ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021
The Return of Large Carnivores and Extensive Farming Systems: A Review of Stakeholders' Perception at an EU Level.
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Yellow Fever Outbreaks Are Not Associated With Long-Term Negative Human Perceptions of Wild Primates in Brazil.American journal of primatology · 2026Article
- Livestock Depredations and Prevention Strategies to Foster Human-Carnivore Coexistence in Western Mongolia's High Mountain Systems.Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Patterns of brown bear damages to agro-livestock activities in North-Eastern Italy across 15 years.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Positive perceptions of brown bears linked to long-term cohabitation in the Iberian Peninsula.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Niche partitioning and individual specialisation in resources and space use of sympatric fur seals at their range margin.Oecologia · 2024Article
- Shepherds View of Large Carnivore Recovery in the Pyrenees, Spain.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conflicts between large carnivores and human activities undermine both the maintenance of livestock practices as well as the conservation of carnivores across Europe. Because large carnivore management is driven by a common EU policy, the purpose of this research was to assess stakeholders' perception towards bears and wolves at an EU level. We conducted a systematic search and subsequent analysis of 40 peer-reviewed studies collected from 1990 to September 2020 within Member States of the EU. Rural inhabitants and hunters exhibited the most negative attitude compared to urban inhabitants and conservationists, whose attitude was more positive. We showed that direct experience with predators as a consequence of ongoing re-colonization may have affected the degree of acceptance of certain categories and that the long-term coexistence between humans and carnivores does not necessarily imply increased tolerance. To encourage coexistence, we recommend monitoring changes in attitudes over time relative to carnivore population dynamics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.