Wildlife health perceptions and monitoring practices in globally distributed protected areas

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0

Abstract

Diseases are a threat to biodiversity conservation and global health, however, wildlife health (WH) surveillance systems remain uncommon. This deficit is especially relevant in protected areas (PAs) facing anthropogenic pressures. Integration of field conservation actors patrolling PAs can drastically strengthen WH surveillance. Nevertheless, baseline information regarding current WH monitoring mandates and practices at these sites is missing. To address this gap, we surveyed globally distributed protected area data managers (PADMs). PADMs considered WH as relevant to the conservation goals of PAs and >90% of them confirmed that non-healthy and dead wildlife are encountered. However, >50% and >20% of PADMs claimed that these animals were not recorded, respectively. When these animals were documented, the recording methods and information collected differed. Although domestic animal presence was common and considered a conservation concern, these animals and their health status were not always recorded. Health data were often stored in a database, but paper forms and spreadsheets were also used. Responses suggest that valuable syndromic WH surveillance data from PAs are being lost due to non-collection or inadequate management and their value could be limited by unstandardized documentation. Rangers could become a globally distributed “One Health workforce” but these flaws must be addressed first.
Full text 2,418 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 2 sections · click to expand

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 lost due to inadequate management and their value could be limited by a lack of standardized recording protocols. DOI https://doi.org/10.32942/X2789Z Subjects Biodiversity, Environmental Monitoring, Epidemiology, Health Information Technology, Health Policy, Life Sciences, Natural Resources and Conservation, Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration, Sustainability, Veterinary Preventive Medicine, Epidemiology, and Public Health

Keywords

conservation, Protected areas, rangers, wildlife disease, wildlife health, wildlife health monitoring, wildlife health surveillance Dates Published: 2024-05-01 00:10 Last Updated: 2025-06-05 15:26 Older Versions License CC BY Attribution 4.0 International Additional Metadata Data and Code Availability Statement: https://github.com/dmontecino/SMART_survey Language: English

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2024) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-24T02:00:01.246996+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0