat protection on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2916https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2916Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:30:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage policymakers to make policy changes beneficial to marine and freshwater mammals One study evaluated the effects of engaging policymakers to make changes beneficial to marine and freshwater mammals. The study was in the Catazajá wetlands (Mexico). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Change in human behaviour (1 study): One study in the Catazajá wetlands reported that engaging policymakers resulted in the designation of a protected area for West Indian manatees. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2934https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2934Tue, 09 Feb 2021 11:38:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage local people in management/monitoring of marshes or swamps Two studies evaluated the effects, on vegetation or human behaviour, of engaging local people in management/monitoring of marshes or swamps. One study was in Senegal and one was in India. VEGETATION COMMUNITY Overall extent (1 study): One before-and-after study of a coastal wetland in India reported that after implementing a community-based restoration programme, the area of high-quality mangrove forest increased. Meanwhile, the area of degraded mangrove forest decreased. VEGETATION ABUNDANCE   VEGETATION STRUCTURE   OTHER Human behaviour (1 study): One before-and-after study of a wetland National Park in Senegal reported that after switching from authoritarian protection to community-based management, fewer fines were issued for illegal activities (including illegal settlement and uncontrolled grazing). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3390https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3390Mon, 12 Apr 2021 11:53:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage landowners and volunteers to manage land for reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of engaging landowners and volunteers to manage land for reptiles. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3485https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3485Fri, 03 Dec 2021 13:03:22 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce regulations to prevent trafficking and trade of reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of enforcing regulations to prevent trafficking and trade of reptiles. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3540https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3540Tue, 07 Dec 2021 16:50:25 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce compliance to lighting regulations We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of enforcing compliance to lighting regulations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3597https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3597Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:28:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage policy makers to make policy changes beneficial to reptiles We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of engaging policy makers to make policy changes beneficial to reptiles. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3679https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3679Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:00:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Engage local communities in conservation activities Six studies evaluated the effects on reptile populations of engaging local communities in reptile conservation. One study was in each of the Philippines, Mozambique, Brazil, Costa Rica, Australia and Colombia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): One site comparison study in Brazil found that areas where community-based management of fishing practices was implemented had a higher abundance of river turtles than areas with no community-based management. Reproductive success (3 studies): Two before-and-after studies (including one site comparison study) in Mozambique and Costa Rica found that after involving the community in monitoring of nesting activity, fewer sea turtle eggs were lost to poaching than before projects began. One replicated, before-and-after study in Australia found that when management of a saltwater crocodile egg harvest passed to an Indigenous management group, the number of eggs collected and hatching success of those eggs was lower than when it was run by an external company. Survival (2 studies): One study in the Philippines found that after rural community members were paid a small incentive to protect Philippine crocodile sanctuaries combined with an education and awareness campaign, fewer crocodiles were killed than before community engagement. One before-and-after study in Mozambique found that during a community-based turtle monitoring project no killing of adults was recorded. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): One replicated study in Colombia found that in areas where communities were engaged in conservation initiatives relating to turtles, more people reported changing consumption habitats and fewer people reported using turtles for food compared to in areas with no initiatives, however, stated rates of hunting, buying and selling of turtles remained similar. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3681https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3681Fri, 10 Dec 2021 14:15:39 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Enforce gear and vessel restrictions (e.g. cap engine power, ban gears) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of enforcing gear and vessel restrictions (e.g. cap engine power, ban gears) on marine fish populations.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3830https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3830Mon, 30 May 2022 08:47:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage natural regeneration in former plantations or logged forest Four studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of encouraging natural regeneration in former plantations or logged forest. One study was in each of Côte d’Ivoire, Japan, Ghana and Uganda. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Community composition (3 studies): One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that rarer species of fruit-feeding butterfly were more frequently caught in a naturally regenerating forest than in a forest still managed by thinning. One replicated, site comparison study in Japan found that the moth community was different between naturally regenerating forests of different ages. One site comparison study in Ghana found that a naturally regenerating forest had a butterfly community more similar to forest replanted nine years ago than a primary forest or a clear-cut area. Richness/diversity (4 studies): One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that a naturally regenerating forest had a similar species richness and diversity of fruit-feeding butterflies to a forest still managed by thinning. One replicated, site comparison study in Japan found that naturally regenerating forests had a greater species richness of moths than plantations. One site comparison study in Ghana found that a naturally regenerating forest had lower butterfly species richness than a primary forest, but similar richness to a clear-cut area and a nine-year old replanted forest, and lower community diversity than a primary forest and a clear-cut area. One replicated, site comparison study in Uganda found that naturally regenerating forests had a similar species richness of butterflies to pristine forests, but richness was highest 12–25 years after felling. POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One site comparison study in Côte d’Ivoire found that a naturally regenerating forest had a similar abundance of fruit-feeding butterflies to a forest still managed by thinning. One replicated, site comparison study in Japan found that naturally regenerating forests had a greater abundance of moths than plantations. One replicated, site comparison study in Uganda found that naturally regenerating forests had a similar abundance of butterflies to pristine forests, but abundance was highest 12–25 years after felling. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3876https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3876Mon, 18 Jul 2022 16:06:44 +0100
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
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue