Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27930730›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

Effects of Recreation on Animals Revealed as Widespread through a Global Systematic Review.

Courtney L Larson, Sarah E Reed, Adina M Merenlender, Kevin R Crooks

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Use of species' responses to cryptic anthropogenic disturbances for monitoring biodiversity outcomes in tropical forests.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Threats to conservation from artificial-intelligence-generated wildlife images and videos.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Temporal displacement of the mammal community in a protected area due to hunting and recreational activities.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Courtney L LarsonDepartment of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3878-259X
Sarah E ReedDepartment of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.
Adina M MerenlenderDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, California, United States of America.
Kevin R CrooksDepartment of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Outdoor recreation is typically assumed to be compatible with biodiversity conservation and is permitted in most protected areas worldwide. However, increasing numbers of studies are discovering negative effects of recreation on animals. We conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature and analyzed 274 articles on the effects of non-consumptive recreation on animals, across all geographic areas, taxonomic groups, and recreation activities. We quantified trends in publication rates and outlets, identified knowledge gaps, and assessed evidence for effects of recreation. Although publication rates are low and knowledge gaps remain, the evidence was clear with over 93% of reviewed articles documenting at least one effect of recreation on animals, the majority of which (59%) were classified as negative effects. Most articles focused on mammals (42% of articles) or birds (37%), locations in North America (37.7%) or Europe (26.6%), and individual-level responses (49%). Meanwhile, studies of amphibians, reptiles, and fish, locations in South America, Asia, and Africa, and responses at the population and community levels are lacking. Although responses are likely to be species-specific in many cases, some taxonomic groups (e.g., raptors, shorebirds, ungulates, and corals) had greater evidence for an effect of recreation. Counter to public perception, non-motorized activities had more evidence for a negative effect of recreation than motorized activities, with effects observed 1.2 times more frequently. Snow-based activities had more evidence for an effect than other types of recreation, with effects observed 1.3 times more frequently. Protecting biodiversity from potentially harmful effects of recreation is a primary concern for conservation planners and land managers who face increases in park visitation rates; accordingly, there is demand for science-based information to help solve these dilemmas.

Indexed as

BiodiversityRecreationAnimals

Identifiers

PMID27930730
PMCPMC5145168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.