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, 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","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.
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.