Limitations of recreational camera traps for wildlife management and conservation research

A practitioner's perspective

Scott Newey, Paul Davidson, Sajid Nazir, Gorry Fairhurst, Fabio Verdicchio, R Justin Irvine, René van der Wal

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

31 Citations (Scopus)
7 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

The availability of affordable 'recreational' camera traps has dramatically increased over the last decade. We present survey results which show that many conservation practitioners use cheaper 'recreational' units for research rather than more expensive 'professional' equipment. We present our perspective of using two popular models of 'recreational' camera trap for ecological field-based studies. The models used (for >2 years) presented us with a range of practical problems at all stages of their use including deployment, operation, and data management, which collectively crippled data collection and limited opportunities for quantification of key issues arising. Our experiences demonstrate that prospective users need to have a sufficient understanding of the limitations camera trap technology poses, dimensions we communicate here. While the merits of different camera traps will be study specific, the performance of more expensive 'professional' models may prove more cost-effective in the long-term when using camera traps for research.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)624-635
Number of pages12
JournalAmbio
Volume44
Issue number4
Early online date27 Oct 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2015

Fingerprint

wildlife management
nature conservation
Conservation
conservation
Cameras
management
data management
quantification
Information management
costs
cost
performance
Availability
experience
Costs

Keywords

  • camera trap
  • digital innovation
  • false negative
  • false positive
  • sensors
  • trail camera

Cite this

Limitations of recreational camera traps for wildlife management and conservation research : A practitioner's perspective. / Newey, Scott; Davidson, Paul; Nazir, Sajid; Fairhurst, Gorry; Verdicchio, Fabio; Irvine, R Justin; van der Wal, René.

In: Ambio, Vol. 44, No. 4, 11.2015, p. 624-635.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1b26a7078151474a9fd89cce4d449e69,
title = "Limitations of recreational camera traps for wildlife management and conservation research: A practitioner's perspective",
abstract = "The availability of affordable 'recreational' camera traps has dramatically increased over the last decade. We present survey results which show that many conservation practitioners use cheaper 'recreational' units for research rather than more expensive 'professional' equipment. We present our perspective of using two popular models of 'recreational' camera trap for ecological field-based studies. The models used (for >2 years) presented us with a range of practical problems at all stages of their use including deployment, operation, and data management, which collectively crippled data collection and limited opportunities for quantification of key issues arising. Our experiences demonstrate that prospective users need to have a sufficient understanding of the limitations camera trap technology poses, dimensions we communicate here. While the merits of different camera traps will be study specific, the performance of more expensive 'professional' models may prove more cost-effective in the long-term when using camera traps for research.",
keywords = "camera trap , digital innovation, false negative, false positive, sensors , trail camera",
author = "Scott Newey and Paul Davidson and Sajid Nazir and Gorry Fairhurst and Fabio Verdicchio and Irvine, {R Justin} and {van der Wal}, Ren{\'e}",
note = "Acknowledgements: The work was supported by the RCUK Digital Economy programme to the dot.rural Digital Economy Hub (EP/ G066051/1). SN and RJI were funded by the Scottish Government Rural Environment Research and Advisory Directorate. We are grateful for access to private land where much of the field work took place. We thank Sandra Hamel, two anonymous referees, and Ambio’s editors for valuable comments on earlier versions of the paper.",
year = "2015",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1007/s13280-015-0713-1",
language = "English",
volume = "44",
pages = "624--635",
journal = "Ambio",
issn = "0044-7447",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Limitations of recreational camera traps for wildlife management and conservation research

T2 - A practitioner's perspective

AU - Newey, Scott

AU - Davidson, Paul

AU - Nazir, Sajid

AU - Fairhurst, Gorry

AU - Verdicchio, Fabio

AU - Irvine, R Justin

AU - van der Wal, René

N1 - Acknowledgements: The work was supported by the RCUK Digital Economy programme to the dot.rural Digital Economy Hub (EP/ G066051/1). SN and RJI were funded by the Scottish Government Rural Environment Research and Advisory Directorate. We are grateful for access to private land where much of the field work took place. We thank Sandra Hamel, two anonymous referees, and Ambio’s editors for valuable comments on earlier versions of the paper.

PY - 2015/11

Y1 - 2015/11

N2 - The availability of affordable 'recreational' camera traps has dramatically increased over the last decade. We present survey results which show that many conservation practitioners use cheaper 'recreational' units for research rather than more expensive 'professional' equipment. We present our perspective of using two popular models of 'recreational' camera trap for ecological field-based studies. The models used (for >2 years) presented us with a range of practical problems at all stages of their use including deployment, operation, and data management, which collectively crippled data collection and limited opportunities for quantification of key issues arising. Our experiences demonstrate that prospective users need to have a sufficient understanding of the limitations camera trap technology poses, dimensions we communicate here. While the merits of different camera traps will be study specific, the performance of more expensive 'professional' models may prove more cost-effective in the long-term when using camera traps for research.

AB - The availability of affordable 'recreational' camera traps has dramatically increased over the last decade. We present survey results which show that many conservation practitioners use cheaper 'recreational' units for research rather than more expensive 'professional' equipment. We present our perspective of using two popular models of 'recreational' camera trap for ecological field-based studies. The models used (for >2 years) presented us with a range of practical problems at all stages of their use including deployment, operation, and data management, which collectively crippled data collection and limited opportunities for quantification of key issues arising. Our experiences demonstrate that prospective users need to have a sufficient understanding of the limitations camera trap technology poses, dimensions we communicate here. While the merits of different camera traps will be study specific, the performance of more expensive 'professional' models may prove more cost-effective in the long-term when using camera traps for research.

KW - camera trap

KW - digital innovation

KW - false negative

KW - false positive

KW - sensors

KW - trail camera

U2 - 10.1007/s13280-015-0713-1

DO - 10.1007/s13280-015-0713-1

M3 - Article

VL - 44

SP - 624

EP - 635

JO - Ambio

JF - Ambio

SN - 0044-7447

IS - 4

ER -