Wildlife health perceptions and monitoring practices in globally distributed protected areas

The status of health monitoring practices in protected areas (PAs) is largely unknown, but potential gaps could undermine biodiversity conservation at these key sites. There is also a lack of baseline information regarding local perceptions of wildlife, human, and livestock health relevance that could affect health monitoring implementation in PAs. To address these deficiencies, we conducted a web-based survey of data managers from PAs worldwide. Specifically, we assessed perceptions regarding wildlife health and pathogen transmission between wildlife, humans, and livestock; the detection and documentation of unhealthy wildlife (injured, sick, and dead) and domestic animals in PAs; and health data management. Eighty-six out of 128 responses were analyzed. Respondents considered WH relevant to the conservation goals of PAs (97%), and 98% of them confirmed that unhealthy wildlife are encountered. However, >50% and >20% of respondents claimed that injured or sick and dead animals were not recorded, respectively. When these animals were documented, the recording methods and information collected differed. Although respondents considered domestic animal presence common and a conservation concern, these animals or their health status may not be recorded (30% and 74%, respectively). Health data were often stored in a database, but paper forms and spreadsheets were also used. Responses suggested that valuable syndromic wildlife health surveillance data from PAs are not collected or are lost due to inadequate management and their value could be limited by a lack of standardized recording protocols.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Conservation Biology
Published
2025-05-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.70076
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Zoonotic diseases and public health
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
7.51
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Wildlife health perceptions and monitoring practices in globally distributed protected areas

Sarah H. Olson, Mathieu Pruvot, Diego Montecino‐Latorre
4 citations
Conservation Biology
Zoonotic diseases and public health
7.51
article

Wildlife health perceptions and monitoring practices in globally distributed protected areas

Sarah H. Olson, Mathieu Pruvot, Diego Montecino‐Latorre
article en
4 citations

Abstract

The status of health monitoring practices in protected areas (PAs) is largely unknown, but potential gaps could undermine biodiversity conservation at these key sites. There is also a lack of baseline information regarding local perceptions of wildlife, human, and livestock health relevance that could affect health monitoring implementation in PAs. To address these deficiencies, we conducted a web-based survey of data managers from PAs worldwide. Specifically, we assessed perceptions regarding wildlife health and pathogen transmission between wildlife, humans, and livestock; the detection and documentation of unhealthy wildlife (injured, sick, and dead) and domestic animals in PAs; and health data management. Eighty-six out of 128 responses were analyzed. Respondents considered WH relevant to the conservation goals of PAs (97%), and 98% of them confirmed that unhealthy wildlife are encountered. However, >50% and >20% of respondents claimed that injured or sick and dead animals were not recorded, respectively. When these animals were documented, the recording methods and information collected differed. Although respondents considered domestic animal presence common and a conservation concern, these animals or their health status may not be recorded (30% and 74%, respectively). Health data were often stored in a database, but paper forms and spreadsheets were also used. Responses suggested that valuable syndromic wildlife health surveillance data from PAs are not collected or are lost due to inadequate management and their value could be limited by a lack of standardized recording protocols.

Conservation BiologyVol. 39(6)
Wildlife Conservation Society (US), University of Calgary (CA)
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Zoonotic diseases and public health
7.51
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.