Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30879269›Full record

ReviewAmbio2019

Wildlife, human and environmental costs of using lead ammunition: An economic review and analysis.

Deborah J Pain, Ian Dickie, Rhys E Green, Niels Kanstrup, Ruth Cromie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ambio, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The environmental threats from lead ammunition.Eco-Environment & Health · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Deborah J PainDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, UK. pain.debbie@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8142-9017
Ian Dickieeftec - economics for the environment, 4 City Road, London, EC1Y 2AA, UK.
Rhys E GreenDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, UK.
Niels KanstrupDepartment of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Grenåvej 14, 8410, Rønde, Denmark.
Ruth CromieWildfowl & Wetlands Trust, Slimbridge, Gloucestershire, GL2 7BT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A proposed European Union (EU)-wide restriction on the use of lead gunshot for shooting in and over wetlands estimated that the societal benefits of a restriction outweighed costs, despite few identified benefits being quantified economically. A subsequent Annex XV Investigation Report on the evidence of impacts of lead ammunition in terrestrial environments concluded that additional measures to control its use are warranted, although to date this has not been further evaluated. To help inform this process, we review the literature and undertake new analyses to estimate the costs of continued use of lead ammunition associated with impacts on wildlife, people and the environment. We estimate minimum annual direct costs across the EU and Europe of c. €383 million-€960 million and €444 million-€1.3 thousand million respectively. The value that society places on being able to avoid these losses, estimated using a 'willingness to pay' approach, was c. €2.2 thousand million for wildfowl alone. Our estimated costs of the continued use of lead ammunition across the EU appear to be considerably greater than the likely costs of switching to non-toxic alternative ammunition types, although these have not been formally estimated in full.

Indexed as

Animals, WildWetlandsAnimalsEuropeEuropean UnionHumansBirdsBulletsEvaluationFinancialGunshotSociety

Identifiers

PMID30879269
PMCPMC6675822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.