Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012;7(12):e51156.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0051156. Epub 2012 Dec 7.

Digital surveillance: a novel approach to monitoring the illegal wildlife trade

Affiliations

Digital surveillance: a novel approach to monitoring the illegal wildlife trade

Amy L Sonricker Hansen et al. PLoS One. 2012.

Abstract

A dearth of information obscures the true scale of the global illegal trade in wildlife. Herein, we introduce an automated web crawling surveillance system developed to monitor reports on illegally traded wildlife. A resource for enforcement officials as well as the general public, the freely available website, http://www.healthmap.org/wildlifetrade, provides a customizable visualization of worldwide reports on interceptions of illegally traded wildlife and wildlife products. From August 1, 2010 to July 31, 2011, publicly available English language illegal wildlife trade reports from official and unofficial sources were collected and categorized by location and species involved. During this interval, 858 illegal wildlife trade reports were collected from 89 countries. Countries with the highest number of reports included India (n = 146, 15.6%), the United States (n = 143, 15.3%), South Africa (n = 75, 8.0%), China (n = 41, 4.4%), and Vietnam (n = 37, 4.0%). Species reported as traded or poached included elephants (n = 107, 12.5%), rhinoceros (n = 103, 12.0%), tigers (n = 68, 7.9%), leopards (n = 54, 6.3%), and pangolins (n = 45, 5.2%). The use of unofficial data sources, such as online news sites and social networks, to collect information on international wildlife trade augments traditional approaches drawing on official reporting and presents a novel source of intelligence with which to monitor and collect news in support of enforcement against this threat to wildlife conservation worldwide.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Wildlife trade website showing time period from August 1, 2010 to July 31, 2011.
Illegal wildlife trade reports received through the automated system are shown with the orange pins. Screenshot taken November 3, 2011. www.healthmap.org/wildlifetrade.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illegal wildlife trade interception points with darker areas showing countries with greater numbers of wildlife and wildlife products intercepted by enforcement officials.
ESRI 2011. ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gratwicke B, Evans MJ, Jenkins PT, Kusrini MD, Moore RD, et al. (2010) Is the international frog legs trade a potential vector for deadly amphibian pathogens? Front Ecol Environ 8: 438–442.
    1. Karesh WB, Cook RA, Bennett EL, Newcomb J (2005) Wildlife trade and global disease emergence. Emerg Infect Dis 11: 1000–1002. - PMC - PubMed
    1. TRAFFIC International (2008) Our Work: wildlife trade. Available: http://www.traffic.org/trade/. Accessed: 2012 May 29.
    1. World Wildlife Fund (1994) How CITES works. In: Hemley G, editor. International Wildlife Trade: A CITES Sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 1–9.
    1. Barber-Meyer SM (2010) Dealing with the clandestine nature of wildlife-trade market surveys. Conserv Biol 24: 918–923. - PubMed

Publication types