Skip to main content

Table 1 Type of camera, defined by approximate cost, used by five UK governmental and non-governmental organisations carrying out wildlife research, monitoring or surveys using camera traps that responded to requests for information. Circle size represents qualitative frequency of use: ‘frequently’—large circle, ‘occasionally’—middle size circle, and ‘rarely’—small circle. Regarding peer-reviewed literature (final column), only studies that actually used camera traps for wildlife research or monitoring and for which we were able to obtain a copy were included. Camera trap quality follows classification of Meek and Pittet (2012), cost categories in US Dollars are approximate

From: Limitations of recreational camera traps for wildlife management and conservation research: A practitioner’s perspective

Camera trap quality UK NGOs and governmental organisations Peer-reviewed literature
1 2 3 4 5
Low-end (<300 USD) (38 %, n = 10)
Mid-range (301–370 USD) (23 %, n = 6)
High-end (371–740 USD) (38 %, n = 10)