Study finds fewer mammals near tourism routes in Laos protected area

What you need to know

• The study modelled mean availability of 8.39 medium and large mammal species at camera stations more than 1 km from tourism routes, compared with 4.58 at nearer stations. These are modelled estimates for camera capture, not counts of animals or population changes. 1
• Sambar deer, wild boar and crab-eating mongoose each had significantly lower availability near tourism routes. No species examined showed a significant increase there. 1
• Fewer hunters were detected at tourism sites, but the study did not demonstrate that tourism reduced hunting. Its authors said direct measures, such as snaring rates or hunting mortality, would help assess that possibility. 12
• Tourism’s potential conservation effects may differ by place and approach. Reporting on other projects describes possible community-income and hunting benefits, but those examples do not establish a net benefit in Nam Ha. 2
• For protected-area managers, the findings caution against treating tourism as automatically beneficial or harmful. Assessing its effects requires considering wildlife responses alongside direct evidence of hunting pressure. 12

Why this matters

Tourism is sometimes considered alongside conservation and community benefits, but wildlife may also avoid areas used by people. Understanding both responses is important when assessing tourism’s role in protected-area management. 12

What happens next

Further work could measure hunting pressure directly and investigate whether route placement or other landscape factors help explain the patterns. Longer-term research could also examine whether responses vary among species or change as animals encounter visitors over time. 12

What we know

• The original study analysed camera-trap records from 58 stations collected between 2013 and 2018 in Nam Ha National Protected Area. 1
• A separate camera-trap study in Suriname also reported wildlife responses to human activity around tourism routes, including avoidance or changes in activity patterns for some mammals. 3
• The Laos study is observational: it reports associations between tourism-route proximity and wildlife or hunter detections, rather than demonstrating that tourism caused them. 12

What we don't know

• It remains unclear whether tourism itself explains lower mammal availability near routes, or whether route placement and other landscape factors contribute. 1
• The study does not establish whether tourism reduces hunting across the wider protected area, or how any such effect compares with possible disturbance near routes. 12
• Longer-term effects on mammal populations and community livelihoods are unresolved. The available evidence also does not show whether wildlife responses change over time or differ as animals become habituated to visitors. 12

Read the reporting

This WildNews briefing synthesises and summarises reporting from the sources below. WildNews did not produce the original reporting. Learn more about how we use AI