The effect of human disturbance on animals is frequently measured in terms
of changes in behaviour in response to human presence. The magnitude of the
se changes in behaviour is then often used as a measure of the relative sus
ceptibility of species to disturbance; for example species which show stron
g avoidance of human presence are often considered to be in greater need of
protection from disturbance than those which do not. In this paper we disc
uss whether such changes in behaviour are likely to be good measures of the
relative susceptibility of species, and suggest that their use may result
in confusion when determining conservation priorities. (C) 2000 Elsevier Sc
ience Ltd. All rights reserved.