Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Cost and Efficiency of Large Mammal Census Techniques: Comparison of Methods for a Participatory Approach in a Communal Area, Zimbabwe

Cost and Efficiency of Large Mammal Census Techniques: Comparison of Methods for a Participatory... The comparison of precision is often advocated for the selection of an appropriate census and/or monitoring method for wildlife, but little attention is generally paid to their cost effectiveness, a crucial criterion given budgetary and logistical constraints. We present six direct count methods conducted in a communal area of the Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe, and compare them in terms of (1) effort and cost to survey an area (sampling efficiency), and (2) efficiency in data collection (detection efficiency). Methods ranged from c.US$0.2 to over US$6.0/km2 and needed from 0.1 to 5.0 human-h/km2. The comparison of efficiencies showed the advantages of simple ground methods: foot counts and particularly bicycle counts appear well adapted to the ecological and human context of our study. The relative benefits and constraints of the different methods are discussed in the context of a community-based wildlife management programme. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Biodiversity and Conservation Springer Journals

Cost and Efficiency of Large Mammal Census Techniques: Comparison of Methods for a Participatory Approach in a Communal Area, Zimbabwe

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/cost-and-efficiency-of-large-mammal-census-techniques-comparison-of-tASrqahVrE

References (66)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 by Springer
Subject
Life Sciences; Evolutionary Biology; Tree Biology; Plant Sciences
ISSN
0960-3115
eISSN
1572-9710
DOI
10.1007/s10531-004-1063-7
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The comparison of precision is often advocated for the selection of an appropriate census and/or monitoring method for wildlife, but little attention is generally paid to their cost effectiveness, a crucial criterion given budgetary and logistical constraints. We present six direct count methods conducted in a communal area of the Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe, and compare them in terms of (1) effort and cost to survey an area (sampling efficiency), and (2) efficiency in data collection (detection efficiency). Methods ranged from c.US$0.2 to over US$6.0/km2 and needed from 0.1 to 5.0 human-h/km2. The comparison of efficiencies showed the advantages of simple ground methods: foot counts and particularly bicycle counts appear well adapted to the ecological and human context of our study. The relative benefits and constraints of the different methods are discussed in the context of a community-based wildlife management programme.

Journal

Biodiversity and ConservationSpringer Journals

Published: Jun 21, 2004

There are no references for this article.