Journal of Threatened Taxa |
www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 September 2020 | 12(13): 16736–16741
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online) | ISSN
0974-7893 (Print)
doi: https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6316.12.13.16736-16741
#6316 | Received 19 June 2020 |
Final received 29 July 2020 | Finally accepted 01 September 2020
University campuses can contribute to wildlife conservation in urbanizing
regions: a case study from Nigeria
Iliyasu Simon 1#, Jennifer Che 2 &
Lynne R. Baker 3
1,2,3 Department of Natural and
Environmental Sciences, American University of Nigeria, 98 Lamido
Zubiru Way, Yola Township Bypass, PMB 2250, Yola,
Adamawa State, Nigeria.
3 Current affiliation: Institute
for Development, Ecology, Conservation, and Cooperation, Rome, Italy.
# Deceased 22 August 2019, 2 jwittyche@gmail.com,
3 lynnerbaker@yahoo.com (corresponding author)
Editor: Priya Davidar, Sigur Nature Trust, Nilgiris,
India. Date
of publication: 26 September 2020 (online & print)
Citation: Simon, I., J. Che & L.R.
Baker (2020). University campuses can contribute to wildlife conservation in
urbanizing regions: a case study from Nigeria. Journal of Threatened Taxa 12(13): 16736–16741. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.6316.12.13.16736-16741
Copyright: © Simon et al. 2020. Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the
author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: No funding sources to
report.
Competing interests: The authors declare no
competing interests.
Author details: Iliyasu Simon worked for Wildlife Conservation Society’s Yankari Project at the Yankari
Game Reserve in Nigeria. He held a BSc in Natural and Environmental Sciences
from the American University of Nigeria. Jennifer
Che has a Master’s degree from the Durrell Institute of Conservation and
Ecology (University of Kent, UK). She has worked with endangered species at the
Durrell Wildlife Trust, where she conducted behavioral research on infant
lowland gorillas. She has expertise in environmental education and
sustainable development. Lynne R. Baker (PhD
in Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota, USA) is a senior research
associate with the Rome-based Institute for Development, Ecology, Conservation,
and Cooperation. She specializes in biocultural diversity conservation,
human-wildlife interactions, and human dimensions of conservation.
Author contribution: All authors designed the study; IS collected the data;
IS and JC organized the data; LRB performed data analyses; IS and LRB drafted
the manuscript; JC provided editorial inputs to the manuscript.
Acknowledgements: We thank Hayatu Raji and the Department of Natural and Environmental
Sciences at AUN for their support of this work.
Appreciation also goes to the late Patrick Byrne and Luqman
Jimoh.
Abstract: Globally, colleges
and universities are increasingly mandating sustainability and environmental
protection into their practices. To
date, such institutions have focused their efforts on recycling and energy-use
reduction and less on the management and conservation of wildlife and wildlife
habitats. However, in an increasingly urbanizing world, well-managed campuses
can provide habitat and even refuge for wildlife species. On the campus of a sustainability-minded university
in Nigeria, we used camera traps to determine the presence of wildlife and used
occupancy modeling to evaluate factors that
influenced the detectability and habitat use of two mammals for which we had
sufficient detections: White-tailed Mongoose Ichneumia
albicauda and Gambian Rat Cricetomys
gambianus.
Our intent was to gather baseline data on campus wildlife to inform
future research and make recommendations for maintaining wildlife
populations. We detected wildlife primarily
within less-disturbed areas that contained a designated nature area, and the
presence of a nature area was the key predictor variable influencing habitat
use. No measured variables influenced
detectability. This study supports other
research that highlights the importance of undisturbed or minimally disturbed
natural habitats on university campuses for wildlife, especially in
increasingly built-up and developed regions.
We recommend that institutions of higher education devote greater
resources to making campuses wildlife-friendly and increase opportunities for students
to engage in campus-based wildlife research and conservation and other
sustainability-related programs.
Keywords: Camera trap, Cricetomys gambianus,
detectability, habitat use, Ichneumia albicauda, occupancy modeling,
sustainability, wildlife management.
Hausa abstract: A duk
fadin duniya, kwalejoji da jami’o’i suna ƙara ba
da umarnin dorewa da kiyaye muhalli cikin ayyukansu. Har ya zuwa
yau, irin wadannan cibiyoyin sun mayar da hankalinsu kan sake sarrafawa da rage amfani da makamashi sun kuma rage kulawa da kiyaye namun daji
da muhalli. Sai dai kuma, duk da yawan
karuwar birane, harabar jami’a mai kyakkyawan tsari na iya
samar da mazauni har ma da mafaka ga nau’ukan namun
daji. A wata harabar jami’a mai ɗorewa a Nijeriya,
mun yi amfani
da tarko na kyamara don ƙaddara kasancewar halittu da amfani da tallan zama don kimanta abubuwan da suka shafi tasirin ganowa
da amfani da mazaunin dabbobi masu shayarwa
guda biyu waɗanda muke da cikakkun bincike game da su: White-tailed Mongoose Ichneumia
albicauda da Gambian Rat Cricetomys
gambianus. Manufarmu ita ce tattara
bayanan asali kan namun daji
na harabar don sanar da bincike na gaba da ba
da shawarwari don kiyaye yawan namun daji.
Mun gano dabbobin daji da farko a cikin yankunan
da ba hayaniya wanda ya ƙunshi
yanki na musamman, kuma kasancewar wani yanki shine maɓallin canjin tasiri mai
amfani da wurin zama. Babu wani
canji da aka auna wanda yayi tasiri
akan ganowa. Wannan binciken yana karfafa wasu
binciken da ke nuna mahimmancin rashin hayaniya a wuraren zama na
rayuwa a makarantun jami’a don rayuwar namun daji, musamman
a wuraren da ke da ingantattun gine-gine da yankuna masu tasowa.
Muna ba da shawarar cewa cibiyoyin
ilimi mafi girma su ba
da kaso mai tsoka don samar da cibiyoyin karatun abokantaka na namun
daji tare da haɓaka dama ga ɗalibai
don shiga cikin bincike da kiyaye namun daji na
cikin harabar makarantar da sauran shirye-shiryen da suka dace.
INTRODUCTION
Institutions of higher education are
increasingly integrating sustainability and environmental protection into their
missions and practices (van Weenen 2000; Calder &
Clugston 2003).
This movement has led to several partnership platforms, such as the U.S.-based
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education and
United Nations Environment Program’s Mainstreaming Environment and
Sustainability in African Universities Partnership. Although some universities have given
biodiversity conservation elevated importance (e.g., Kyushu University in
Japan, Normile 2004), to date campus sustainability
efforts have largely emphasized recycling programs and energy use (Bocsi et al. 2018).
Management and conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitats have
received comparatively limited attention.
For institutions that do engage in wildlife habitat management, they
generally favor certain practices, notably planting
native species and using sustainable practices for lawn maintenance and
landscaping, over providing food, water, and cover for wildlife (Bocsi et al. 2018).
Where campuses occur in crowded, urban
landscapes or landscapes affected by habitat degradation and deforestation,
natural campus sites may provide refuge for wildlife, including rare and
endangered species (Ramli 2004; Aneesh et al. 2013). For institutions that devote resources to
wildlife management, they may, at times by necessity, focus resources on the
most visible, common species or shift resources to managing “problem” domestic
animals. Such situations might include
managing abundant wildlife species that threaten people on campus (Hubbard
& Nielsen 2009) or managing increasing populations of feral cats (Tennent
et al. 2009; Dombrosky & Wolverton 2014). As a result, campus authorities may overlook rare or cryptic species.
We investigated the status of wildlife on the campus of a
sustainability-minded university in Nigeria.
We determined the presence of mammals using cameras and assessed how
anthropogenic and natural factors influenced detectability and habitat use of
these species using occupancy modeling. At the time of our study, the university’s
sustainability programs focused on waste management, recycling, and water and
energy conservation. Although the
university informally set aside two plots of land as nature areas in 2013 and
2015, there have been no dedicated efforts to manage these sites for wildlife;
for example, authorities regularly clear grasses in these areas to make the
campus more attractive to visitors and reduce the risk of fire. The surrounding region has no official
protected areas designated for biodiversity conservation. Because the university prohibits hunting and
trapping, the campus may provide wildlife with respite from anthropogenic
pressures in the region. The objectives
of this work were to gather baseline data on campus wildlife to inform future
research and recommend to university authorities best practices for maintaining
wildlife populations.
METHODS
We conducted this study in the dry season (January‒March 2018) on the
American University of Nigeria (AUN) campus in Yola, Adamawa State, in northeastern Nigeria (Image 1). AUN was constructed in 2003 on ~110ha of land
previously disturbed by livestock grazing, farming, and construction (Dariye 2016). Over
time, grazing and farming were restricted.
Regional habitat comprises
woodland-savanna-grassland mosaic.
Campus grounds are relatively open with sparse tree cover and abundant
grasses, particularly Gamba Grass Andropogon
gayanus. A
3m-high wall demarcates the campus perimeter.
This wall does not restrict wildlife movement, however. Three open areas along the wall serve as an
entrance for vehicles and a few parts of the wall are degraded, creating gaps
through which wildlife could pass.
Outside the university are mainly residential areas, farmland, and
farm-savanna mosaic; however, local development is increasing.
We divided the campus into four study zones representing undeveloped
sites: North Nature Zone (20ha, about half of which encompassed one of the two
nature areas), South Nature Zone (16.5ha, nearly all of which encompassed the
other nature area), Southwest Zone (4ha), and Northwest Zone (14ha). Although the university designated two nature
areas on campus, they were informally delimited and not strictly
protected. Each study zone varied by
amount of vegetative cover and distance from built structures, with the
nature-area zones having greater tree and shrub densities, commonly of Azadirachta indica and
Guiera senegalensis. South Nature Zone had the highest species
richness and diversity of woody plants (Dariye 2016).
Using a 150m-x-150m-grid overlay of the campus, we systematically placed
two cameras (Bushnell Trophy HD Aggressor) at 150m intervals along the grid
within each zone; we selected these intervals to ensure widespread coverage of
each study zone and the campus. We used
portable camera mounts set at a height of 30cm.
Our sampling effort was proportional, based on size of the study zone:
North Nature Zone: 37% (10 sampling points), South Nature Zone: 30% (8 points),
Southwest Zone: 7% (3 points), and Northwest Zone: 26% (8 points). Total number of sampling points was 29. During the study, we placed the two cameras
at different sampling points and surveyed each sampling point for three nights.
Using Program PRESENCE (Hines 2006), we fitted a series of single-season
occupancy models to the data. Number of
cameras deployed per site represented spatially replicated surveys. We modeled the
presence of each species to evaluate the influence of two site (habitat)
covariates: presence of livestock and presence of a nature area. We included three sampling (survey-specific)
covariates: detection of domestic cats (potential predators), whether the
camera was physically under tree cover, and distance (in meters) to the nearest
food/waste bin (standardized using a z-transformation).
Occupancy estimates rely on study designs that do not violate the basic
assumptions of occupancy modeling, of which one is
closure. We could not ensure that
closure was met in this study, so we interpreted occupancy (ψ) as the
proportion of sites used, instead of occupied, by a species (MacKenzie et al. 2006).
The models, thus, estimated habitat use (ψ) and detection
probabilities (p).
We initially held habitat use constant and modeled
detection probabilities considering sampling covariates; we then held detection
probabilities constant and modeled habitat use
considering site-specific covariates. We
used Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) adjusted for small sample size (AICc) to
calculate model weights. Starting with a
null model [ψ(.),p(.)], we used a forward-selection approach
(Baker et al. 2011). If a covariate did
not reduce AICc compared to the
null model, we removed that variable from the analysis. For each species, we initially conducted a
goodness-of-fit test on the global model.
Using 10,000 parametric bootstraps, we obtained a Pearson’s chi-square
statistic and estimated a variance inflation factor, ĉ. We then adjusted model ranks for overdispersion (ĉ > 1) using QAICc.
RESULTS
Cameras captured four wild mammals: White-tailed Mongoose Ichneumia albicauda (Image
2), Gambian Rat Cricetomys gambianus (Image 3), Banded Mongoose Mungos mungo, and Striped Ground Squirrel Xerus erythropus. None is a threatened species, and all are
widely distributed in Africa. Cameras
also captured feral cats and West African Dwarf goats. Of the mammals detected, we focused our
analyses on the species for which we had sufficient data: White-tailed Mongoose
and Gambian Rat. We detected White-tailed Mongoose only on the north side of
campus and never in the same zone as Banded Mongoose; we detected Gambian Rat
only in zones with nature areas. Cats occurred
across all study zones and goats in just one zone (Table 1).
For both White-tailed Mongoose and Gambian Rat, no sampling covariates
influenced detectability; all models with sampling covariates had a ∆QAICc > 5, indicating little support for these
models (Table 2). For White-tailed Mongoose,
the best-supported models of habitat use included both site covariates: nature
area and livestock (in this case, goats) (Table 2a). Each covariate had a slightly positive effect
(nature area: β = 0.215, SE = 1.607; goats: β = 25.952, SE = not estimated).
For Gambian Rat, the best-supported models also included nature area and
livestock (Table 2b). Nature area had a positive effect on habitat use (β =
29.199, SE = not estimated), whereas presence of goats had a negative effect (β
= –27.327, SE = not estimated).
DISCUSSION
Given regional anthropogenic
pressures, such as population growth, deforestation, and land degradation, we
expected wildlife to use the AUN campus as university grounds provide some
protection from exploitation. Most
detections of wildlife in this study were within less-disturbed zones
containing nature areas. That we did not
detect wildlife in the Southwest Zone may be an artefact of sampling effort
(i.e., smaller area) or because human disturbance around this area was common during
our study. This research supports other
studies that show that undisturbed or minimally disturbed natural habitats on
campuses can support wildlife, providing refuge in urban or urbanizing regions
(e.g., rare birds in Malaysia, Ramli 2004; endemic and rare butterflies in
India, Aneesh et al. 2013).
We were unsurprised that White-tailed Mongoose occurred in areas of the
AUN campus disturbed by road traffic, lighting, and regular mowing
activity. The species is known to
tolerate anthropogenic pressures (Schuette et al. 2013). We most often captured White-tailed Mongoose
in relatively open areas with abundant short and medium grasses, habitat
preferred by this species (Waser 1980). Although the
species also prefers open woodland and bush, within these habitats it forages
in grassy areas where invertebrate prey may be abundant (Admasu
et al. 2004). Although modeling revealed that the presence of goats positively
influenced habitat use of White-tailed Mongoose, this relationship may not be
meaningful; instead, it may relate to the habitat characteristics in the zone
where we detected goats. Sheep and goats
infrequently occur on campus, and we detected goats once, in the Northwest
Zone. This zone is primarily open,
grassy habitat, which is likely important foraging habitat for White-tailed
Mongoose. Additionally, studies have
shown that livestock activity negatively influences the detectability of
White-tailed Mongoose (e.g., Ramesh & Downs 2015). That this species did not use the South
Nature Zone may relate to the area’s greater tree cover or the presence of
Banded Mongoose, even though the two species have different activity regimens
and sociality.
Cameras captured Gambian Rat only
in nature-area zones. This was expected
given the species prefers well-shaded areas and burrows inside deserted termite
mounds and underneath tree roots (Ajayi 1977).
Having a low tolerance to heat, Gambian Rat is physiologically adapted
to burrowing habitats in cooler environments, such as under tree cover (Knight
1988). In this study, the presence of
feral cats, potential predators of rats, did not affect the species’
detectability.
Our findings should be considered
in context of the limitations of this research.
Only two cameras were available for this study, which restricted the
number of trap nights and our ability to survey areas simultaneously across
campus. In addition, we were unable to
model habitat use for other captured species due to an insufficient number of
detections.
Although limited in scope, this
study provided insight into wildlife habitat use on the AUN campus. The importance of maintaining minimally
disturbed nature areas is evident. We
recommend that campus authorities clearly delineate the two nature areas, train
facility workers on acceptable activities in these areas, and post clearly
marked signboards along boundaries and walking trails. Presently, controlling feral cats does not
seem important; however, the university should monitor the campus cat population
to track potential changes over time.
For White-tailed Mongoose, we recommend that authorities avoid
completely cutting down grasses. For
Gambian Rat, we recommend tree planting to provide additional cover and food
sources, as well as the preservation of old termite mounds as potential burrows
for this species. Given the use of
pesticides across campus, we also recommend research to investigate potential
impacts of pesticide spraying on insect abundance and water sources.
Finally, campus authorities
should involve students more in campus-based wildlife research and other
sustainability projects. This could
include promoting and engaging conservation, wildlife, sustainability, or
similar student associations in institutional-level sustainability research and
planning. In addition, institutions that maintain natural habitats on their
campuses provide convenient research sites for students. Campus projects allow for experiential
learning in which students can contribute to practical wildlife research and
management (McCleery et al. 2005). Furthermore, university sustainability
programs that place greater emphasis on student involvement in environmental
activities lead to physical campus improvements, such as tree planting, as well
as affect students’ sense of place and mental well-being (Krasny & Delia
2015).
Table 1.
Species detected in this study, zones where detected, and number of
detections. A ‘+’ denotes one detection,
while ‘—’ denotes no detection. Multiple
‘+’ signs reflect the total number of detections for that zone.
Species |
Northwest
|
North |
Southwest
Zone |
South |
White-tailed
Mongoose |
+++ |
++ |
— |
— |
Gambian
Rat |
— |
++ |
— |
+++ |
Banded
Mongoose |
— |
— |
— |
+ |
Striped
Ground Squirrel |
— |
+ |
— |
— |
Domestic
cat |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+++ |
Dwarf
goat |
+ |
— |
— |
— |
Table 2.
Results of model selection for habitat use and detection probability using AIC
corrected for sample size and overdispersion (QAICc). Best-supported models were those with lower
QAICc scores relative to the null model [ψ(.),p(.)]
and model weights > 0.10.
a) White-tailed Mongoose
Model |
QAICc |
∆QAICc |
Model
weight |
Likelihood |
Kb |
-2* LogLikehood |
ψ(nature
area), p(.) |
25.13 |
0.00 |
0.4997 |
1.0000 |
2 |
23.22 |
ψ(goats),
p(.) |
26.49 |
1.36 |
0.2531 |
0.5066 |
2 |
24.78 |
ψ(.),p(.) |
27.35 |
2.22 |
0.1647 |
0.3296 |
2 |
25.76 |
ψ(.),p(distance-bins) |
30.64 |
5.51 |
0.0318 |
0.0636 |
2 |
29.52 |
ψ(.),p(cats) |
31.04 |
5.91 |
0.0260 |
0.0521 |
2 |
29.98 |
ψ(.),p(tree
cover) |
31.26 |
6.13 |
0.0233 |
0.0467 |
2 |
30.23 |
Global modela |
36.83 |
11.70 |
0.0014 |
0.0029 |
5 |
24.92 |
b) Gambian Rat
Model |
QAICc |
∆QAICc |
Model
weight |
Likelihood |
Kb |
-2* LogLikehood |
ψ(nature
area),p(.) |
24.88 |
0.00 |
0.4964 |
1.0000 |
2 |
23.22 |
ψ(goats),p(.) |
26.23 |
1.35 |
0.2528 |
0.5092 |
2 |
24.78 |
ψ(.),p(.) |
27.07 |
2.19 |
0.1661 |
0.3345 |
2 |
25.76 |
ψ(.),p(distance-bins) |
30.33 |
5.45 |
0.0325 |
0.0655 |
2 |
29.52 |
ψ(.),p(cats) |
30.72 |
5.84 |
0.0268 |
0.0539 |
2 |
29.98 |
ψ(.),p(tree
cover) |
30.94 |
6.06 |
0.0240 |
0.0483 |
2 |
30.23 |
Global modelc |
36.57 |
11.69 |
0.0014 |
0.0029 |
5 |
24.94 |
(.)
Indicates that the parameter was held constant
a Used to
estimate ĉ using 10,000 parametric bootstraps (ĉ = 1.1424)
b Number of
model parameters
c Used to
estimate ĉ using 10,000 parametric bootstraps (ĉ = 1.1565)
REFERENCES
Admasu, E., S.J. Thirgood, A. Bekele & M.K. Laurenson (2004). Spatial ecology of white-tailed mongoose in farmland in the Ethiopian
Highlands. African Journal of Ecology 42: 153‒159. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2004.00498.x
Ajayi, S.S. (1977). Field observations on the African giant rat Cricetomys
gambianus Waterhouse in southern Nigeria. East
African Wildlife Journal 15: 191‒198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.1977.tb00397.x
Aneesh, K.S., C.K. Adarsh &
P.O. Nameer (2013). Butterflies of Kerala Agricultural University (KAU) campus, Thrissur,
Kerala, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5: 4422–4440. https://doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o2870.4422-40
Baker, L.R., T.W. Arnold, O.S. Olubode & D.L. Garshelis
(2011). Considerations for using
occupancy surveys to monitor forest primates: a case study with Sclater’s monkey (Cercopithecus sclateri).
Population Ecology 53: 549–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-011-0274-5
Bocsi, T., P.S. Warren, R.W. Harper & S. DeStefano (2018). Wildlife habitat management on college and university campuses. Cities
and the Environment 11(1): Article 1.
Calder, W. & R.M. Clugston (2003). International
efforts to promote higher education for sustainable development. Planning
for Higher Education 31: 30‒44.
Dariye, E.P. (2016). Woody plant diversity
and composition in two nature areas on the American University of Nigeria
campus, Yola, Adamawa State. Unpublished undergraduate thesis. American
University of Nigeria, Yola, Adamawa State, Nigeria.
Dombrosky, J. & S. Wolverton (2014). TNR and conservation on a university campus: a political ecological
perspective. PeerJ 2: e312. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.312
Hines, J.E. (2006). PRESENCE–Software to estimate patch occupancy and related parameters.
USGS-PWRC. https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/software/presence.html
Hubbard, R.D. & C.K. Nielsen
(2009). White-tailed deer attacking
humans during the fawning season: a unique human–wildlife conflict on a
university campus. Human-Wildlife Conflicts 3: 129–135. https://doi.org/10.26077/409s-td37
Knight, M.H. (1988). Thermoregulation in the largest African cricetid, the giant rat Cricetomys gambianus.
Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 89: 705–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9629(88)90856-0
Krasny, M.E. & J. Delia
(2015). Natural area stewardship as part
of campus sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 106: 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.019
MacKenzie, D.I., J.D. Nichols, J.A. Royle, K.H.
Pollock, L.L. Bailey & J.E. Hines (eds.) (2006). Occupancy Estimation and Modeling: Inferring Patterns and Dynamics
of Species Occurrence. Elsevier, San Diego, CA.
McCleery, R.A., R.R. Lopez, L.A. Harveson, N.J. Silvy & R.D. Slack (2005). Integrating on-campus wildlife research projects into the wildlife
curriculum. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33: 802–809. https://doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[802:IOWRPI]2.0.CO;2
Normile, D. (2004). Conservation takes a
front seat as university builds new campus. Science 305(5682): 329–331. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.305.5682.329
Ramesh, T. & C.T. Downs
(2015). Impact of land use on occupancy
and abundance of terrestrial mammals in the Drakensberg Midlands, South Africa.
Journal for Nature Conservation 23: 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2014.12.001
Ramli, R. (2004). Green areas and avian species richness in University of Malaya campus,
peninsular Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Science 23: 7‒13.
https://mjs.um.edu.my/article/view/8498
Schuette, P., A.P. Wagner, M.E.
Wagner & S. Creel (2013). Occupancy patterns
and niche partitioning within a diverse carnivore community exposed to
anthropogenic pressures. Biological Conservation 158: 301–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.08.008
Tennent, J., C.T. Downs & M. Bodasing (2009). Management recommendations for feral cat (Felis
catus) populations within an urban conservancy in
KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. South African Journal of Wildlife
Research 39: 137‒142. https://doi.org/10.3957/056.039.0211
Waser, P.M. (1980). Small nocturnal
carnivores: ecological studies in the Serengeti. African Journal of Ecology
18: 167‒185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.1980.tb00640.x
van Weenen, H. (2000). Towards a vision of a sustainable university. International Journal
of Sustainability in Higher Education 1: 20‒34. https://doi.org/10.1108/1467630010307075