Increase ‘on-the-ground’ protection (e.g. rangers)

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

60%
Certainty

20%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

This section considers the use of an ‘on-the-ground’ human presence to protect peatlands from immediate threats. This includes rangers or wardens that may patrol peatlands, ensuring legislation and voluntary agreements are followed. It also includes creating teams to directly manage threats e.g. firefighters.

Key peatland types for which this action may be appropriate: bogs, fens/fen meadows, tropical peat swamps.

Study locations

Key messages

One study evaluated the effects on peatland habitats of increasing ‘on-the-ground’ protection. The study was in tropical peat swamps.
Behaviour change (1 study): One before-and-after study in a peat swamp forest in Indonesia reported that the number of illegal sawmills decreased over two years of anti-logging patrols.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A before-and-after study in 2006–2008 in peat swamp forest in Indonesia (CKPP 2008) reported that anti-logging patrols reduced the number of sawmills (associated with illegal logging) in the study area. Before patrols began, 147 sawmills were identified in Katingan Regency, including 102 in active use. After two years of weekly patrols, there were only two sawmills in the area. Patrols involved representatives of the National Park authorities, local communities and non-governmental organizations.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Central Kalimantan Peatland Project (2008) Provisional report of the Central Kalimantan Peatland Project. Wetlands International report.

Please cite as:

Taylor, N.G., Grillas, P. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Peatland Conservation. Pages 367-430 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Peatland Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Legally protect peatlands Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	5	Synopsis Link
Create legislation for ‘no net loss’ of wetlands Action Link	No evidence found (no assessment)	0	Synopsis Link
Lobby, campaign or demonstrate to protect peatlands Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link