The evidence base for ranger patrol effectiveness in conservation and how to improve it

IF 10.9 1区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY
Biological Reviews Pub Date : 2026-09-03 Epub Date: 2026-04-24 DOI:10.1002/brv.70172
Trina Rytwinski, Robert S. A. Pickles, Matthew J. Muir, Steven J. Cooke, Joseph R. Bennett, Lisa A. Kelly, Adrienne Smith, Cynthia Cadet, Dwi N. Adhiasto, Inés Arroyo Quiroz, Mark D. Booton, Daphne P. Carlson, Drew T. Cronin, Anthony Dancer, Meredith L. Gore, Jennifer R. B. Miller, Stephen F. Pires, Amy Pokempner, James Slade, Andrew M. Lemieux
{"title":"The evidence base for ranger patrol effectiveness in conservation and how to improve it","authors":"Trina Rytwinski,&nbsp;Robert S. A. Pickles,&nbsp;Matthew J. Muir,&nbsp;Steven J. Cooke,&nbsp;Joseph R. Bennett,&nbsp;Lisa A. Kelly,&nbsp;Adrienne Smith,&nbsp;Cynthia Cadet,&nbsp;Dwi N. Adhiasto,&nbsp;Inés Arroyo Quiroz,&nbsp;Mark D. Booton,&nbsp;Daphne P. Carlson,&nbsp;Drew T. Cronin,&nbsp;Anthony Dancer,&nbsp;Meredith L. Gore,&nbsp;Jennifer R. B. Miller,&nbsp;Stephen F. Pires,&nbsp;Amy Pokempner,&nbsp;James Slade,&nbsp;Andrew M. Lemieux","doi":"10.1002/brv.70172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Ranger patrols are a cornerstone of wildlife protection efforts around the world and occur across all ecological governance systems. Evidence that patrols reduce threats to wildlife and enable their recovery has not been systematically examined previously. Without evidence of patrol effectiveness in varying contexts, protected area managers risk wasting limited conservation resources and lack information required to improve the effectiveness of patrols. We conducted a meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of terrestrial patrols for conserving African, Asian, and Latin American wildlife directly threatened by exploitation. After filtering 57 studies, we calculated effect sizes from each of the remaining 15 studies that included a comparator and measurement of wildlife abundance and calculated standardised mean difference and % change in wildlife species abundance. Results suggest tentative support that areas implementing patrols (alongside other interventions) were associated with higher wildlife abundance levels compared to time periods or locations without patrols. We were unable to confirm causality between patrols and changes in wildlife population abundance because studies were inadequately designed to evaluate and report on effectiveness. Studies commonly lacked a comparator or counterfactual event, temporal or spatial replication, and consistent and/or long-term monitoring of population abundance, and had study designs that confounded conservation actions. Further, of the 15 included studies linking wildlife abundance to patrol efforts, five also reported a reduction in a poaching threat, but only three of these used a comparator in the threat reduction evaluation. Without monitoring threat trends alongside wildlife abundance, it is difficult to be confident that patrols resulted in increases in wildlife abundance. To help evaluate patrol interventions (i.e. not only whether they work but where and under what conditions they work), we identify opportunities to improve future patrol effectiveness research and provide recommendations on how to improve the evidence base.</p>","PeriodicalId":133,"journal":{"name":"Biological Reviews","volume":"101 5","pages":"2172-2189"},"PeriodicalIF":10.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/brv.70172","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/brv.70172","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ranger patrols are a cornerstone of wildlife protection efforts around the world and occur across all ecological governance systems. Evidence that patrols reduce threats to wildlife and enable their recovery has not been systematically examined previously. Without evidence of patrol effectiveness in varying contexts, protected area managers risk wasting limited conservation resources and lack information required to improve the effectiveness of patrols. We conducted a meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of terrestrial patrols for conserving African, Asian, and Latin American wildlife directly threatened by exploitation. After filtering 57 studies, we calculated effect sizes from each of the remaining 15 studies that included a comparator and measurement of wildlife abundance and calculated standardised mean difference and % change in wildlife species abundance. Results suggest tentative support that areas implementing patrols (alongside other interventions) were associated with higher wildlife abundance levels compared to time periods or locations without patrols. We were unable to confirm causality between patrols and changes in wildlife population abundance because studies were inadequately designed to evaluate and report on effectiveness. Studies commonly lacked a comparator or counterfactual event, temporal or spatial replication, and consistent and/or long-term monitoring of population abundance, and had study designs that confounded conservation actions. Further, of the 15 included studies linking wildlife abundance to patrol efforts, five also reported a reduction in a poaching threat, but only three of these used a comparator in the threat reduction evaluation. Without monitoring threat trends alongside wildlife abundance, it is difficult to be confident that patrols resulted in increases in wildlife abundance. To help evaluate patrol interventions (i.e. not only whether they work but where and under what conditions they work), we identify opportunities to improve future patrol effectiveness research and provide recommendations on how to improve the evidence base.

保护区护林员巡逻效能的证据基础及改善方法。
护林员巡逻是世界各地野生动物保护工作的基石,存在于所有生态治理系统中。关于巡逻减少了对野生动物的威胁并使它们得以恢复的证据,以前没有得到系统的研究。如果没有证据表明巡逻在不同情况下的有效性,保护区管理者就有可能浪费有限的保护资源,并且缺乏提高巡逻有效性所需的信息。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,评估了陆地巡逻对保护直接受到开发威胁的非洲、亚洲和拉丁美洲野生动物的有效性。在筛选了57项研究后,我们计算了其余15项研究的效应大小,其中包括比较和野生动物丰度测量,并计算了野生动物物种丰度的标准化平均差异和百分比变化。结果表明,与没有巡逻的时间段或地点相比,实施巡逻(以及其他干预措施)的地区与更高的野生动物丰度相关。我们无法确认巡逻与野生动物数量变化之间的因果关系,因为研究没有充分设计来评估和报告有效性。研究通常缺乏比较或反事实事件,时间或空间复制,以及一致和/或长期监测种群丰度,并且研究设计混淆了保护行动。此外,在将野生动物数量与巡逻力度联系起来的15项研究中,有5项也报告了偷猎威胁的减少,但其中只有3项在威胁减少评估中使用了比较指标。如果没有监测威胁趋势和野生动物数量的增加,很难确信巡逻导致了野生动物数量的增加。为了帮助评估巡逻干预措施(即不仅是它们是否有效,而且是在哪里和在什么条件下有效),我们确定了改进未来巡逻有效性研究的机会,并就如何改进证据基础提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Biological Reviews
Biological Reviews 生物-生物学
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biological Reviews is a scientific journal that covers a wide range of topics in the biological sciences. It publishes several review articles per issue, which are aimed at both non-specialist biologists and researchers in the field. The articles are scholarly and include extensive bibliographies. Authors are instructed to be aware of the diverse readership and write their articles accordingly. The reviews in Biological Reviews serve as comprehensive introductions to specific fields, presenting the current state of the art and highlighting gaps in knowledge. Each article can be up to 20,000 words long and includes an abstract, a thorough introduction, and a statement of conclusions. The journal focuses on publishing synthetic reviews, which are based on existing literature and address important biological questions. These reviews are interesting to a broad readership and are timely, often related to fast-moving fields or new discoveries. A key aspect of a synthetic review is that it goes beyond simply compiling information and instead analyzes the collected data to create a new theoretical or conceptual framework that can significantly impact the field. Biological Reviews is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Abstracts on Hygiene & Communicable Diseases, Academic Search, AgBiotech News & Information, AgBiotechNet, AGRICOLA Database, GeoRef, Global Health, SCOPUS, Weed Abstracts, and Reaction Citation Index, among others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书