Set minimum distances for approaching birds (buffer zones)

Overall effectiveness category No evidence found (no assessment)
Number of studies: 0
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

not assessed
Certainty

not assessed
Harms

not assessed

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Disturbance by people on foot or in vehicles can reduce birds’ use of habitats, or drive them into less favourable habitats. Preventing people from approaching birds too closely may help reduce disturbance. We found two studies that investigated the distances at which birds were disturbed by people: one found that people on foot disturbed birds at greater distances than people in boats (Rodgers & Smoth 1995); the second found that different species reacted differently to disturbance (Rodgers & Schwikert 2002). Both recommended buffer zones of between 100 and 180 m around breeding or feeding birds.

Rodgers, J.A. & Smith, H.T. (1995) Set-back distances to protect nesting bird colonies from human disturbance in Florida. Conservation Biology, 9, 89–99.

Rodgers, J.A. & Schwikert, S.T. (2002) Buffer-zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from disturbance by personal watercraft and outboard-powered boats. Conservation Biology, 16, 216–224.

Key messages

We captured no evidence for the effects on bird populations of setting minimum distances for approaching birds.

'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.

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.

Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 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:

Bird Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Use voluntary agreements with local people to reduce disturbance Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	1	Synopsis Link
Use nest covers to reduce the impact of research on predation of ground-nesting seabirds Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Start educational programmes for personal watercraft owners Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	1	Synopsis Link