Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/58189
Title: Camera trap theft and vandalism: occurrence, cost, prevention and implications for wildlife research and management
Contributor(s): Meek, Paul D  (author); Ballard, Guy A  (author)orcid ; Sparkes, Jess (author); Robinson, Mark (author); Nesbitt, Brad (author); Fleming, Peter J S  (author)
Publication Date: 2019-06
Open Access: Yes
DOI: 10.1002/rse2.96
Handle Link: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/58189
Abstract: 

Camera traps are increasingly used to monitor wildlife populations and man-agement activities. Failing to detect target occurrence and/or behaviour inhibits the robustness of wildlife surveys. Based on user-testing, it is reasonable to expect some equipment to malfunction but other sources of failure, such as those caused by theft and vandalism, are largely unquantified. Between May2016 and October 2017, we undertook an international survey of professional practitioners who use camera traps for wildlife research and management pro-jects to quantify theft and vandalism, and to document the subsequent effectson project outcomes. We also sought to record the methods used by practitioners to avoid theft and vandalism and whether or not practitioners believed those actions were effective. Most (59%) of the 407 respondents were wild life researchers and university academics. The survey results revealed that camera trap theft and vandalism is a global issue that not only adds to costs via equip-ment loss (approx. USD $1.48 million from n =309 respondents between 2010and 2015) and theft prevention (c. USD $800 000 spent by respondents between 2010 and 2015) but also influences survey design. Vandalism and the ftare clearly a global problem, with responses suggesting that they occur across adiverse array of geographic locations, at varying proximity to human settle-ments, in multiple habitat types and across device placements. Methods to deter human interference included using camouflaging (73%), security devices such as chains (63%) and boxes (43%), use of decoy camera traps, shortening deployment periods, setting the camera relatively high or low to the ground, or moving away from human traffic. Despite this, the responses suggest that attempts to mitigate losses are often not effective. In review of our findings, we make recommendations for the future of camera trapping that requires imple-mentation and testing.

Publication Type: Journal Article
Source of Publication: Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, 5(2), p. 160-168
Publisher: John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Place of Publication: United Kingdom
ISSN: 2056-3485
Fields of Research (FoR) 2020: 4104 Environmental management
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2020: TBD
Peer Reviewed: Yes
HERDC Category Description: C1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
School of Environmental and Rural Science

Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
openpublished/CameraMeekBallardFleming2019JournalArticle.pdfPublished version668.71 kBAdobe PDF
Download Adobe
View/Open
Show full item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

33
checked on Apr 27, 2024

Page view(s)

156
checked on Apr 28, 2024

Download(s)

4
checked on Apr 28, 2024
Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons