Show simple item record

Files in this item

Thumbnail

Item metadata

dc.contributor.authorMarion, Solène
dc.contributor.authorDavies, Althea
dc.contributor.authorDemsar, Urska
dc.contributor.authorIrvine, Justin
dc.contributor.authorStephens, Philip
dc.contributor.authorLong, Jed
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-21T11:30:07Z
dc.date.available2020-01-21T11:30:07Z
dc.date.issued2020-06
dc.identifier.citationMarion , S , Davies , A , Demsar , U , Irvine , J , Stephens , P & Long , J 2020 , ' A systematic review of methods for studying the impacts of outdoor recreation on terrestrial wildlife ' , Global Ecology and Conservation , vol. 22 , e00917 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00917en
dc.identifier.issn2351-9894
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 265684240
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: f732f0fa-5a86-4db2-a9d0-89265437ba82
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85077977283
dc.identifier.otherWOS: 000575093200033
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10023/19321
dc.descriptionThis project would not have been possible without the support from the Carnegie Trust, a James Hutton Institute – University of St Andrews collaborative PhD Studentship.en
dc.description.abstractOutdoor recreation is a known source of disturbance to many wildlife populations. We systematically reviewed 126 relevant papers that study the impact of outdoor recreation on wildlife, focusing on terrestrial wildlife (birds excluded) to assess the different methodological approaches adopted by researchers. We characterised the research methods into seven categories (direct observation, indirect observation (field-based), telemetry, camera traps, physiological measurement, trapping, and simulation). We find that direct observation is the most commonly used method to capture human-wildlife interactions, followed by the use of telemetry, and camera traps. The animals most commonly studied were ungulates, and the orders Carnivora and Rodentia. Studies typically captured data over longer periods (median 54 months) when using trapping methods; other methods exhibited shorter study durations (median 22 months). The size of the animal under study appears to influence how methods are chosen, with larger species often being studied using telemetry methods. We highlight advantages and disadvantages of each method depending on the aims of the study, the focal species, and the type of outdoor recreation. Our review highlights the need for simultaneous measurements of both human activity and wildlife response. We also recommend that researchers consider how to capture both short- and long-term impacts on animal welfare. Our findings should guide applied wildlife conservation and management research in scenarios where human-wildlife interactions lead to conservation issues.
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofGlobal Ecology and Conservationen
dc.rightsCrown Copyright © 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).en
dc.subjectHuman-wildlife conflicten
dc.subjectOutdoor recreationen
dc.subjectMethoden
dc.subjectData collectionen
dc.subjectReviewen
dc.subjectG Geography (General)en
dc.subjectQH301 Biologyen
dc.subject.lccG1en
dc.subject.lccQH301en
dc.titleA systematic review of methods for studying the impacts of outdoor recreation on terrestrial wildlifeen
dc.typeJournal itemen
dc.description.versionPublisher PDFen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. Bell-Edwards Geographic Data Instituteen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of St Andrews. School of Geography & Sustainable Developmenten
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00917
dc.description.statusPeer revieweden


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record