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

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 availa...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Amy L Sonricker Hansen, Annie Li, Damien Joly, Sumiko Mekaru, John S Brownstein
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2012
Materias:
R
Q
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/668f16993b6a46598182d293d3b1a7fb
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:668f16993b6a46598182d293d3b1a7fb
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:668f16993b6a46598182d293d3b1a7fb2021-11-18T08:05:59ZDigital surveillance: a novel approach to monitoring the illegal wildlife trade.1932-620310.1371/journal.pone.0051156https://doaj.org/article/668f16993b6a46598182d293d3b1a7fb2012-01-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/23236444/?tool=EBIhttps://doaj.org/toc/1932-6203A 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.Amy L Sonricker HansenAnnie LiDamien JolySumiko MekaruJohn S BrownsteinPublic Library of Science (PLoS)articleMedicineRScienceQENPLoS ONE, Vol 7, Iss 12, p e51156 (2012)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic Medicine
R
Science
Q
spellingShingle Medicine
R
Science
Q
Amy L Sonricker Hansen
Annie Li
Damien Joly
Sumiko Mekaru
John S Brownstein
Digital surveillance: a novel approach to monitoring the illegal wildlife trade.
description 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.
format article
author Amy L Sonricker Hansen
Annie Li
Damien Joly
Sumiko Mekaru
John S Brownstein
author_facet Amy L Sonricker Hansen
Annie Li
Damien Joly
Sumiko Mekaru
John S Brownstein
author_sort Amy L Sonricker Hansen
title Digital surveillance: a novel approach to monitoring the illegal wildlife trade.
title_short Digital surveillance: a novel approach to monitoring the illegal wildlife trade.
title_full Digital surveillance: a novel approach to monitoring the illegal wildlife trade.
title_fullStr Digital surveillance: a novel approach to monitoring the illegal wildlife trade.
title_full_unstemmed Digital surveillance: a novel approach to monitoring the illegal wildlife trade.
title_sort digital surveillance: a novel approach to monitoring the illegal wildlife trade.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
publishDate 2012
url https://doaj.org/article/668f16993b6a46598182d293d3b1a7fb
work_keys_str_mv AT amylsonrickerhansen digitalsurveillanceanovelapproachtomonitoringtheillegalwildlifetrade
AT annieli digitalsurveillanceanovelapproachtomonitoringtheillegalwildlifetrade
AT damienjoly digitalsurveillanceanovelapproachtomonitoringtheillegalwildlifetrade
AT sumikomekaru digitalsurveillanceanovelapproachtomonitoringtheillegalwildlifetrade
AT johnsbrownstein digitalsurveillanceanovelapproachtomonitoringtheillegalwildlifetrade
_version_ 1718422232614567936