Use of Wildlife Webcams— 

Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography

By Joan M. Ratz and Shannon J. Conk

Open-File Report 2010-1306

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Marcia K. McNutt, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2010

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth,

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

Suggested citation:

Ratz, J.M., Conk, S.J., 2010, Use of wildlife webcams—Literature review and annotated bibliography: 

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1306, 42 p.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual 

copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this report. 

Cover photos: Randy Robinson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
iii

Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Goal of Review .............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Literature Search Process ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Summary of Literature ................................................................................................................................................... 3

Effects of Webcam Use.............................................................................................................................................. 3

Wildlife Cameras .................................................................................................................................................... 4

Virtual Tourism....................................................................................................................................................... 5

Technological Nature ............................................................................................................................................. 6

Equipment Alternatives .............................................................................................................................................. 7

Issues in Remote Photography .............................................................................................................................. 7

Wildlife Cameras .................................................................................................................................................... 8

Camera Options.................................................................................................................................................. 8

Image Retrieval................................................................................................................................................... 9

System Maintenance and Monitoring.................................................................................................................10

Time to Assemble..............................................................................................................................................11

Power Source ....................................................................................................................................................11

Light Source ......................................................................................................................................................12

Camera Mount...................................................................................................................................................12

Frequency of Image Recording..........................................................................................................................13

Consequences for Animals................................................................................................................................13

Equipment Security............................................................................................................................................14

Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................................15

Addendum....................................................................................................................................................................16

Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................................................16

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................................17

Appendix.......................................................................................................................................................................23

Table

1. Annotated references and topics addressed in select wildlife remote photography articles ............................. 24
1

Use of Wildlife Webcams: Literature Review and 

Annotated Bibliography

By Joan M. Ratz and Shannon J. Conk

Abstract

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Conservation Training Center requested a literature 

review product that would serve as a resource to natural resource professionals interested in using 

webcams to connect people with nature. The literature review focused on the effects on the public of 

viewing wildlife through webcams and on information regarding installation and use of webcams. We 

searched the peer reviewed, published literature for three topics: wildlife cameras, virtual tourism, and 

technological nature. Very few publications directly addressed the effect of viewing wildlife webcams. 

The review of information on installation and use of cameras yielded information about many aspects of

the use of remote photography, but not much specifically regarding webcams. Aspects of wildlife 

camera use covered in the literature review include: camera options, image retrieval, system 

maintenance and monitoring, time to assemble, power source, light source, camera mount, frequency of 

image recording, consequences for animals, and equipment security. Webcam technology is relatively 

new and more publication regarding the use of the technology is needed. Future research should 

specifically study the effect that viewing wildlife through webcams has on the viewers’ conservation 

attitudes, behaviors, and sense of connectedness to nature. 

Goal of Review

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Conservation Training Center (NCTC) hosts 

a pair of bald eagles on its campus near Shepherdstown, W. Va. The NCTC installed a webcam 

(referred to as the NCTC Eagle Cam) in such a position that it provides a direct view down into the 

eagle nest. The NCTC Eagle Cam generates a lot of interest. For example, a “Friends” group—a group 

of private citizens formed to support a refuge or park—originated from a group of people who viewed 

the webcam and read a blog about the eagle cam (http://eaglecam.blogspot.com/). The Eaglet Momsters 

(http://eagletmomsters.com/) are an ad-hoc Friends group that raises funds to support the webcam. They 

have engaged in activities that indirectly support the eagles. For example, NCTC allows limited deer 

hunting on the campus to control the deer population. These dedicated viewers of the Eagle webcam 

heard shots through the microphone on the webcam and noticed that the eagles were disturbed by the 

sound and left the nest. The situation was reported to NCTC so that action could be taken to minimize 

disturbance to the eagles (Randy Robinson, oral commun., 2010). Other organizations and agencies with 

an interest in installing and operating a webcam at their own facilities have contacted the NCTC with 

questions about the webcam. Staff at the NCTC can provide information about the technical issues of 

installation of their webcam, but they lack a resource that provides information on the effect of 

webcams on the viewing public and the range of webcam options available. 

The FWS is making an effort to use technology to connect people with nature and to generate 

interest in the refuges it manages. Podcasts about refuge features and a refuge cellphone tour are among 
2

the technologies being used to reach the public (Leggett, 2009). There is a need to know in what way 

and how well these technologies work to connect people with nature and the effect they have on 

environmental attitudes and behaviors. 

The NCTC entered an intragovernmental agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch (PASA), located at the Fort Collins Science Center

(FORT), to produce a literature review and an annotated bibliography summarizing current research and 

information available on the use of wildlife webcams. The purpose of the literature review was to

provide the NCTC with a synthesis of peer reviewed information regarding the positive, indirect effects 

of webcam viewing by the public. Such a review provides the NCTC with information to support 

decisions about their own webcam and also allows them to advise other organizations and agencies 

considering the use of wildlife webcams. Additionally, a summary of equipment alternatives and an 

annotated bibliography provide tools that the NCTC can distribute to interested parties. The summary 

and bibliography will help others locate resources describing webcam alternatives including equipment 

and installation options. 

Literature Search Process

Each author (Ratz and Conk) independently conducted a literature search. We looked for case 

studies of webcam use with wildlife and for studies that linked webcam use to conservation education 

outcomes, and conservation interest and behaviors. The initial search, conducted by Conk, involved 

using the key phrases “wildlife webcam”, “wildlife web cam”, “nature webcam”, and “nature web cam”

to search in the EBSCO and LexisNexis publication databases, and in the Google and Google Scholar 

online search engines. While this search resulted in locating some articles about use of webcams to view 

wildlife, the articles did not make a connection (beyond anecdotes or speculation) between viewing 

webcams and the development of a sense of connectedness to the environment or enhanced conservation 

attitudes. The articles generally described the type of animal viewed and perhaps commented on the 

number of viewer hits the website had received. The articles located in this search were often from 

popular rather than scholarly publications. When this initial search yielded less information than we 

expected, Ratz completed a second literature search. This search involved using the same four key 

phrases in the Web of Science, Agricola, and Wildlife & Ecology Studies databases. This second search 

was as fruitless as the first.

Surprised by this outcome, we enlisted the help of two research librarians: the FORT librarian 

and a reference librarian at Colorado State University specializing in Natural Resources content areas.

We described the intent of our literature search, the key phrases we used, and in which databases or 

search engines we had searched, and asked for the librarians’ assistance in refining or redirecting our 

search. Based on their recommendations, we conducted new searches in the Web of Science, CAB 

Abstracts, and Agricola databases. We used the following key phrases as search terms: nest camera*, 

wireless camera*, video camera*, miniature video camera*, digital camera*, camera station*, and 

camera*. In the search terms, the asterisks imply the use of a wildcard search. For example, using an 

asterisk following the “camera” results in the inclusion of all possible endings and would include 

“camera” and “cameras” in the same search. Each of these seven key phrases was searched twice in 

each database, once paired with the word “wildlife” and once paired with the word “animal”. This 

search resulted in hundreds of citations; we selected 90 articles to review. 

We selected articles based on the recency of the publication, the level of detail in describing the 

technology, and the contribution to our review. Technology changes rapidly and because of the lag in 

publication time there were no articles that described state-of-the-art camera technology. In this report, 

we tried to include articles describing more recent technology rather than outdated technology. For 
3

some articles, the focus was the camera technology and its suitability for use in wildlife studies. We 

included as many of these as we could without undue redundancy. We included articles in our review—

even if they were dated—if a technology or use of remote photography was described in the article that 

was not described elsewhere in the set of articles we reviewed. We consider this set of references to be 

the result of our “wildlife camera” topic search. Very few of these articles specifically discussed the use 

of webcams. However, they did provide information on the use of multiple camera technologies that 

may be of interest to someone considering installation of a webcam. 

While reviewing these articles, we came across a reference to virtual tourism. This reference 

prompted us to conduct another search in the same three databases as the “wildlife camera” search, 

using the key phrase “virtual tourism”. We used four key phrases in this search; we searched with 

“virtual tourism” alone and paired with the words “animal”, “wildlife”, and “nature”. We located 13 

articles to review by this search process. While reviewing the virtual tourism articles, we discovered two 

additional possible search terms—“virtual nature” and “cybertourism”. In the same databases as the 

other searches, we conducted searches using “virtual nature” and searches using “cybertourism” alone 

and paired with the words “animal”, “wildlife”, and “nature”. The search results added another five

articles to our review.

Finally, Ratz was browsing through a journal and incidentally located an article referring to 

“technological nature”, so we conducted another literature search using “technological nature” as a key 

phrase. We located one additional article using this search term.

Summary of Literature

There were two goals for our literature review. We first intended to identify and summarize the 

effects on people who view wildlife through webcams. Second, we reviewed the literature for 

information on equipment alternatives and issues necessary for someone installing a webcam to 

consider. We summarized the literature relevant to each goal separately. Because we reviewed three 

distinct sets of publications—wildlife cameras, virtual tourism, and technological nature—we grouped 

our summaries accordingly. 

Effects of Webcam Use

In our literature search, we looked for studies that provided evidence of the effects on the public 

of viewing wildlife through webcams. Specifically, we were interested in how webcam viewing affected 

viewers’ environmental and conservation attitudes, outdoor recreation behaviors, and sense of 

connectedness to the environment. Is viewing wildlife webcams linked with an increased interest in 

environmental concerns? Increased interest in the natural world? Increased participation in outdoor 

recreation? Is viewing wildlife webcams a substitute activity for outdoor recreation, making people less 

likely to go outdoors? Does viewing wildlife webcams promote a sense of connectedness to the 

environment or foster a sense of disconnectedness by making experiencing nature like watching a 

television show? Or, does viewing wildlife webcams have no effect on attitudes and behaviors? We 

searched for research studies that addressed these questions.

We were unable to identify any studies that directly addressed these questions for webcams. We 

subsequently looked to analogous literatures that would still be informative about these questions, albeit 

not precisely on point. In the wildlife camera literature, we found speculation about how webcams or 

other forms of remote photography footage could be used to connect with and inform the public. The 

virtual tourism literature includes survey research on people’s opinions of virtual travel, although much 

of the research is not specific to travel to natural areas. The technological nature literature is newer and 
4

therefore limited. Early results of this body of research indicate that people can gain benefits from 

experiencing nature through technology, but that the benefits may be limited. These three literatures are 

summarized in more detail below.

Wildlife Cameras

We scanned the literature on a broad range of remote photographic techniques to find 

information that would be pertinent to those considering using webcams to observe wildlife and to 

connect people with nature. Studies conducted for many different purposes make use of remote 

photography. Remote photography is used in studies of wildlife crossing structures (Braden and others, 

2008; Donaldson, 2007; Fiehler and others, 2007; Kleist and others, 2007; Ng and others, 2004),

wildlife use of water catchments (Lynn and others, 2008; O’Brien and others, 2006), wildlife reaction to 

fences (Karhu and Anderson, 2006; VerCauteren and others, 2007), wildlife presence and population 

estimates of species (Foresman and Pearson, 1998; Harrison, 2006; Hristov and others, 2008; 

Huckschlag, 2008; Kelly and others, 2008; Larrucea and others, 2007; Locke and others, 2005; 

MacNulty and others, 2008; Marnewick and others, 2008; Moruzzi and others, 2002; Scheibe and 

others, 2008; Silveira and others, 2003; Song and others, 2008; Srbek-Araujo and Chiarello, 2005; 

Stewart and others, 1997; Watts and others, 2008; Yasuda and Kawakami, 2002), the effect of human 

presence and disturbance on animals (DeLap and Knight, 2004; George and Crooks, 2006; Langston 

and others, 2007; Salgado Kent and Crabtree, 2008), wildlife reproductive behaviors (Langbein and 

others, 1998; Maniscalco and others, 2006; Newbery and Southwell, 2009), nest studies (Cain and 

others, 2003; Grivas and others, 2009; Hanula and others, 2000; Hebert and Golightly, 2007; Hudson 

and Bird, 2006; King and others, 2001; Kristan and others, 1996; Lewis and others, 2004; Malt and 

Lank, 2007; Margalida and others, 2006; McQuillen and Brewer, 2000; Pietz and Granfors, 2000; 

Purcell and Verner, 1999; Reif and Tornberg, 2006; Renfrew and Ribic, 2003; Rogers and others, 2005; 

Staller and others, 2005; Steen, 2009; Sykes and others, 1995; Thompson and Burhans, 2003; Towerton 

and others, 2008), specific animal behavior (Stevens and Serfass, 2005), and den studies (McGee and 

others, 2005). 

However, we found very few studies that described the potential impact on the public of viewing 

wildlife through technological means beyond the mere mention of the possibility of using photographs 

for educational purposes (Cutler and Swann, 1999; Locke and others, 2005; Reif and Tornberg, 2006; 

Siraj-Blatchford, 2006; Swann and others, 2004). Siraj-Blatchford (2006) suggested that using webcams 

that were set up to view wild areas could be a way of allowing children to learn from the environment. 

Kooyman (2007) described the positive effect that the television series “CRITTERCAM Chronicles” 

has had on public interest in the environment; Moll and others (2007) noted that the same television 

series has a lot of public appeal and educational value. However, no systematic research on public 

response to the program was reported. Kristan and others (1996) developed and tested a video camera 

with a wireless transmitter to record activities in an osprey nest. The footage was available for public 

viewing at a visitor center near the location of the transmitter. The authors noted the public accessibility

of the video and comment that interpretive information was provided by the U.S. Forest Service, but did 

not describe the public response. Locke and others (2005) posted the photographs collected from their 

web-based, digital camera system to a website to make the photographs accessible to the public. They 

briefly discussed the value of having such photographs available to the public and the potential for using 

photographs as educational tools; however, they did not provide any data on the extent to which the 

photographs were viewed or how they were used by the public. We found no specific research on the 

effect on individuals of using webcams or other media to present wildlife footage. 
5

Protecting the environment may be another outcome of viewing wildlife via webcam. The 

research of George and Crooks (2006) demonstrated that human activity in natural areas affects wild 

animal use of the same area. In their literature review, they cited the adverse effect of human recreation 

in the outdoors on the survival of wildlife. Although George and Crooks (2006) did not make the 

argument, their research and the literature they cited could be used to support the position that observing 

wildlife through remote means may be more environmentally friendly than actual observation of 

wildlife in the outdoors. An example of this potential use is the webcam at the McNeil River State 

Game Sanctuary in Alaska. The webcam allows more individuals to view the bears (“Current Biology”, 

2006). Access to the sanctuary is limited and those individuals granted access are selected by lottery. 

Although we found evidence of webcams being used to expose individuals to wildlife, we could not 

locate any research articles demonstrating whether individuals’ intended or actual recreation in natural 

areas was affected by viewing wildlife webcams or wildlife footage distributed through other media. 

Virtual Tourism

Much of the literature on virtual tourism or virtual experiences of nature in scholarly journals 

and trade publications included comments regarding the effects of experiencing nature through 

technology rather than directly. However, many of those comments were speculative (for example, 

Caneday, 1992) rather than empirically based. In the articles reporting data-based research, surveys 

were a common research method. While survey research is a useful method, it does not provide the 

same perspective as measuring effects after actual exposure to the technology of interest. Finally, there 

was little in the published literature regarding webcams specifically. Most of the research addressed 

virtual reality technology. Prideaux (2002, p. 318) defined the term cybertourism as “an electronically 

simulated travel experience that is a substitute for a physical tourism experience”. This definition is 

more inclusive than virtual tourism and could be interpreted to extend to the use of webcams. 

Researchers anticipate that virtual reality or virtual tourism will have an effect on travel to 

natural places. However, the potential effect is viewed as being either beneficial or detrimental with no 

consensus as to which is the more likely outcome. Virtual tourism could benefit sensitive natural areas 

by encouraging individuals to view the area remotely rather than travel there reducing the impact on the 

environment (Caneday, 1992). Alternatively, virtual tourism could compete with travel to natural areas 

(Williams and Hobson, 1995), and refuges and recreation areas that rely on visitation fees could suffer if 

more people chose to visit remotely. Okada and others (2002) described but did not offer an empirical 

evaluation of a digitally constructed depiction of the natural world in which people can interact to 

experience nature and discuss environmental issues. 

Sussmand and Vanhegan (2000) reported the results of a study on perceptions of virtual tourism. 

They surveyed two groups—virtual reality researchers and the general British public—regarding their 

perceptions of the best and worst aspects of taking a vacation via virtual reality methods and regarding

their travel preferences. The results of this study should be treated as tentative due to the small sample 

size. The findings indicated that people are less favorable to virtual travel than real travel. Both groups 

identified the best aspect of virtual holidays is the opportunity to experience the destination prior to 

undertaking travel; both groups identified the worst aspect of virtual holidays as not really experiencing 

anything. In a slightly more recent publication, Prideaux (2002) reported a similar small sample study to 

determine the appeal of virtual reality cybertourism among university students. The students perceived

cybertourism as an unfavorable substitution for real travel. However, these studies were focused on 

virtual reality, rather than webcams, and on travel in general, rather than on travel in nature specifically, 

so it is difficult to determine the degree to which these findings are analogous to the effect of webcams 

on nature travel or feelings of connection to nature. 
6

Levi and Kocher (1999) reported the results of three studies examining the outcomes of virtual 

nature systems. They described virtual nature systems as technology used to experience nature. In the 

first study, Levi and Kocher used open-ended questions to investigate the attitudes of university students 

toward the use of virtual reality simulations to experience nature. The results indicated that students 

were favorable toward using and owning virtual reality systems to experience nature. The second study, 

in which university students viewed slides of commercial nature photography and local nature 

photography, demonstrated limited support for the devaluation hypothesis—that experiencing nature 

through virtual means will cause devaluation of local nature. The third study conducted by Levi and 

Kocher (1999) addressed the relationship between experiencing nature virtually and attitudes about 

preservation of national and local parks and natural areas. The authors described several findings from 

the survey they conducted using a sample of university students; of primary interest is that students 

reported that their enjoyment of nature, as presented in the form of slides and video, was related to 

support for preservation of national parks but was not related to support for preservation of local natural 

areas. The article by Levi and Kocher (1999) was one of few that linked virtual experience of natural 

areas with attitudes and behaviors. Given that these articles deal with rapidly changing technology and 

considering the publication dates, the information they contain may be outdated. 

In a more contemporary study using a technology closer to webcams than slides and videos, 

Chambers (2007) investigated the perception of viewing birds using closed-circuit television (CCTV) 

and the effect on how people viewed their relationship to the birds. The author conducted interviews 

with volunteers at and visitors to three bird-watching centers in Scotland. The CCTV cameras were 

viewed as a way to protect the birds as well as a way to raise public awareness of endangered birds and 

their habitats. Some of the volunteers expressed concern that the CCTV reinforced a tendency in visitors 

to develop a preference for media-based experiences of nature because they were more likely to see the 

type of animal activity that they expected via media rather than in actual nature. Interviewees also noted 

that virtual birding lacks the full sensory experience of birding, which makes it less of a real experience. 

One interviewee noted that the smell of bird excrement, while not pleasant, is a part of the birding 

experience. Another interviewee noted that virtual birding may be viewed as “cheating” by real birders 

because it takes less effort and patience to view birds on a screen than to go out and find them for 

oneself.

In a rare publication directly addressing webcams, Carpenter and others (2002) argued that 

wildlife webcams could be used as a source of revenue. They conceded that there was little evidence 

that wildlife webcams were being used for financial benefit by park managers, but they did describe the 

webcams as useful public relations and informational tools. However, they cited no evidence in support 

of that claim. Timothy and Groves (2001) categorized information that can be drawn from webcam 

imagery and used for research. They focused on webcam imagery used in the tourism industry and 

noted that “even basic studies on webcams are absent from the tourism literature” (p. 401). It seems 

there is a general lack of research and publication regarding the use of webcams in general, and 

specifically regarding the use of webcams for virtual tourism of wild areas.

Technological Nature

Kahn and others (2009, p. 37) used the term technological nature to refer to “technologies that in 

various ways mediate, augment, or simulate the natural world”. They included videos and webcams of 

natural areas as examples of technological nature. However, the studies they summarized used plasma 

display screens with nature scenes as the technological nature version of windows. They concluded that 

people do experience benefits from technological nature in terms of connection to the natural world. 
7

However, natural windows provided the benefit of recovery from stress as measured by heart-rate and 

this benefit was not experienced with technological nature. 

The design and construction of a classroom incorporating outdoor cameras that transmit imagery 

to screens inside the building were described in a case study written by the designer and a teacher 

involved in the design process (Brough and Wigglesworth, 2005). One camera viewed a badger set 

below the building. A remote-controlled boat with an underwater camera attached to the surface allowed

children in the building to view what happened underneath the surface of their pond. The authors 

expressed that one of the goals in the design of the classrooms and school building was to make the 

outside world accessible particularly for the children who attend the school and who have disabilities. 

This article was a case study, not an empirical study, and although the authors described how they 

addressed the goal of making the outdoors accessible, they did not provide any outcome-based 

evaluation to demonstrate the effect of this strategy.

We know from the existence of wildlife webcams, such as the NCTC Eagle Cam, that 

technology can be used to provide people with remote access to wildlife. However, some imagery that 

could be made available to the public is not. One example of this was described in a study by MacNulty 

and others (2008). They used a satellite uplink to the internet to transmit streaming video from their 

study site in Yellowstone National Park to a research center at the University of Minnesota, St. Paul. 

Although they used the internet to retrieve the imagery, the video footage was restricted to authorized 

users and could not be accessed by the general public. What we do not know is the effect on attitudes 

and behaviors of those who view wildlife remotely via technology. 

Equipment Alternatives

Many different aspects of remote photography of wildlife must be considered when using a 

webcam or other technology to present imagery of wildlife for public outreach or research purposes. 

First, we summarize several articles that provided good descriptions of remote photography 

applications. These articles included discussions of: circumstances under which remote photography 

may be an appropriate choice, necessary components of a video system, and issues to consider when 

selecting types of equipment. Second, we describe in detail the specific aspects of recording imagery in 

the wild derived from our review of the wildlife camera literature. Aspects of wildlife camera use 

covered in the literature review include: camera options, image retrieval, system maintenance and 

monitoring, time to assemble, power source, light source, camera mount, frequency of image recording, 

consequences for animals, and equipment security. The literatures we reviewed for virtual tourism and 

technological nature did not provide information on equipment. 

Issues in Remote Photography

Stewart and others (1997) wrote a review of remote video surveillance of wildlife that is now a 

bit dated but is otherwise a very detailed review of the components of a remote video system. They 

described the advantages and disadvantages of remote video surveillance and included descriptions of 

the processes of setting up a system and processing and archiving the video. The authors described

every component of a video system separately: video recorders, cameras, lenses, alarm triggers, 

monitors, microphones, lights, batteries, power management system, chargers, inverters, alternative 

power supplies, system housing, and mounts. In addition to providing such a complete description of a 

video system, they illustrated their points with examples from their video surveillance of badgers. 

London and others (1998) provided a summary of when to use videography and a detailed description of 

aspects of the necessary equipment based on their experience in using such equipment in a zoo. McGee 
8

and others (2005) compared videography of swift fox pups against daytime visual counts and nighttime 

visual counts using night-vision technology. 

In their description of the design of a remote video system intended to detect a specific species, 

Song and others (2008) explained the four design goals underlying the development of a remote video 

observation unit. A remote camera or video observation unit should have adequate sensitivity, data 

reduction capability, accuracy, and robustness. Sensitivity is the ability of the camera and recording 

system to provide sufficiently high resolution imagery to be able to identify and distinguish the target 

species from other species. In wildlife videography, many hours of footage that are not of interest can be 

recorded; the data reduction capability of a system reduces the amount of data recorded, preferably 

eliminating only footage of low interest. Accuracy is the capability of a camera system to detect and 

capture footage of the species of interest. Other researchers (see Lyra-Jorge and others, 2008; Malt and 

Lank, 2007) have addressed the accuracy of different types of triggers (infrared or pressure plate 

triggers). Triggers need to be sensitive enough to capture the species of interest, but if triggers are too 

sensitive, pictures will be taken and battery power and storage space are used unnecessarily (Towerton 

and others, 2008). Robustness is the ability of the system to operate in the environmental conditions 

(temperature range, humidity) that are characteristic of the study area.

Reif and Tornberg (2006) discussed the technical issues that researchers should consider when 

choosing video equipment for the remote study of wildlife. They identified the factors affecting choice 

of video equipment as: the required length of recording sessions, species’ sensitivity to disturbance, 

weather and climate issues, and logistic conditions that include remoteness of study site and skill level 

of project personnel. Features of the equipment chosen should fit the conditions specified in the study. 

Important equipment features include type of media on which imagery will be stored, storage capacity 

of media, system power source, camera light sensitivity, resolution of the imagery, and need for and 

options for protecting the equipment. They ended their review with a description of their use of a digital 

video camera to study the diet of goshawks and buzzards. 

Huckschlag (2008) described a specific set of requirements for a video system to record animal 

behavior and the system that was assembled to meet those requirements. A particular concern was that 

the camera system had to be operational for both day and night recording. The camera selected had two 

lenses, one suitable for day and one for night. 

There are many issues to consider in establishing a camera system to record the behavior of 

wildlife. Some issues are specific to the intended purpose for establishing the camera system. For 

example, recording capacity and retrieval may be more important for research studies and less so when 

the camera system is in place primarily for public access to wildlife. Other issues are specific to the 

species of interest. Filming animals that are more nocturnal requires cameras that can record at night. 

The camera system must be mounted and secured in a manner that is appropriate for the environment. 

Many researchers who have published in the wildlife camera literature discuss these varied issues in 

detail.

Wildlife Cameras

Camera Options

Several types of photographic equipment can be used to record footage or images of wildlife for 

later distribution. Most of the data gathered, including still photography, can be adapted for distribution 

on the web. A wide variety of camera options have been described in the literature. Digital cameras 

were used in studies of wildlife use of safe crossings (Donaldson, 2007), identification of wildlife at a 

remote site (Yasuda and Kawakami, 2002), and studies of nest predation (Towerton and others, 2008). 
9

Sykes and others (1995) used a closed-circuit television system with a video recorder to study the 

incubation, hatching, and fledging of Mississippi Sandhill Cranes. Miniature video cameras were used 

in some studies of nesting behavior (Lewis and others, 2004; McQuillen and Brewer, 2000) and nest 

predation (Pietz and Granfors, 2000; Renfrew and Ribic, 2003; Staller and others, 2005; Thompson and 

Burhans, 2003). Video cameras have been incorporated into animal-borne camera systems (cameras 

temporarily attached to the animals) to study animal behaviors, including resource use and interactions 

with other animals (Beringer and others, 2004; Bluff and Rutz, 2008; Heithaus, Dill, and others, 2002; 

Heithaus, McLash, and others, 2002; Hooker and others, 2002; Rutz and Bluff, 2008). Infrared video 

camera systems have been used to study animals (Langbein and others, 1998) especially those active in 

low-light and dark periods (Delaney and others, 1998; Kleist and others, 2007; McGee and others, 2005) 

or underwater (Chidami and others, 2007). Hristov and others (2008) used thermal infrared imaging to 

study bats in flight. Some studies cited use of film cameras (Danielson and others, 1996; George and 

Crooks, 2006; Hanula and others, 2000; Larrucea and others, 2007; Marnewick and others, 2008; 

Purcell and Verner, 1999; Srbek-Araujo and Chiarello, 2005; York and others, 2001). Smith and others 

(1993) used a film camera to obtain underwater photographs. 

More recent papers described the use of web cameras (Myrick, 2009), digital cameras linked to a 

web system (Locke and others, 2005), remote controlled video cameras (MacNulty and others, 2008; 

Maniscalco and others, 2006), and video cameras linked via satellite to the Internet (MacNulty and 

others, 2008). Myrick (2009) used web cameras in an indoor laboratory for a motion capture study 

rather than in an outdoor setting to study animals in their natural habitat. MacNulty and others (2008) 

used robotic video cameras with remote-controlled pan-tilt-zoom features that they could control from 

the location of their research laboratory at the University of Minnesota, St. Paul. 

Hudson and Bird (2006) used a webcam with a portable system to view otherwise inaccessible 

nests. Unlike the other studies included in this review, this study was unique in that the camera system 

was moved from nest to nest and was not mounted in place for ongoing recording at one site. 

Image Retrieval

Whether the photography is in the form of still photos or video, the photographic imagery must 

be retrieved from the camera. Current technology allows for image retrieval to be done without actually 

visiting the camera site. In some cases, the imagery is transmitted to nearby equipment so that the actual 

recording site will not be disturbed by researchers retrieving the imagery. Contemporary technology 

allows for data retrieval without having to travel anywhere near the camera site. Yasuda and Kawakami 

(2002) used a digital PC camera and a streaming server to retrieve their photographic data. King and 

others (2001) used video cameras with wireless transmitters to send video to a nearby videocassette 

recorder (VCR). While this allowed for less disturbance around the nests they were studying, the VCR 

tapes did need to be changed twice per day. Similarly, Song and others (2008) used a wireless 

transmitter to send video to a nearby computer with an external USB drive for data storage. Until they 

were able to set up long range wireless transmission, the USB drive had to be changed monthly. 

In a study of cliff-dwelling vultures, Margalida and others (2006) used a wireless transmitter to 

send imagery from cameras mounted on the cliff faces to VCRs connected to receiving transmitters at 

the study site. Another study of vultures (Grivas, 2009) used a similar design with a video camera 

mounted in the rock above the nest cavity with a transmission unit, but rather than the storing video on a 

VCR, the receiving unit was connected to a PC and video was stored on portable hard disks. Kristan and 

others (1996) used a wireless transmitter to send video recorded at an osprey nest to a nearby visitor 

center; this arrangement made changing videotapes more convenient and eliminated any disturbance to 

wildlife caused by VCR maintenance. In a study using underwater video cameras, a transmitter on a 
10

pontoon sent the video to a receiving unit on shore (Mills and others, 2005). Wireless transmitters were 

used more frequently with animal-mounted cameras (Beringer and others, 2004).

In some studies (Hebert and Golightly, 2007; Lewis and others, 2004; Pietz and Granfors, 2000; 

Renfrew and Ribic, 2003; Rogers and others, 2005; Staller and others, 2005) researchers connected 

cameras to a VCR at the study site using cables. To engage in real-time data transmission, Huckschlag 

(2009) used cables to connect a very high speed digital subscriber line (VDSL) modem that was part of 

the camera system to another modem in a laptop. Reif and Tornberg (2006) suggested that commercially 

available digital video recorders (DVR) designed for use with security surveillance systems are an 

option for recording in the field. Scheibe and others (2008) compared a VHS recording system to a 

DVR system. They concluded that the DVR consumed less energy which allowed the system to record 

longer. Steen (2009) used a mini DVR that stored data on secure digital (SD) cards.

With the latest development in electronic communications, the use of satellite and other relay 

technology permits imagery retrieval from remote locations. Locke and others (2005) set up the digital 

camera in their study with a connection to a laptop and satellite phone. The laptop was programmed to 

connect to the satellite phone twice daily and send pictures to a specified server. Maniscalco and others 

(2006) used microwave transmission to send imagery from a remote location to the Alaska SeaLife 

Center where the imagery was recorded onto storage media. The imagery was sent from the cameras to 

a central control tower near the study site; the central control tower then relayed the transmissions to the 

Center. MacNulty and others (2008) used a satellite uplink to the internet to transmit imagery; however, 

the satellite uplink was not completely reliable and required high bandwidth for transmission of data. 

Based on their experience, they suggested that microwave relay to a dedicated internet connection, 

rather than a satellite uplink, be used to transmit video. In their review of remote photography 

technology, Reif and Tornberg (2006) describe global system for mobile (GSM) image submitting 

cameras which can connect to a mobile phone network to send images. When there is no way to upload 

the information remotely, the camera sites must be visited to download photos or retrieve video 

cassettes, hard drives, memory cards, or film for developing; the frequency of maintenance visits varies. 

System Maintenance and Monitoring

Remote photography systems require maintenance to ensure an ongoing source of power, to 

retrieve the imagery so that more imagery can be recorded, and occasionally to clear snow or debris 

from the camera lens. The camera systems must be monitored periodically to detect any malfunctions in 

the system. The maintenance often requires a visit to the camera site. The maintenance/monitoring 

frequencies reported in the articles we reviewed varied widely. Frequencies were wide ranging with 

daily (Hanula and others, 2000; Langston and others, 2007; Marnewick and others, 2008; McQuillen 

and Brewer, 2000; Mills and others, 2005; Pietz and Granfors, 2000; Thompson and Burhans, 2003),

every 2–3 days (King and others, 2001; Rogers and others, 2005; Steen, 2009; Stein and others, 2008), 

once a week (Donaldson, 2007; Larrucea and others, 2007), every two weeks (Grivas and others, 2009; 

Karhu and Anderson, 2006; O’Brien and others, 2006), and once a month (Song and others, 2008) 

maintenance reported. Maintenance frequencies seemed tied to the type of technology used. Two of the 

studies reporting the need for daily maintenance (Hanula and others, 2000; Marnewick and others, 

2008) used film cameras to record still photography. Also, studies that used batteries with no solar backup required more frequent maintenance.

In some situations, monitoring during image recording may be necessary. While the CCTV

system used by Sykes and others (1995) did not need to be maintained to ensure adequate power, they 

did monitor the footage as it recorded so that the camera could be adjusted—redirected or zoomed—to 

capture the best footage available at the time. In another example, the high-speed video recording of the 
11

courtship behavior of Manakins was monitored by a nearby observer so that the specific behavior of 

interest would be recorded (Fusani and others, 2007). 

Time to Assemble

The time to assemble and install the components of a remote wildlife camera system varied 

based upon the type of system being used and characteristics of the camera site. Researchers reported 

that individual camera systems can be installed in as little as 20 minutes (min) (McQuillen and Brewer, 

2000) with an entire set of cameras for a study installed in 1 day (Lyra-Jorge and others, 2008). Lewis 

and others (2004) reported an average of 75 min to install miniature video cameras in nests that 

averaged 14.9 meters in height. Rogers and others (2005) reported a mean set-up time of 110 min per 

camera. This estimate included the time to view the nest through a TV monitor to ensure proper 

positioning of the camera. The time to install cameras and transmitters at nests on cliffs averaged 3.4 

hours (hr) for Margalida and others (2006) and 4.5 hr for Grivas and others (2009). Delaney and others 

(1998) calculated the time to assemble the equipment (76 hr) separately from the time to place the 

cameras (14 hr). Kristan and others (1996) estimate that 60 hr were required for construction and 

installation of equipment.

The time required to set up a camera system can be lengthy, but comparison to other study 

methods indicate that use of cameras may be more time efficient. Harrison (2006) determined that the 

amount of time to set up camera traps was similar to the amount of time required to set up hair-snares or 

scent stations. In their comparison of camera traps with open and covered track plates, Foresman and 

Pearson (1998) determined that camera traps required less effort to use than the track plates. 

Power Source

The cameras, as well as the system components to record or transmit the imagery, must have a 

power source. In one example, the camera was connected to an electrical current through a computer 

connection cable (Yasuda and Kawakami, 2002). Song and others (2008) report a unique situation that 

allowed them to tap into a high-voltage power line to supply their system. Sykes and others (1995) used 

a portable power generator to support their CCTV system and monitoring shed. They used back-up 

batteries in case of power failure. Most frequently, cameras and other equipment, such as motion sensor 

triggers, were powered by batteries (Foresman and Pearson, 1998; Huckschlag, 2008; Karhu and 

Anderson, 2006; King and others, 2001; Locke and others, 2005; McGee and others, 2005; McQuillen 

and Brewer, 2000; Pietz and Granfors, 2000; Renfrew and Ribic, 2003; Rogers and others, 2005; SrbekAraujo and Chiarello, 2005; Staller and others, 2005; Steen, 2009; Stein and others, 2008; Thompson 

and Burhans, 2003). Battery failure can compromise the collection and recording of video or 

photography (Lewis and others, 2004). Lewis and others (2004) maintained continuous operation of 

their cameras and recording systems by rotating two batteries. To conserve battery power, cameras can 

be equipped with a light-activated on-off switch (Beringer and others, 2004). In some cases, the 

batteries were recharged with solar power (Grivas and others, 2009; Kristan and others, 1996; Locke 

and others, 2005; Lynn and others, 2008; Margalida and others, 2006; Newbery and Southwell, 2009; 

O’Brien and others, 2006). Solar power was used as an alternate power source for the camera system in 

some instances (“Current Biology,” 2006; Kleist and others, 2007). Margalida and others (2006) used a 

wind-powered battery charger at one of their study sites. MacNulty and others (2008) and Maniscalco 

and others (2006) used both solar and wind power to charge their battery systems. 
12

Light Source

In their discussion of decisions to be made when using videography, London and others (1998) 

listed supplemental lighting as a key issue. The options they suggested were using no additional light, 

using infrared light, or using additional non-infrared light. Their discussion focused on the use of 

infrared lighting; a key issue is to use sufficient light at an appropriate wavelength to permit adequate 

recording but to limit the infrared light to levels that do not disturb the animals. Underwater 

photography (Smith and others, 1993) and night-time photography require use of supplemental light 

sources. Light-emitting diodes (LED) were often used (Chidami and others, 2007; Delaney and others, 

1998; Hudson and Bird, 2006; Kleist and others, 2007; Langston and others, 2007; London and others, 

1998; Mills and others, 2005; Pietz and Granfors, 2000; Renfrew and Ribic, 2003; Staller and others, 

2005). Infrared illuminators have also been used (Huckschlag, 2008; O’Brien and others 2006; Scheibe 

and others, 2008). To capture the best footage of night behavior, Langbein and others (1998) used 

infrared spotlights in conjunction with an infrared camera; they used a color camera during the daylight 

hours. 

Camera Mount

An important consideration in the use of cameras to record and study the behavior of wildlife is 

the location of the camera. The location of the camera includes the camera site as well as the mount of 

the camera. The camera must be attached to some type of structure. There is a portion of the research 

literature using remote photography in which the cameras are mounted to the animals (Adimey and 

others, 2007; Beringer and others, 2004; Heithaus, Dill, and others, 2002; Heithaus, McLash, and 

others, 2002; Kooyman, 2007; Moll and others, 2007; Mori and others, 2005; Parrish and Littnan, 2007; 

Rutz and Bluff, 2008). However, the period of photography is fairly brief for animal-mounted cameras, 

and this literature is not very relevant to the purpose of this review. Hudson and Bird (2006) provided a 

detailed description of how they mounted a webcam to a pole and connected the webcam to a laptop in 

order to view nests. They carried the pole around to view different nests; they did not install a stationary 

mount for their camera system. Their approach used current technology but in a manner inconsistent 

with the intent of this review: to provide information for individuals who wish to provide ongoing photo 

or video coverage of wildlife in a specific setting and make it available to the public. Therefore, we 

focus our summary on cameras mounted to some feature in the environment. 

The cameras must be mounted to a structure that is an existing feature of the physical 

environment or a structure introduced for the purpose of installing the camera. Use of existing features 

included mounting the camera to a tree (Danielson and others 1996; Delaney and others, 1998; 

Donaldson, 2007; Lewis and others, 2004; MacNulty and others, 2008; Malt and Lank, 2007; Rogers 

and others, 2005; Srbek-Araujo and Chiarello, 2005; Stein and others, 2008; Towerton and others, 

2008) or a rock face (Grivas and others, 2009; Margalida and others, 2006). Delaney and others (1998) 

and Kristan and others (1996) provided detailed descriptions of how they attached video cameras to 

trees. Some studies used temporary mounts such as camera tripods (Hanula and others, 2000; Scheibe 

and others, 2008; Sykes and others, 1995); in some cases, mounts were fabricated specifically for the 

study (Kristan and others, 1996; McGee and others, 2005; McQuillen and Brewer, 2000; O’Brien and 

others, 2006; Pietz and Granfors, 2000; Renfrew and Ribic, 2003). Newbery and Southwell (2009) 

altered a surveyor’s tripod and secured it with rock mats. Chidami and others (2007) described and 

diagramed the stainless steel frame they created to mount their infrared video camera for underwater 

observation. Whenever the camera system operates by use of a sensor to trigger the camera, the mount 

should be very stable (Huckschlag, 2008; Swann and others, 2004). 
13

Frequency of Image Recording

Another consideration when establishing a camera system to record the behavior of wildlife is 

the frequency with which the camera will operate. Video cameras can be set for continuous recording; 

video cameras and cameras taking still photos can be programmed on a specific time-lapse schedule or 

be paired with a sensor to activate only when an animal is in a predetermined range. Cutler and Swann 

(1999) reviewed published field studies of vertebrates that incorporated either time-lapse or animaltriggered photography, and these authors provided guidance on when each camera timing strategy is 

most appropriate. In general, setting the camera to a specified time-lapse schedule was preferred when 

the target animal is frequently in the vicinity of the camera. Animal-triggered photography was 

preferred when the target animal is in the vicinity of the camera on an infrequent or unpredictable basis. 

Animal-triggered systems include infrared systems and pressure-plate triggering systems (for examples 

see Moruzzi and others, 2002; York and others, 2001). 

Among the studies we reviewed, infrared triggers were frequently the method of choice for 

triggering camera systems (Braden and others, 2008; Hanula and others, 2000; Huckschlag, 2008; 

Marnewick and others, 2008; Srbek-Araujo and Chiarello, 2005; Stevens and Serfass, 2005; Towerton 

and others, 2008; Watts and others, 2008). Swann and others (2004) compared six infrared-triggered, 

commercially available wildlife camera systems. They provided recommendations for setting up 

infrared-triggered systems to maximize camera performance. In a study comparing camera traps with 

track plotting, Lyra-Jorge and others (2008) determined that the effectiveness of infrared triggers was 

dependent on animal body mass. They also noted that infrared sensors may not work as well in hot 

climates in situations where there may not be a sufficient difference between the animal body 

temperature and environmental temperature to trigger the sensor. 

Malt and Lank (2007) found that the time between when the motion detector triggered the 

camera to initialize and when the camera took the photograph, although it was only four seconds, was 

too long in some cases and the animal triggering the motion detector departed before being 

photographed. Scheibe and others (2008) noted that the delay between the camera triggering and the 

start of recording was problematic. Steen (2009) used a DVR system that had a built in video motion 

detection (VMD) sensor to trigger recording. Steen concluded that the VMD was sufficiently sensitive 

to capture images of prey delivery by kestrels and noted that the VMD area could be limited to reduce 

recording of unwanted activity. Cain and others (2003) described how they connected a trip wire 

attached to bait eggs to the camera so that when a predator disturbed the eggs the camera was triggered.

There are a variety of methods to trigger imagery recording if continuous recording is not an option. To 

minimize problems caused by the triggering mechanism, the trigger should be matched with the 

environmental conditions and animal of interest. 

Rather than using a trigger, another option is to continuously record within a limited time frame. 

A webcam at the McNeil River State Game Sanctuary was turned on from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m.; the staff at 

the Pratt Museum was able to direct the camera for better bear viewing (“Current Biology”, 2006). The 

remote controlled video cameras used by MacNulty and others (2008) were staffed by individuals 

conducting manual scans periodically between the hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

Consequences for Animals

The potential danger posed to the animal of interest when establishing a camera site was one 

caution to consider mentioned by several authors (Cutler and Swann, 1999; Kristan and others, 1996; 

McQuillen and Brewer, 2000). Installation of camera equipment near nests can be disruptive to birds, 

especially when they are nesting or fledging; it is important to be aware of the stage of the nesting cycle 

and the birds’ sensitivity to disruption before installing cameras (Kristan and others, 1996; Margalida 
14

and others, 2006; Pietz and Granfors, 2000). Cain and others (2003) studied nest predation without 

disturbing the bird species of interest by using only fledged, depredated, or abandoned nests. The 

presence of a camera could alert predatory species to a nest or den, or could attract human interest to the 

site that would be disruptive to the animal. The camera and other equipment were often camouflaged

(Grivas and others, 2009; Staller and others, 2005). To prevent attracting predators to the ground nests 

in their study, Renfrew and Ribic (2003) placed the cameras at or below the height of the nearby 

vegetation. McQuillen and Brewer (2000) remarked that a camera arm makes a nice perch for predatory 

birds. Langston and others (2007) painted their equipment to blend in with the landscape and used 

existing vegetation to cover the equipment. However, as noted by Silveira and others (2003), use of 

camera technology may create less environmental disturbance than other wildlife observation methods. 

Equipment Security

An additional concern is the security of the camera equipment from environmental conditions 

(London and others, 1998), animals (Danielson and others, 1996; Grassman and others, 2005; 

Marnewick and others, 2008), and humans (George and Crooks, 2006; Ng and others, 2004). 

Concerning environmental conditions, cameras will have different sensitivities to temperature, pressure, 

and humidity. Newbery and Southwell (2009) tested several models of cameras to determine which 

would continue to function in the temperature range expected in a polar environment. Weather-proof 

cases, some of which may also be security cases, were often needed for outdoor cameras and recording 

equipment. Such cases were commercially available (McQuillen and Brewer, 2000; Newbery and 

Southwell, 2009; Stewart and others, 1997) or were fashioned by the researchers (Danielson and others, 

1996; King and others, 2001; York and others, 2001). York and others (2001) adapted sandwich 

containers and waterproof food-storage boxes to serve as weatherproof camera boxes. To store their 

VCRs, Rogers and others (2005) used locked military ammunition cans. 

When cameras were used underwater, particularly if the cameras were attached to diving 

animals, precautions were required to protect the camera and other components against damage caused 

by water pressure (Hooker and others, 2002). Studies in desert areas used below-ground concrete vaults 

for components of the recording systems and electronics (Lynn and others, 2008; O’Brien and others, 

2006). In climates with greater humidity, researchers often placed silica gel desiccant inside the 

weatherproof housing for the camera and recording systems to minimize the effect of moisture on 

equipment function (Lewis and others, 2004; Scheibe and others, 2008; Stewart and others, 1997). 

To shield their equipment from the elements and animals, Danielson and others (1996) created 

protective housing for their cameras with plywood and plexiglass. They found that this design protected 

camera equipment from weather and most animals, although some of their camera boxes were destroyed 

by bears. They suggested use of protective boxes fabricated from steel in areas with bear populations. 

Grassman and others (2005) also recommended use of a metal protective shell for camera equipment in 

locations where elephants or large carnivores are present or where theft is likely. Marnewick and others 

(2008) described the commercially available system they used and noted that it continued to work even 

after being trampled by elephants. To protect their VCR and system battery from cattle, Renfrew and 

Ribic (2003) fabricated a pyramid-shaped cage from hog fencing. Whenever cables were used to 

connect components of the camera and recording systems, there was a risk that the cables or wires 

would be damaged by wildlife (Grivas and others, 2009; Larrucea and others, 2007; Margalida and 

others, 2006; Reif and Tornberg, 2006; Thompson and Burhans, 2003; York and others, 2001). Options 

for protecting cables included encasing the cable or burying it (Renfrew and Ribic, 2003). King and 

others (2001) described in detail how they created weatherproof and camouflage protection for the 

camera and recording equipment they used to monitor bird nests. By customizing these protective 
15

covers, they were able to match the protection to the specific equipment they used and the 

environmental conditions in which they were conducting their study. 

Theft of equipment is a concern for researchers conducting remote wildlife photography. In their 

study of animal use of highway crossings, Ng and others (2004) used cameras only in areas judged to 

have low likelihood of theft. Locke and others (2005) included a laptop computer with their equipment 

that was set up in the field; the laptop was stored in a metal weather-proof container that was 

sufficiently secure to prevent theft. George and Crooks (2006) encased their cameras in locking steel 

containers in areas where theft was a risk; they used a cable and lock to secure their cameras in areas 

where theft was not considered a risk. Fiehler and others (2007) designed a steel security box for 

mounting and protecting a digital camera. They determined that the security box did not interfere with 

camera functioning and no cameras were stolen even though there was evidence of human activity 

around the camera sites. 

Conclusions

In our literature review, we located few studies that addressed the technology of webcams and 

the effects of their use on viewers’ attitudes and perceptions of wildlife and nature. There are several 

possible reasons for the lack of published literature on webcams. First, the lag time between the 

submission of a manuscript to a publication outlet and when the published article is available creates an 

inevitable delay. This is especially true and particularly problematic when the content is a technological 

topic. Technology changes so rapidly it is impossible for the published research to stay current. It is 

possible that the current lack of publication on webcams is due to this lag and that articles are coming in 

the pipeline. 

A second possibility is that people are doing research on the use of wildlife webcams but are not 

publishing their results. Perhaps the studies being completed are small scale or are not otherwise 

meeting the criteria for publication. If people are collecting data on webcams for their own use and not 

publishing because they do not perceive the need to publish, they should realize the importance of 

sharing any information about the use of webcams. This is especially true given the sparseness of the 

current literature.

Finally, a concerning possibility is that people are not researching nor are they considering 

researching the effects of wildlife webcams. Rather, they may be using webcams to connect people with 

the environment based on assumptions that any effects will be positive. Making decisions based on 

assumptions is problematic, although there are circumstances in which doing so cannot be avoided. 

Even though it is unlikely that there are no effects of wildlife webcams on viewers’ attitudes and 

behaviors, it is possible that effects are negligible. If that were the case, an investment in a webcam 

system for the primary purpose of connecting people with nature would be an investment with a low 

return. Alternately, some effects of viewing wildlife through webcams could be negative. For example, 

if people are more interested in a webcam at an exotic locale rather than the natural environment in their 

locality, they may reduce the amount of time they spend outdoors in favor of more time in front of the 

computer monitor. There is preliminary evidence from the technological nature literature that people can 

benefit from exposure to technologically mediated nature as experienced through a plasma display 

screen. It is likely that webcams would have similar positive benefits. However, without fully 

understanding the characteristics and strength of the effects of viewing wildlife webcams, this 

technology cannot be fully leveraged for maximum impact on the viewing public. We need a more 

thorough understanding of the effects. 

While environmental education researchers and practitioners can draw on analogous literatures 

to fill in the gaps in what we know regarding webcams, as we have done here, there is a need for 
16

research that directly evaluates the effect of viewing wildlife through webcams. Those who are actively 

engaged in the practice of environmental education need research-based information regarding the 

effects of using webcams to connect people and nature. 

Addendum

After reviewing an early draft of this report, a representative of the NCTC suggested that we 

expand our literature search using the key phrases “education” paired with “webcam” and with “web 

cam”. We conducted searches using these key phrases in the EBSCO Academic Premier, LexisNexis, 

Web of Science, Agricola, and Wildlife & Ecology Studies databases and in the Google Scholar online 

search engine. The search of the databases yielded an initial set of 400 references linked to those search 

terms. We reviewed the titles and abstracts of those 400 references and found that only 14 of them were 

actually on the topic of webcams and even fewer focused on wildlife. The search of Google Scholar 

resulted in thousands of initial results. We reviewed the first 100 for each set of search terms and 

determined that none of the results found with Google Scholar related to our topic of interest. 

The relevant articles we found with this supplemental search were primarily from mainstream 

media sources or trade publications and not scholarly journals. The approach taken in these articles was 

often descriptive and provided suggestions for how teachers can incorporate use of webcams and other 

virtual-travel technologies into their classrooms. Some articles described techniques (Maciejewski, 

2008; Turner and McLaughlin, 2009) and others provided lists of potentially useful websites and 

webcams (Dyrli, 2001; Instructor, 2005; Trierweiler, 2005). 

Two of the articles described webcams at specific locations. A webcam at Skomer Island, a 

Welsh wildlife sanctuary, allows viewers the opportunity to watch the wildlife on the island. The island 

is included as a case study for the National Curriculum, but beyond the number of individuals—students 

and others—who access the island in person or via the webcam no other information about effects of the 

webcam was provided in the article (The Western Mail, 2008). In another article, the use of a webcam 

by a rural school to broadcast images of a set of piglets was described (Shaw, 2006). The popularity of 

the images provided an opportunity for the school to solicit donations to help support the pigs. The 

article did not include any description of how viewers were affected by viewing the webcam. In these 

articles, the claims of educational or other benefits are often assumed or supported with anecdotal rather 

than empirical evidence. One article that focused on virtual field trips included a comment that an 

evaluation of a virtual field trip indicated that the virtual experience led to more learning than actual 

experience, but the article did not provide a reference for that evaluation (Manzo, 2009). None of the 

articles located in this supplemental search specifically addressed research on how wildlife webcams 

actually affect those who view them.

Acknowledgements

This study was requested and funded by the FWS NCTC. We appreciated the opportunity to 

conduct this review. We are indebted to the reference librarians who assisted us with our literature 

searches. We would like to thank Megan Eberhardt-Frank, Librarian at the USGS FORT, and Alison 

Level, Reference Librarian and Associate Professor of Instruction and Research Services at Colorado 

State University. Two reviewers provided careful and thoughtful critiques of this manuscript. We thank 

Eric Kelchlin, New Technologies Training Coordinator at the NCTC, and Paul Cryan, Research 

Biologist at USGS FORT, for their time and efforts to improve this report. 
17

References Cited

Adimey, N.M., Abernathy, K., Gaspard, J.C., III, and Marshal, G., 2007, Meeting the manatee 

challenge—The feasibility of using CRITTERCAM on wild manatees: Marine Technology Society 

Journal, v. 41, no. 4, p. 14–18. 

Current Biology, 2006, Bearing all: Current Biology, v. 16, no. 16, p. R621. 

Beringer, J., Millspaugh, J.J., Sartwell, J., and Woeck, R., 2004, Real-time video recording of food 

selection by captive white-tailed deer: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 32, no. 3, p. 648–654. 

Bluff, L.A., and Rutz, C., 2008, A quick guide to video-tracking birds: Biology Letters, v. 4, no. 4, p. 

319–322. 

Braden, A.W., Lopez, R.R., Roberts, C.W., Silvy, N.J., Owen, C.B., and Frank, P.A., 2008, Florida Key 

deer Odocoileus virginianus clavium underpass use and movements along a highway corridor: 

Wildlife Biology, v. 14, no. 1, p. 155–163. 

Brough, M., and Wigglesworth, S., 2005, A journey in the future—Mossbrook School: Access by 

Design, no. 104, p. 17–21. 

Cain, J.W., Morrison, M.L., and Bombay, H.L., 2003, Predator activity and nest success of willow 

flycatchers and yellow warblers: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 67, no. 3, p. 600–610. 

Caneday, L., 1992, Outdoor recreation—A virtual reality: Parks and Recreation, v. 27, no. 8, p. 48–52. 

Carpenter, J.F., Zatz, D., Mair, J., and Wilkie, D.S., 2002, Virtual tourism: Conservation in Practice, v. 

3, no. 1, p. 37–41. 

Chambers, C.N.L., 2007, “Well its remote, I suppose, innit?” The relational politics of bird-watching 

through the CCTV lens: Scottish Geographical Journal, v. 123, no. 2, p. 122–134. 

Chidami, S., Guenard, G., and Amyot, M., 2007, Underwater infrared video system for behavioral 

studies in lakes: Limnology and Oceanography—Methods, v. 5, p. 371–378. 

Cutler, T.L., and Swann, D.E., 1999, Using remote photography in wildlife ecology—A review: 

Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 27, no. 3, p. 571–581. 

Danielson, W.R., DeGraaf, R.M., and Fuller, T.K., 1996, An inexpensive compact automatic camera 

system for wildlife research: Journal of Field Ornithology, v. 67, no. 3, p. 414–421. 

Delaney, D.K., Grubb, T.G., and Garcelon, D.K., 1998, An infrared video camera system for monitoring 

diurnal and nocturnal raptors: Journal of Raptor Research, v. 32, no. 4, p. 290–296. 

DeLap, J.H., and Knight, R.L., 2004, Wildlife response to anthropogenic food: Natural Areas Journal, v. 

24, no. 2, p. 112–118. 

Donaldson, B., 2007, Use of highway underpasses by large mammals and other wildlife in Virginia—

Factors influencing their effectiveness: Transportation Research Record, v. 2011, p. 157–164. 

Dyrli, O.E., 2001, Live web cams for every content area: Curriculum Administrator, v. 37, no. 1, p. 31. 

Fiehler, C.M., Cypher, B.L., Bremner-Harrison, S., and Pounds, D., 2007, A theft-resistant adjustable 

security box for digital cameras: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 71, no. 6, p. 2077–2080. 

Foresman, K.R., and Pearson, D.E., 1998, Comparison of proposed survey procedures for detection of 

forest carnivores: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 62, no. 4, p. 1217–1226. 

Fusani, L., Giordano, M., Day, L.B., and Schlinger, B.A., 2007, High-speed video analysis reveals 

individual variability in the courtship displays of male Golden-Collared Manakins: Ethology, v. 113, 

no. 10, p. 964–972. 

George, S.L., and Crooks, K.R., 2006, Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve: 

Biological Conservation, v. 133, no. 1, p. 107–117. 

Grassman, L.I., Jr., Tewes, M.E., and Silvy, N.J., 2005, Armoring the Camtrakker® camera-trap in a 

tropical Asian forest: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 33, no. 1, p. 349-352. 
18

Grivas, C., Xirouchakis, S.M., Christodoulou, C., Carcamo-Aboitiz, B., Georgiakakis, P., and Probonas, 

M., 2009, An audio-visual nest monitoring system for the study and manipulation of siblicide in 

bearded vultures Gypaetus barbatus on the island of Crete (Greece): Journal of Ethology, v. 27, p. 

105–116. 

Hanula, J.L., Lipscomb, D., Franzreb, K.E., and Loeb, S.C., 2000, Diet of nestling Red-cockaded 

Woodpeckers at three locations: Journal of Field Ornithology, v. 71, no. 1, p. 126–134. 

Harrison, R.L., 2006, A comparison of survey methods for detecting bobcats: Wildlife Society Bulletin, 

v. 34, no. 2, p. 548–552. 

Hebert, P.N., and Golightly, R.T., 2007, Observations of predation by corvids at a Marbled Murrelet 

nest: Journal of Field Ornithology, v. 78, no. 2, p. 221–224. 

Heithaus, M.R., Dill, L.M., Marshall, G.J., and Buhleier, B., 2002, Habitat use and foraging behavior of 

tiger sharks (Galeocerdo cavier) in a seagrass ecosystem: Marine Biology, v. 140, no. 2, p. 237–248. 

Heithaus, M.R., McLash, J.J., Frid, A., Dill, L.M., and Marshall, G.J., 2002, Novel insights into green 

sea turtle behaviour using animal-borne video cameras: Journal of the Marine Biological Association 

of the United Kingdom, v. 82, no. 6, p. 1049–1050. 

Hooker, S.K., Boyd, I.L., Jessopp, M., Cox, O., Blackwell, J., Boveng, P.L., and Bengston, J.L., 2002, 

Monitoring the prey-field of marine predators—Combining digital imaging with datalogging tags: 

Marine Mammal Science, v. 18, no. 3, p. 680–697. 

Hristov, N.I., Betke, M., and Kunz, T.H., 2008, Applications of thermal infrared imaging for research in 

aeroecology: Integrative and Comparative Biology, v. 48, no. 1, p. 50–59. 

Huckschlag, D., 2008, Development of a digital infrared video camera system for recording and remote 

capturing: European Journal of Wildlife Research, v. 54, p. 651–655. 

Hudson, M.-A.R., and Bird, D.M., 2006, An affordable computerized camera technique for monitoring 

bird nests: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 34, no. 5, p. 1455–1457. 

Instructor, 2005, 5 webcams for kids you don't want to miss: Instructor, v. 115, no. 4, p. 14. 

Kahn, P.H., Jr., Severson, R.L., and Ruckert, J.H., 2009, The human relation with nature and 

technological nature: Current Directions in Psychological Science, v. 18, no. 1, p. 37–42. 

Karhu, R.R., and Anderson, S.H., 2006, The effect of high-tensile electric fence designs on big-game 

and livestock movements: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 34, no. 2, p. 293–299. 

Kelly, M.J., Noss, A.J., Di Bitetti, M.S., Maffei, L., Arispe, R.L., Paviolo, A., De Angelo, C.D., and Di 

Blanco, Y.E., 2008, Estimating puma densities from camera trapping across three study sites—

Bolivia, Argentina, and Belize: Journal of Mammalogy, v. 89, no. 2, p. 408–418. 

King, D.I., DeGraaf, R.M., Champlin, P.J., and Champlin, T.B., 2001, A new method for wireless video 

monitoring of bird nests: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 29, no. 1, p. 349–353. 

Kleist, A.M., Lancia, R.A., and Doerr, P.D., 2007, Using video surveillance to estimate wildlife use of a 

highway underpass: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 71, no. 8, p. 2792–2800. 

Kooyman, G., 2007, Animal-borne instrumentation systems and the animals that bear them—Then 

(1939) and now (2007): Marine Technology Society Journal, v. 41, no. 4, p. 6–8. 

Kristan, D.M., Golightly, R.T., and Tomkiewicz, S.M., Jr., 1996, A solar-powered transmitting video 

camera for monitoring raptor nests: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 24, no. 2, p. 284–290. 

Langbein, J., Scheibe, K.M., and Eichhorn, K., 1998, Investigations on periparturient behavior in freeranging mouflon sheep (Ovis orientalis musimon): Journal of Zoology, v. 244, no. 4, p. 553–561. 

Langston, R.H.W., Liley, D., Murison, G., Woodfield, E., and Clarke, R.T., 2007, What effects do 

walkers and dogs have on the distribution and productivity of breeding European Nightjar 

Caprimulgus europaeus?: Ibis, v. 149, supplement 1, p. 27–36. 
19

Larrucea, E.S., Brussard, P.F., Jaeger, M.M., and Barrett, R.H., 2007, Cameras, coyotes, and the 

assumptions of equal detectability: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 71, no. 5, p. 1682–1689. 

Leggett, K., 2009, Not your grandparents' tour guide: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Refuge Update, v. 

6, no. 1, p. 14. 

Levi, D., and Kocher, S., 1999, Virtual nature—The future effects of information technology on our 

relationship to nature: Environment and Behavior, v. 31, no. 2, p. 203-226. 

Lewis, S.B., DeSimone, P., Titus, K., and Fuller, M.R., 2004, A video surveillance system for 

monitoring raptor nests in a temperate rainforest environment: Northwest Science, v. 78, no. 1, p. 70–

74. 

Locke, S.L., Cline, M.D., Wetzel, D.L., Pittman, M.T., Brewer, C.E., and Harveson, L.A., 2005, A webbased digital camera for monitoring remote wildlife: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 33, no. 2, p. 761–

765. 

London, G.D., Bauman, K.L., and Asa, C.S., 1998, Time-lapse infrared videography for animal 

behavior observations: Zoo Biology, v. 17, no. 6, p. 535–543. 

Lynn, J.C., Rosenstock, S.S., and Chambers, C.L., 2008, Avian use of desert wildlife water 

developments as determined by remote videography: Western North American Naturalist, v. 68, no. 1, 

p. 107–112. 

Lyra-Jorge, M.C., Ciocheti, G., Pivello, V.R., and Meirelles, S.T., 2008, Comparing methods for 

sampling large- and medium-sized mammals—Camera traps and track plots: European Journal of 

Wildlife Research, v. 54, no. 4, p. 739–744. 

Maciejewski, J., 2008, 7 quick computer lab activities: Instructor, v. 117, no. 5, p. 62–63. 

MacNulty, D.R., Plumb, G.E., and Smith, D.W., 2008, Validation of a new video and telemetry system 

for remotely monitoring wildlife: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 72, no. 8, p. 1834–1844. 

Malt, J., and Lank, D., 2007, Temporal dynamics of edge effects on nest predation risk for the marbled 

murrelet: Biological Conservation, v. 140, no. 1-2, p. 160–173. 

Maniscalco, J.M., Parker, P., and Atkinson, S., 2006, Interseasonal and interannual measures of 

maternal care among individual Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus): Journal of Mammalogy, v. 87, 

no. 2, p. 304–311. 

Manzo, K.K., 2009, Virtual field trips open doors for multimedia lessons: Education Week, v. 28, no. 

21, p. 9. 

Margalida, A., Ecolan, S., Boudet, J., Bertran, J., Martinez, J.-M., and Heredia, R., 2006, A solarpowered transmitting video camera for monitoring cliff-nesting raptors: Journal of Field Ornithology, 

v. 77, no. 1, p. 7–12. 

Marnewick, K., Funston, P.J., and Karanth, K.U., 2008, Evaluating camera trapping as a method for 

estimating cheetah abundance in ranching areas: South African Journal of Wildlife Research, v. 38, 

no. 1, p. 59–65. 

McGee, B.K., Butler, M.J., Wallace, M.C., Ballard, W.B., and Nicholson, K.L., 2005, A comparison of 

survey techniques for swift fox pups: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 33, no. 3, p. 1169–1173. 

McQuillen, H.L., and Brewer, L.W., 2000, Methodological considerations for monitoring wild bird 

nests using video technology: Journal of Field Ornithology, v. 71, no. 1, p. 167–172. 

Mills, D.J., Verdouw, G., and Frusher, S.D., 2005, Remote multi-camera system for in situ observations 

of behaviour and predator/prey interactions of marine benthic macrofauna: New Zealand Journal of 

Marine and Freshwater Research, v. 39, no. 2, p. 347–352. 

Moll, R.J., Millspaugh, J.J., Beringer, J., Sartwell, J., and He, Z., 2007, A new 'view' of ecology and 

conservation through animal-borne video systems: Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v. 22, no. 12, p. 

660–668. 
20

Mori, Y., Watanabe, Y., Mitani, Y., Sato, K., Cameron, M.F., and Naite, Y., 2005, A comparison of 

prey richness estimates for Weddell seals using diving profiles and image data: Marine Ecology 

Progress Series, v. 295, p. 257–263. 

Moruzzi, T.L., Fuller, T.K., DeGraaf, R.M., Brooks, R.T., and Li, W., 2002, Assessing remotely 

triggered cameras for surveying carnivore distribution: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 30, no. 2, p. 380–

386. 

Myrick, C.A., 2009, A low-cost system for capturing and analyzing the motion of aquatic organisms: 

Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 28, no. 1, p. 101–109. 

Newbery, K.B., and Southwell, C., 2009, An automated camera system for remote monitoring in polar 

environments: Cold Regions Science and Technology, v. 55, no. 1, p. 47–51. 

Ng, S.J., Dole, J.W., Sauvajot, R.M., Riley, S.P.D., and Valone, T.J., 2004, Use of highway 

undercrossings by wildlife in southern California: Biological Conservation, v. 115, no. 3, p. 499–507. 

O'Brien, C.S., Waddell, R.B., Rosenstock, S.S., and Rabe, M.J., 2006, Wildlife use of water catchments 

in southwestern Arizona: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 34, no. 2, p. 582–591. 

Okada, M., Tarumi, H., Yoshimura, T., Moriya, K., and Sakai, T., 2002, Realization of digital 

environmental education—A future style of environmental education in dynamically changing virtual 

environment, in Tanabe, M., van den Besselaar, P., Ishida, T., eds., Digital Cities II—Computational 

and Sociological Approaches: London, Springer-Verlag, p. 292–304. 

Parrish, F.A., and Littnan, C.L., 2007, Changing perspectives in Hawaiian monk seal research using 

animal-borne imaging: Marine Technology Society Journal, v. 41, no. 4, p. 30–34. 

Pietz, P.J., and Granfors, D.A., 2000, Identifying predators and fates of grassland passerine nests using 

miniature video cameras: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 64, no. 1, p. 71–87. 

Prideaux, B., 2002, The cybertourist, in Dann, G.M.S., ed., The tourist as a metaphor of the social 

world: Wallingford, England, CABI Publishing, p. 317–339. 

Purcell, K.L., and Verner, J., 1999, Nest predators of open and cavity nesting birds in oak woodlands: 

Wilson Bulletin, v. 111, no. 2, p. 251–256. 

Reif, V., and Tornberg, R., 2006, Using time-lapse digital video recording for a nesting study of birds of 

prey: European Journal of Wildlife Research, v. 52, no. 4, p. 251–258. 

Renfrew, R.B., and Ribic, C.A., 2003, Grassland passerine nest predators near pasture edges identified 

on videotape: Auk, v. 120, no. 2, p. 371–383. 

Rogers, A.S., DeStefano, S., and Ingraldi, M.F., 2005, Quantifying Northern Goshawk diets using 

remote cameras and observations from blinds: Journal of Raptor Research, v. 39, no. 3, p. 303–309. 

Rutz, C., and Bluff, L.A., 2008, Animal-borne imaging takes wing, or the dawn of ‘wildlife videotracking’: Trends in Ecology and Evolution, v. 23, no. 6, p. 292–294. 

Salgado Kent, C.P., and Crabtree, B., 2008, The effectiveness of an established sanctuary zone for 

reducing human disturbance to Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea) at Carnac Island, Western 

Australia: Tourism in Marine Environments, v. 5, no. 1, p. 29–42. 

Scheibe, K.M., Eichhorn, K., Wiesmayr, M., Schonert, B., and Krone, O., 2008, Long-term automatic 

video recording as a tool for analysing the time patterns of utilisation of predefined locations by wild 

animals: European Journal of Wildlife Research, v. 54, p. 53–59. 

Shaw, M., 2006, Cute little piggies find fame online: Leicester, England, Times Educational 

Supplement, v. 4,681, p. 1. 

Silveira, L., Jacomo, A.T.A., and Diniz-Filho, J.A.F., 2003, Camera trap, line transect census and track 

surveys—A comparative evaluation: Biological Conservation, v. 114, no. 3, p. 351–355. 
21

Siraj-Blatchford, J., 2006, Emergent science and ICT in the early years, in Warwick, P., Wilson, E., and 

Winterbottom, M., eds., Teaching and learning primary science with ICT: Berkshire, England, Open 

University Press, p. 128–147. 

Smith, K.L., Jr., Kaufmann, R.S., and Wakefield, W.W., 1993, Mobile megafaunal activity monitored 

with a time-lapse camera in the abyssal north Pacific: Deep Sea Research Part I—Oceanographic 

Research Papers, v. 40, no. 11-12, p. 2307–2324. 

Song, D., Qin, N., Xu, Y., Kim, C.Y., and Goldberg, K., 2008, System and algorithms for an 

autonomous observatory assisting the search for the Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, in IEEE Conference 

on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), Washington, D.C., August 23–26, 2008, 

Proceedings: Piscataway, N.J., IEEE Xplore, p. 200–205. 

Srbek-Araujo, A.C., and Chiarello, A.G., 2005, Is camera-trapping an efficient method for surveying 

mammals in neotropical forests? A case study in south-eastern Brazil: Journal of Tropical Ecology, v. 

21, no. 1, p. 121–125. 

Staller, E.L., Palmer, W.E., Carroll, J.P., Thornton, R.P., and Sisson, C.D., 2005, Identifying predators 

at northern bobwhite nests: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 69, no. 1, p. 124–132. 

Steen, R., 2009, A portable digital video surveillance system to monitor prey deliveries at raptor nests: 

Journal of Raptor Research, v. 43, no. 1, p. 69–74. 

Stein, A.B., Fuller, T.K., and Marker, L.L., 2008, Opportunistic use of camera traps to assess habitatspecific mammal and bird diversity in northcentral Namibia: Biodiversity and Conservation, v. 17, no. 

14, p. 3579–3587. 

Stevens, S.S., and Serfass, T.L., 2005, Sliding behavior in Nearctic river otters—Locomotion or play?: 

Northeastern Naturalist, v. 12, no. 2, p. 241–244. 

Stewart, P.D., Ellwood, S.A., and Macdonald, D.W., 1997, Remote video-surveillance of wildlife—An 

introduction from experience with the European badger Meles meles: Mammal Review, v. 27, no. 4, 

p. 185–204. 

Sussmann, S., and Vanhegan, H., 2000, Virtual reality and the tourism product—Substitution or 

complement?, in Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), 

Vienna, Austria, July 3–5, 2000, Proceedings: Vienna, Austria, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien, p. 1077–

1083. 

Swann, D.E., Hass, C.C., Dalton, D.C., and Wolf, S.A., 2004, Infrared-triggered cameras for detecting 

wildlife—An evaluation and review: Wildlife Society Bulletin, v. 32, no. 2, p. 357–365. 

Sykes, P.W., Jr., Ryman, W.E., Kepler, C.B., and Hardy, J.W., 1995, A 24-hour remote surveillance 

system for terrestrial wildlife studies: Journal of Field Ornithology, v. 66, no. 2, p. 199–211. 

The Western Mail, August 27, 2008, Now children can get up close to island's wildlife whatever the 

weather: The Western Mail, p. 38. 

Thompson, F.R., III, and Burhans, D.E., 2003, Predation of songbird nests differs by predator and 

between field and forest habitats: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 67, no. 2, p. 408–416. 

Timothy, D.J., and Groves, D.L., 2001, Webcam images as potential data sources for tourism research: 

Tourism Geographies, v. 3, no. 4, p. 394–404. 

Towerton, A.L., Penman, T.D., Blake, M.D., Deane, A.T., Kavanagh, R.P., and Dickman, C.R., 2008, 

The potential for remote cameras to monitor visitation by birds and predators at Malleefowl mounds: 

Ecological Management & Restoration, v. 9, no. 1, p. 64–67. 

Trierweiler, H., 2005, Web cam magic—Use live cameras to bring the world to your classroom: 

Instructor, v. 114, no. 5, p. 71. 

Turner, W., and McLaughlin, C., 2009, The incredible shrinking earth—Google Earth for today's 

adventurer: Technology & Children, v. 13, no. 3, p. 4–5. 
22

VerCauteren, K.C., Seward, N.W., Lavelle, M.J., Fischer, J.W., and Phillips, G.E., 2007, A fence design 

for excluding elk without impeding other wildlife: Rangeland Ecology & Management, v. 60, no. 5, p. 

529–532. 

Watts, D.E., Parker, I.D., Lopez, R.R., Silvy, N.J., and Davis, D.S., 2008, Distribution and abundance of 

endangered Florida Key Deer on outer islands: Journal of Wildlife Management, v. 72, no. 2, p. 360–

366. 

Williams, P., and Hobson, J.S.P., 1995, Virtual reality and tourism—Fact or fantasy?: Tourism 

Management, v. 16, no. 6, p. 423–427. 

Yasuda, M., and Kawakami, K., 2002, New method of monitoring remote wildlife via the Internet: 

Ecological Research, v. 17, p. 119–124. 

York, E.C., Moruzzi, T.L., Fuller, T.K., Organ, J.F., Sauvajot, R.M., and DeGraaf, R.M., 2001, 

Description and evaluation of a remote camera and triggering system to monitor carnivores: Wildlife 

Society Bulletin, v. 29, no. 4, p. 1228–1237. 
23

Appendix

Additional information regarding specific articles that discuss the use of remote photography for 

research is provided in table 1. The articles selected for inclusion in the table present detailed 

information on camera equipment and use. We do not summarize the detailed information provided in 

each article beyond a brief annotation. In the table, we indicate the topics that are addressed in each 

article so that individuals can identify articles that will provide the information of most interest to them. 

The table includes the following information for each article: 

• Citation: the complete reference citation.

• Annotation: a summary of the topics regarding remote photography addressed in the article.

• Year: year of publication. Although the year is included in the citation information, we provide it 

in a separate column because technology is extremely time sensitive.

• Cost of photographic equipment: the cost of photographic equipment cited in the article. If the 

currency is not noted, the cost is stated in U.S. dollars. 

• Set-up time: the time required to set up the camera and recording equipment used in the study. 

• Description of set-up process: the actions and processes required to set up the camera and

recording and retrieval equipment. 

• Maintenance time: the time required to maintain functionality of the camera and recording 

system. The maintenance time includes time to change batteries, download footage, and conduct 

other maintenance activities.

• Brand name provided: the brand name of the camera and/or recording equipment used. 

• Advantages of camera use: descriptions of the advantages of using a particular camera system or 

of using a camera system as opposed to other methods. 

• Issues with camera use: discussion of aspects of using a camera system that should be 

considered when using remote photography. This includes many topics but is not a discussion of 

disadvantages of using wildlife cameras.

• Power source: a description of the power source for the camera and recording equipment. 
24

Table 1. Annotated references and topics addressed in select wildlife remote photography articles. 

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

Newbery, K.B., and 

Southwell, C., 2009, An 

automated camera system 

for remote monitoring in 

polar environments: Cold 

Regions Science and 

Technology, v. 55, no. 1, p. 

47–51.

This article is very current and detailed. The authors 

describe and discuss each component of the camera system: 

digital camera, camera controller, weatherproof case, 

external protective shutter, solar panel and battery, tripod, 

and rock mat. They describe how they designed a 

temporary mount suitable to the harsh environmental 

setting. They also describe other issues, such as how 

images were stored on a memory card, that demonstrate 

how the general process of remote photography was 

adapted to an extreme climate and difficult-to-access area. 2009 x x x x x x x 

Grivas, C., Xirouchakis, 

S.M., Christodoulou, C., 

Carcamo-Aboitiz, B., 

Georgiakakis, P., and 

Probonas, M., 2009, An 

audio–visual nest 

monitoring system for the 

study and manipulation of 

siblicide in bearded 

vultures Gypaetus barbatus

on the island of Crete 

(Greece): Journal of 

Ethology, v. 27, p. 105–

116.

These authors used a video camera mounted to rock to 

observe nests in rocky cliffs. The camera was battery 

powered and linked to a data transmitter. A receiving unit 

and recorder in a PC comprised the recording subsystem. 

Solar panels were used to recharge and support batteries. 

The authors provide a detailed description of the equipment 

they used and its installation. They provide comments on 

practical issues of camera use. 2009

x (in 

Euros) x x x x x x 
25

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

Steen, R., 2009, A portable 

digital video surveillance 

system to monitor prey 

deliveries at raptor nests: 

Journal of Raptor 

Research, v. 43, no. 1, p. 

69–74.

This study is one of the most recent included in this review 

that used technology more in accordance with the 

equipment currently available—a video surveillance system 

with a mini DVR. Imagery was stored on a secure digital 

(SD) card. The author provides a brief review of 

improvements in video technology for wildlife research. 2009 x x x x x x x

Reif, V., and Tornberg, R., 

2006, Using time-lapse 

digital video recording for 

a nesting study of birds of 

prey: European Journal of 

Wildlife Research, v. 52, 

no. 4, p. 251–258.

This article focuses on technical issues involved in using 

video equipment in wildlife studies. The authors describe 

the factors affecting the choice of video equipment (length 

of recording sessions, species sensitivity to disturbance, 

weather, location remoteness) and the features of the 

equipment (capacity of equipment, power source, camera 

light sensitivity, image resolution, need for equipment 

protection) that must be considered. Additionally, the 

authors describe a specific use of a DVR in a study of 

goshawk and buzzard diets. 2006

x (in 

Euros) x x x x x x

Swann, D.E., Hass, C.C., 

Dalton, D.C., and Wolf, 

S.A., 2004, Infraredtriggered cameras for 

detecting wildlife—An 

evaluation and review: 

Wildlife Society Bulletin, 

v. 32, no. 2, p. 357–365.

The authors of this study thoroughly compare the 

specifications and features of six commercially available 

wildlife camera systems. The features compared include the

cost, battery type, battery life, passive versus active infrared 

triggers, and sensitivity levels of the cameras. The authors 

discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each of the six 

camera systems separately. They also recommend strategies 

for selecting and mounting infrared-triggered camera 

systems for maximum performance. 2004 x x x x x x x
26

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

McQuillen, H.L., and 

Brewer, L.W., 2000, 

Methodological 

considerations for 

monitoring wild bird nests 

using video technology: 

Journal of Field 

Ornithology, v. 71, no. 1, 

p. 167–172.

The purpose of the study described in this article was to test 

commercially available video equipment in field 

conditions. A miniature video camera and a time-lapse 

video recorder were used. The technology described in this 

article is now outdated as is the cost information. This 

article does provide good descriptions of assembling a 

mount for cameras, the amount of time to set up equipment 

in the field, and issues with equipment maintenance and 

performance. 2000 x x x x x x x

London, G.D., Bauman, 

K.L., and Asa, C.S., 1998, 

Time-lapse infrared 

videography for animal 

behavior observations: Zoo 

Biology, v. 17, no. 6, p. 

535–543.

The information provided in this article is based on the 

authors' experiences in using videography in a zoo. The 

authors provide a detailed list of issues to consider when 

using videography—whether to videotape, to use real-time 

or time-lapse recording, to use additional lighting. They 

provide great detail about the equipment necessary to set up 

a time-lapse infrared video recording system. They also 

emphasize the need to protect camera equipment from 

elements of the environment. 1998 x x x x x x x 

Stewart, P.D., Ellwood, 

S.A., and Macdonald, 

D.W., 1997, Remote videosurveillance of wildlife—

an introduction from 

experience with the 

European badger Meles 

meles: Mammal Review, v. 

27, no. 4, p. 185–204.

This is a bit dated, but otherwise a very detailed review of 

the components of a remote video system and the processes 

of setting up a system and processing and archiving the 

video. The authors describe every component separately: 

video recorders, cameras, lenses, alarm triggers, monitors, 

microphones, lights, light switchers, batteries, power 

management system, chargers, inverters, alternative power 

supplies, system housing, and mounts. They describe the 

advantages and disadvantages of remote video surveillance. 

While some of the specific equipment they mention may no 

longer be available and newer technology is not covered, 

this article is a basic reference for anyone considering use 

of remote video to record wildlife. 1997

x (in 

British 

pounds) x x x x x x 
27

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

Lyra-Jorge, M.C., Ciocheti, 

G., Pivello, V.R., and 

Meirelles, S.T., 2008, 

Comparing methods for 

sampling large- and 

medium-sized mammals—

Camera traps and track 

plots: European Journal of 

Wildlife Research, v. 54, 

no. 4, p. 739–744.

The purpose of the study described in this article was to 

compare two methods of detecting and identifying animals: 

camera traps and track plotting. Of particular interest in this 

report, the authors describe issues with using infrared 

sensors to trigger cameras. They suggest that infrared 

sensors are not as sensitive in some environments and that 

they are more effective for animals with larger body mass. 

Animals with lower body mass are not as likely to set off 

the sensor and trigger the camera. While these authors do 

not provide much detail on the camera equipment, they 

provide a succinct discussion of practical strengths and 

weaknesses of using cameras to detect wildlife. 2008 x x x x x x 

Rogers, A.S., DeStefano, 

S., and Ingraldi, M.F., 

2005, Quantifying 

Northern Goshawk diets 

using remote cameras and 

observations from blinds: 

Journal of Raptor 

Research, v. 39, no. 3, p. 

303–309.

This article provides a very detailed description of the 

entire process of setting up a remote camera system as well 

as a description of the components of the system itself. The 

authors describe the required staffing and time to set up the 

equipment; they also describe the cost of the equipment 

(total and by component), how they mounted the cameras to 

trees, how they used a TV monitor to help place the 

camera, and how the recording equipment was secured. A 

video camera attached to a time-lapse VCR was used. 2005 x x x x x x

Srbek-Araujo, A.C., and 

Chiarello, A.G., 2005, Is 

camera-trapping an 

efficient method for 

surveying mammals in 

neotropical forests? A case 

study in south-eastern 

Brazil: Journal of Tropical 

Ecology, v. 21, no. 1, p. 

121–125.

A unique aspect of this study is that the authors used two 

brands of cameras and noted different rates of success in 

capturing photos of animals between the two brands. The 

infrared-triggered cameras took still photos and were 

mounted to tree trunks. The authors provide practical 

information about using cameras in the field. 2005 x x x x x x 
28

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

Lewis, S.B., DeSimone, P., 

Titus, K., and Fuller, M.R., 

2004, A video surveillance 

system for monitoring 

raptor nests in a temperate 

rainforest environment: 

Northwest Science, v. 78, 

no. 1, p. 70–74.

The authors describe the use of a video surveillance system 

to observe nests. The system included a miniature video 

camera and a time-lapse VCR. They provide many details 

regarding the specifications of the equipment included in 

the system and the installation of the equipment, including 

the time required for installation. This article is a useful 

resource for anyone considering a similar project. 2004 x x x x x x 

Delaney, D.K., Grubb, 

T.G., and Garcelon, D.K., 

1998, An infrared video 

camera system for 

monitoring diurnal and 

nocturnal raptors: Journal 

of Raptor Research, v. 32, 

no. 4, p. 290–296.

The authors of this article describe in detail the infrared 

camera system they used and the manner by which the 

cameras were mounted in trees. They also break down the 

amount of time required in each phase of the study: 

equipment assembly, camera placement, tape and battery 

maintenance, and analysis of video tapes. 1998 x x x x x x

Foresman, K.R., and 

Pearson, D.E., 1998, 

Comparison of proposed 

survey procedures for 

detection of forest 

carnivores: Journal of 

Wildlife Management, v. 

62, no. 4, p. 1217–1226.

The camera system described in this article is similar to 

those described in many other, more recent articles. The 

cameras took still photographs. These authors describe the 

issue of camera weight in more detail than other articles 

mentioned in this annotated bibliography. 1998 x x x x x x 
29

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

Song, D., Qin, N., Xu, Y., 

Kim, C.Y., and Goldberg, 

K., 2008, System and 

algorithms for an

autonomous observatory 

assisting the search for the 

Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, 

in IEEE Conference on 

Automation Science and 

Engineering (CASE), 

Washington, D.C., August 

23–26, 2008, Proceedings: 

Piscataway, N.J., IEEE 

Xplore, p. 200–205.

Song and others provide a lot of detail on issues to consider 

in selecting a camera as well as describing four design 

goals to consider in compiling a remote photography 

system. They provide information on tailoring the camera 

setup to record specific species of interest. The technology 

used in this study included a video camera networked in to 

a computer system. Images were stored on a USB disk that 

was changed regularly until a wireless connection was 

established. 2008 x x x x x 

Scheibe, K.M., Eichhorn, 

K., Wiesmayr, M., 

Schonert, B., and Krone, 

O., 2008, Long-term 

automatic video recording 

as a tool for analysing the 

time patterns of utilisation 

of predefined locations by 

wild animals: European 

Journal of Wildlife 

Research, v. 54, p. 53–59.

As part of their study, these authors compared the use of a 

VHS video recording system to a DVR system. They 

determined that the DVR provided substantial savings in 

energy consumption that allowed for longer recording. 2008 x x x x x
30

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

Huckschlag, D., 2008, 

Development of a digital 

infrared video camera 

system for recording and 

remote capturing: 

European Journal of 

Wildlife Research, v. 54, p. 

651–655.

The author used a digital, infrared video camera equipped 

with dual lenses for both daytime and nighttime recording.

This video camera was networked to an attached storage 

device and a modem. The modem provided the option for 

real-time data transmission. A description of issues to 

consider in selecting a camera system to meet the needs of 

a particular circumstance is provided by the author. This 

study is an example of the use of real time data 

transmission. Photographs of the equipment are included. 2008

x (in 

Euros) x x x x

Chidami, S., Guenard, G., 

and Amyot, M., 2007, 

Underwater infrared video 

system for behavioral 

studies in lakes: Limnology 

and Oceanography—

Methods, v. 5, p. 371–378.

The study described in this article used a unique setup to 

photograph underwater activity. The authors used an 

infrared video system with supplemental light-emitting 

diodes to observe and record freshwater fish behavior. The 

cameras were connected to onshore videotape recorders. 

The authors provide a detailed description of how they 

assembled the system they used and of the stainless steel 

structure they created to mount the camera and lights. 2007 x x x x x

Hudson, M.-A.R., and 

Bird, D.M., 2006, An 

affordable computerized 

camera technique for 

monitoring bird nests: 

Wildlife Society Bulletin, 

v. 34, no. 5, p. 1455–1457.

We include this article in the annotated bibliography 

because the authors used some of the most current webcam 

technology. Most of the articles in this annotated 

bibliography focus on the use of a camera in one location. 

These authors created a portable system for nest viewing, 

and the imagery was recorded on a laptop. The authors

provide detail regarding the specifics of the camera system 

they designed and used. 2006 x x x x x
31

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

Renfrew, R.B., and Ribic, 

C.A., 2003, Grassland 

passerine nest predators 

near pasture edges 

identified on videotape: 

Auk, v. 120, no. 2, p. 371–

383.

These authors do not provide a lot of detail about the 

camera system they used. However, they do describe 

factors to consider in camouflaging and protecting a camera 

close to the ground. They describe a pyramid-shaped cage 

they built to protect their field VCR from cattle and include 

an explanation of why the pyramid shape is not attractive to 

cattle. The authors thoroughly describe the potential impact 

on birds of camera placement near nests and options for 

mitigating those effects. 2003 x x x x x

Yasuda, M., and 

Kawakami, K., 2002, New 

method of monitoring 

remote wildlife via the 

Internet: Ecological 

Research, v. 17, p. 119–

124.

Yasuda and Kawakami used a PC camera and a streaming 

server to transmit photographic images over distances. 

They describe in detail the computer equipment and the 

computer and server system requirements. Cost information 

is also provided, but amounts are given in Japanese yen. 2002

x (in 

yen) x x x x

King, D.I., DeGraaf, R.M., 

Champlin, P.J., and 

Champlin, T.B., 2001, A 

new method for wireless 

video monitoring of bird 

nests: Wildlife Society 

Bulletin, v. 29, no. 1, p. 

349–353.

The focus of this article is on use of video cameras to 

monitor a nest. The authors discuss in detail two key topics 

that are rarely covered in other articles describing use of 

remote photography. First, they describe the use of wireless 

transmitters to send the photographic data to a VCR. While 

this may now be outdated technology, at the time the article 

was published, this was a great innovation, as most studies 

used cables to connect the camera to the recording device. 

Second, the authors provide a detailed account of how they 

constructed the weatherproof and camouflaged containers 

for their equipment. 2001 x x x x x
32

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

Kristan, D.M., Golightly, 

R.T., and Tomkiewicz, 

S.M., Jr., 1996, A solarpowered transmitting video 

camera for monitoring 

raptor nests: Wildlife 

Society Bulletin, v. 24, no. 

2, p. 284–290.

This article provides great detail in its description of the 

video camera and wireless transmission system and is a 

great resource for anyone considering a similar 

arrangement. The authors describe how they built an 

extendable frame to mount the camera to a tree (necessary 

because there were no branches over the nest). The system 

was powered by battery with a solar recharging system. The 

solar panel is described in detail. Video from the osprey 

nest was presented on CCTV at a visitor center. 1996 x x x x x

Sykes, P.W., Jr., Ryman, 

W.E., Kepler, C.B., and 

Hardy, J.W., 1995, A 24-

hour remote surveillance

system for terrestrial 

wildlife studies: Journal of 

Field Ornithology, v. 66, 

no. 2, p. 199–211.

While this article is dated and the technology may be 

obsolete, the authors provide a detailed description of the 

setup of a closed-circuit television system with the ability 

to adjust the camera as the footage is being recorded. The 

system as described does require monitoring by an 

individual to make appropriate camera adjustments. The 

authors of this study used a portable power generator—a 

technique not common in studies using remote 

photography. 1995 x x x x x 

Myrick, C.A., 2009, A 

low-cost system for 

capturing and analyzing the 

motion of aquatic 

organisms: Journal of the 

North American 

Benthological Society, v. 

28, no. 1, p. 101–109.

Myrick describes the setup and use of web cameras to 

conduct a motion study in a laboratory setting. While this 

use of web cameras may not be directly applicable to 

outdoor use of cameras to record wildlife activity, this 

article provides the most up–to-date information regarding 

camera cost and availability. 2009 x x x x

Bluff, L.A., and Rutz, C., 

2008, A quick guide to 

video-tracking birds, 

Biology Letters, v. 4, no. 4, 

p. 319–322.

This brief article and the electronic supplementary material 

provide extensive detail on the use of animal-borne video 

cameras with birds. The article includes a discussion of 

ethical and practical considerations in using such an 

approach with birds. 2008 x x x x 
33

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

Towerton, A.L., Penman, 

T.D., Blake, M.D., Deane, 

A.T., Kavanagh, R.P., and 

Dickman, C.R., 2008, The 

potential for remote 

cameras to monitor 

visitation by birds and 

predators at Malleefowl 

mounds: Ecological 

Management & 

Restoration, v. 9, no. 1, p. 

64–67.

These authors took still photos with an infrared-triggered

digital camera as part of their wildlife study. This article 

does not contain as much description of the camera, 

recording system, and installation process as other articles, 

although it does include specifics on the camera used. The 

technology described in this article may be among the most 

recent. 2008

x (in 

Australi

an 

dollars) x x x 

MacNulty, D.R., Plumb, 

G.E., and Smith, D.W., 

2008, Validation of a new 

video and telemetry system 

for remotely monitoring 

wildlife: Journal of 

Wildlife Management, v. 

72, no. 8, p. 1834–1844.

Reporting one of the most current studies included in this 

review, this article describes the use of a laptop and satellite 

phone to transmit video imagery captured at the study site 

to a server in a different state that could be accessed by the 

researchers. The authors recommend, based on their 

experience, that a microwave relay to a dedicated internet 

connection may be superior to a satellite uplink. The 

cameras used in this study were robotic with remotecontrolled, pan-tilt-zoom function. Cameras were also 

equipped with a windshield-wiper function to clear the lens 

in bad weather. This is also one of the few studies that used

cameras powered by batteries recharged with wind and 

solar panels. 2008 x x x x 
34

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

Fiehler, C.M., Cypher, 

B.L., Bremner-Harrison, 

S., and Pounds, D., 2007, 

A theft-resistant adjustable 

security box for digital 

cameras: Journal of 

Wildlife Management, v. 

71, no. 6, p. 2077–2080.

The focus of this article is the construction of a security box 

to protect cameras used to study wildlife use of a highway 

underpass. The cameras used were digital and took still 

photos. Highway underpasses are used by humans as well, 

which presents a theft concern for researchers using 

cameras. The authors provide a detailed description and a 

schematic of the security box. A cost estimate is included. 2007 x x x x 

Langston, R.H.W., Liley, 

D., Murison, G., 

Woodfield, E., and Clarke, 

R.T., 2007, What effects do 

walkers and dogs have on 

the distribution and 

productivity of breeding 

European Nightjar 

Caprimulgus europaeus?: 

Ibis, v. 149, supplement 1, 

p. 27–36.

In this recent report of remote videography to study birds, 

the description of the camera system is somewhat limited. 

A one-paragraph appendix to the article provides the 

specifics of the camera and time-lapse video recording 

equipment. 2007 x x x x

Margalida, A., Ecolan, S., 

Boudet, J., Bertran, J., 

Martinez, J.-M., and 

Heredia, R., 2006, A solarpowered transmitting 

video-camera for 

monitoring cliff-nesting 

raptors: Journal of Field 

Ornithology, v. 77, no. 1, 

p. 7–12.

In contrast to many other nesting studies, this study 

involved mounting cameras on to a rock face rather than to 

a tree. The authors provide details regarding the video 

camera and recording system and the wireless transmission 

system they used to study cliff-nesting birds. Another 

innovation in this study is the use of a wind-powered 

battery charger in addition to solar-powered battery 

chargers. 2006 x x x x
35

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

O'Brien, C.S., Waddell, 

R.B., Rosenstock, S.S., and 

Rabe, M.J., 2006, Wildlife 

use of water catchments in 

southwestern Arizona: 

Wildlife Society Bulletin, 

v. 34, no. 2, p. 582–591.

The study described in this article is one example of the use 

of remote videography in a desert landscape. Although it 

doesn't provide a lot of detail about the installation of the 

camera system, it does provide more detail than some other 

desert studies regarding the use of an underground vault to 

house the recording system and other electronic 

components. The researchers used a battery system with 

solar recharge to power their equipment. 2006 x x x x 

McGee, B.K., Butler, M.J., 

Wallace, M.C., Ballard, 

W.B., and Nicholson, K.L., 

2005, A comparison of 

survey techniques for swift 

fox pups: Wildlife Society 

Bulletin, v. 33, no. 3, p. 

1169–1173.

This article includes a description of the use of a den-probe 

cam; this technology was not widely referenced in the other 

articles reviewed. While the technology did not work well 

for the authors’ purposes, they do provide a description of 

the equipment that is useful to others who may be 

considering that particular technology. The authors also 

describe a mounted video camera system they used near 

dens to record fox activity. 2005 x x x x 

Mills, D.J., Verdouw, G., 

and Frusher, S.D., 2005, 

Remote multi-camera 

system for in situ 

observations of behaviour 

and predator/prey 

interactions of marine 

benthic macrofauna: New 

Zealand Journal of Marine 

and Freshwater Research, 

v. 39, no. 2, p. 347–352.

This is one of the few studies to use videography in an

underwater setting. The authors provide specific 

information about the components of their system and how 

the video data is transmitted from the pontoon to the 

receiving unit on shore. 2005 x x x x 
36

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

York, E.C., Moruzzi, T.L., 

Fuller, T.K., Organ, J.F., 

Sauvajot, R.M., and 

DeGraaf, R.M., 2001, 

Description and evaluation 

of a remote camera and 

triggering system to 

monitor carnivores: 

Wildlife Society Bulletin, 

v. 29, no. 4, p. 1228–1237.

In this study, an automatic camera was used to photograph 

animals of sufficient size to trigger a pressure plate. The 

authors provide a detailed description of how to wire a 

camera to a pressure trigger plate and how to assemble a 

weatherproof camera-housing unit. 2001 x x x x

Kleist, A.M., Lancia, R.A., 

and Doerr, P.D., 2007, 

Using video surveillance to 

estimate wildlife use of a 

highway underpass: 

Journal of Wildlife 

Management, v. 71, no. 8, 

p. 2792–2800.

The description of the camera system used in this study is 

brief. A digital camera was connected to a digital video 

recorder. The authors describe the advantages of switching 

to solar power for the cameras (not just a solar recharge for 

batteries) from using batteries. The solar power provided 

sufficient power to record with minimal interruptions; the 

batteries provided sufficient power for 4–7 days of 

recording. 2007 x x x 

Hebert, P.N., and 

Golightly, R.T., 2007, 

Observations of predation 

by corvids at a Marbled 

Murrelet nest: Journal of 

Field Ornithology, v. 78, 

no. 2, p. 221–224.

The authors do not describe the camera system they used in 

much detail but this article includes a more recent data 

collection period (2002–2005) and the equipment may be 

more current than the equipment described in some other 

articles. The authors used a video camera connected by 

cable to a time-lapse VCR located near the study nest. 2007 x x x

George, S.L., and Crooks, 

K.R., 2006, Recreation and 

large mammal activity in 

an urban nature reserve: 

Biological Conservation, v. 

133, no. 1, p. 107–117.

In this study, authors used cameras in areas considered high 

risk and in areas considered low risk for theft. The cameras 

took still photography. The authors describe the different 

approaches used to secure their infrared cameras in these 

two types of areas. 2006 x x x 
37

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

Locke, S.L., Cline, M.D., 

Wetzel, D.L., Pittman, 

M.T., Brewer, C.E., and 

Harveson, L.A., 2005, A 

web-based digital camera 

for monitoring remote 

wildlife: Wildlife Society 

Bulletin, v. 33, no. 2, p. 

761–765.

In this article, the authors describe using photographic 

technology to collect data in a remote location. They used a 

web-based digital camera, activated by motion and heat 

detection, to photograph wildlife in an area that was not 

easily accessible. A unique aspect of the study described in

this article is how the authors were able to retrieve the 

photographs remotely. They set up a laptop and satellite 

phone in the field with the camera. The laptop was 

programmed to turn the satellite phone on twice daily and 

send the photographs to a server. The camera and laptop

were battery powered with solar recharge capability. The 

authors also describe how they made the photos available to 

the public online; however, they did not conduct any 

assessment of viewing or use of photos by the public. 2005 x x x

Grassman, L.I., Jr., Tewes, 

M.E., and Silvy, N.J., 

2005, Armoring the 

Camtrakker® camera-trap 

in a tropical Asian forest: 

Wildlife Society Bulletin, 

v. 33, no. 1, p. 349–352.

The authors of this article focused on the development of a 

protective casing for cameras used for remote photography. 

They developed a steel shell casing for the camera 

equipment and a mounting bracket suitable to attach the 

casing to a tree and they describe in detail the procedure to 

assemble the casing and bracket. They tested the casing in 

an area populated by elephants; the protective casing 

proved to be useful in deterring elephant damage. The 

authors believe this type of casing may also be useful in 

locations with large carnivores or where there is a threat of 

theft. 2005 x x x 
38

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

Cutler, T.L., and Swann, 

D.E., 1999, Using remote 

photography in wildlife 

ecology—A review: 

Wildlife Society Bulletin, 

v. 27, no. 3, p. 571–581.

The authors discuss and review use of remote photography 

in wildlife studies. This article doesn't include a discussion

of webcams because that technology was not popular at the 

time the article was written. However, the authors describe 

the advantages and disadvantages of remote photography 

for different types of studies (for example, studies of 

nesting behavior, studies to detect presence of species). 

They describe conditions under which time-lapse versus 

animal-triggered systems are most appropriate. These 

issues are important to consider for those using any type of 

remote photography, including webcams. 1999 x x x 

Watts, D.E., Parker, I.D., 

Lopez, R.R., Silvy, N.J., 

and Davis, D.S., 2008, 

Distribution and abundance 

of endangered Florida Key 

Deer on outer islands: 

Journal of Wildlife 

Management, v. 72, no. 2, 

p. 360–366.

This study was conducted with digital, infrared-triggered 

cameras to observe and survey a species (Key deer) that is 

difficult to study with traditional methods. The researchers 

used a camera programmed to take an initial still 

photograph and then to record 10–20 seconds of video 

immediately following. 2008 x x 
39

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

Kelly, M.J., Noss, A.J., Di 

Bitetti, M.S., Maffei, L., 

Arispe, R.L., Paviolo, A., 

De Angelo, C.D., and Di 

Blanco, Y.E., 2008, 

Estimating puma densities 

from camera trapping 

across three study sites—

Bolivia, Argentina, and 

Belize: Journal of 

Mammalogy, v. 89, no. 2, 

p. 408–418.

The researchers used a camera to take still photos; they 

mentioned a list of brand names of cameras they used but 

did not describe any other specifications. They include an 

appendix discussing issues of identifying individual pumas 

in photos. 2008 x x 

Donaldson, B., 2007, Use 

of highway underpasses by 

large mammals and other 

wildlife in Virginia—

Factors influencing their 

effectiveness: 

Transportation Research 

Record, v. 2011, p. 157–

164.

The study described in this article involved mounting 

digital cameras and highway underpasses to document use 

of these pathways by wildlife. The author describes use of 

two types of cameras, one of which was better suited to 

sites where human visitation was expected, where the

cameras were mounted at the sites, and how frequently the 

cameras were visited to download photographs and replace 

batteries. 2007 x x 

Maniscalco, J.M., Parker, 

P., and Atkinson, S., 2006, 

Interseasonal and 

interannual measures of 

maternal care among 

individual Steller sea lions 

(Eumetopias jubatus): 

Journal of Mammalogy, v. 

87, no. 2, p. 304–311.

This study used remote-operated video cameras with 

imagery sent via cable to a control tower; the control tower 

in turn transmitted images via microwave transmissions. 

Incoming data was recorded using video recorders at the 

research center, not the study site. The equipment was 

battery powered with wind and solar battery recharge. 2006 x x 
40

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

Silveira, L., Jacomo, 

A.T.A., and Diniz-Filho, 

J.A.F., 2003, Camera trap, 

line transect census and 

track surveys—A 

comparative evaluation: 

Biological Conservation, v. 

114, no. 3, p. 351–355.

In this article, the authors do not describe in much detail the 

specific camera setup they used. Instead of describing the 

specific setup they used, the authors focused on the 

advantages of conducting camera-based surveys rather than 

other methods of studying wildlife. The advantages they 

describe include the ability to use camera technology to 

observe nocturnal animals, accuracy of species 

identification, low environmental disturbance, and ease of 

use. 2003 x x 

Smith, K.L., Jr., 

Kaufmann, R.S., and 

Wakefield, W.W., 1993, 

Mobile megafaunal activity 

monitored with a timelapse camera in the abyssal 

north Pacific: Deep Sea 

Research Part I—

Oceanographic Research 

Papers, v. 40, no. 11-12, p. 

2307–2324.

Although this article is dated, the authors provide a 

thorough description of the camera tripod they constructed 

to photograph underwater. They used a camera with color 

negative film. They describe the use of strobe lights to 

provide adequate lighting for the photographs and the use 

of ballast to stabilize the camera tripod. 1993 x x 

Hristov, N.I., Betke, M., 

and Kunz, T.H., 2008, 

Applications of thermal 

infrared imaging for 

research in aeroecology: 

Integrative and 

Comparative Biology, v. 

48, no. 1, p. 50–59.

This article describes the use of thermal infrared imagery to 

study free-ranging bats. The authors define and explain the 

difference between cooled and uncooled thermal infrared 

cameras. 2008 x
41

Topics addressed

Citation Annotation

Year

Cost of 

photographic 

equipment

Set-up time

Description of 

set-up process

Maintenance 

time

Brand name 

provided

Advantages of 

camera use

Issues with 

camera use

Power source

Brough, M., and 

Wigglesworth, S., 2005, A 

journey in the future—

Mossbrook School: Access 

by Design, no. 104, p. 17–

21.

This article is not a research study but a case study in which 

outdoor cameras transmit imagery into classrooms in a 

school. The case study includes an innovative approach to 

helping children understand pond life. A boat that can be 

remote-controlled by the children has an underwater 

camera mounted to the underside. The view from the 

camera is broadcast into the classroom. 2005 x 

Cain, J.W., Morrison, 

M.L., and Bombay, H.L., 

2003, Predator activity and 

nest success of willow 

flycatchers and yellow 

warblers: Journal of 

Wildlife Management, v. 

67, no. 3, p. 600–610.

The authors of this article do not describe the camera 

system they used in much detail. The camera was electronic 

and took still photographs. They do describe how they 

connected the camera trigger to bait eggs placed in the nests 

used in the study. 2003 x

Langbein, J., Scheibe, 

K.M., and Eichhorn, K., 

1998, Investigations on 

periparturient behavior in 

free-ranging mouflon sheep 

(Ovis orientalis musimon): 

Journal of Zoology, v. 244, 

no. 4, p. 553–561.

In this study of the behavior of wild sheep, the authors 

needed to record both daytime and nighttime behavior. 

They achieved this by using two video cameras: one a color 

camera for daylight hours, the other an infrared camera 

with infrared spotlights for nighttime recording. Imagery 

was recorded on a time-lapse video recorder. 1998 x 
42

Publishing support provided by: 

Denver Publishing Service Center

For more information concerning this publication, contact:

Center Director, USGS Fort Collins Science Center

2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. C

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118

(970)226-9398

Or visit the Fort Collins Science Center Web site at:

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/