Table 3 The details of the patrol methods used in the returned articles relating to Patrol effectiveness in preventing wildlife crime
From: Systematic review of situational prevention methods for crime against species
Publication | Patrol location | Patrol area (km2) | Study period | Patrol methods | No. of patrol unit/s | No. of patrol areas | No. of rangers (patrol team size) | Patrol duration (days) | No of patrols | Distance covered by patrols |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hilborn et al. 2006 | Serengeti National Park Tanzania | – | 1957–2005 | Foot Vehicle | – | – | – | – | – | – |
Leader-Williams et al. 1990 | Luangwa Valley Zambia | 63,000 | 1979–1985 | Foot Vehicle | 1979: 2 1984: 4 | 6 | 3–5 | 5–9 | 781 | – |
Jachmann and Billiouw 1997 | Central Luangwa Valley Zambia | 14,000 | 1988–1995 | Foot Intelligence/ Investigative | 14 | 6 | 6–10 | 10 | – | – |
Linkie et al. 2015 | Kerinci Seblat National Park Indonesia | 13,800 | 2000–2010 | Foot Vehicle Intelligence/Investigative Recording methods used meant it was not possible to separate foot and informant patrol records | 2000: 2 2005: 6 2006: 5 | 2000: 2 2010: 8 | 4 | – | 642 | 8885 km |