Mitigation-driven translocations: Are we moving wildlife in the right direction?

Jennifer M. Germano, Kimberleigh J. Field, Richard A. Griffiths, Simon Clulow, Jim Foster, Gemma Harding, Ronald R. Swaisgood

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

127 Citations (Scopus)


Despite rapid growth in the field of reintroduction biology, results from scientific research are often not applied to translocations initiated when human land-use change conflicts with the continued persistence of a species' population at a particular site. Such mitigation-driven translocations outnumber and receive more funding than science-based conservation translocations, yet the conservation benefit of the former is unclear. Because mitigation releases are economically motivated, outcomes may be less successful than those of releases designed to serve the biological needs of species. Translocation as a regulatory tool may be ill-suited for biologically mitigating environmental damage caused by development. Evidence suggests that many mitigation-driven translocations fail, although the application of scientific principles and best practices would probably improve the success rate. Lack of transparency and failure to document outcomes also hinder efforts to understand the scope of the problem. If mitigation-driven translocations are to continue as part of the growing billion-dollar ecological consulting industry, it is imperative that the scale and effects of these releases be reported and evaluated.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)100-105
Number of pages6
JournalFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 1 Mar 2015
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'Mitigation-driven translocations: Are we moving wildlife in the right direction?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this