Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34697766›Full record

ArticleAmbio2022

Tigers bringing risk and security: Gendered perceptions of tiger reintroduction in Rajasthan, India.

Kalli F Doubleday, Elena C Rubino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ambio, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Creating constellations of coexistence through connections between people in human-wildlife conflict areas.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2024
    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

2 authors.

Kalli F DoubledayDepartment of Geography and the Environment, University of Texas at Austin, 305 E 23rd St, Austin, TX, 78712, USA. kdoubleday@utexas.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0520-784X
Elena C RubinoCollege of Forestry, Agriculture, and Natural Resources, the University of Arkansas at Monticello, Forestry Building, B213, 110 University Court, Monticello, AR, 71655, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human-wildlife conflict has been documented to impact some communities heterogeneously, particularly along gender lines (e.g., women experiencing inequitably increased workloads and economic hardship, and decreased physical safety and psychological wellbeing), leading to different attitudes towards wildlife. Despite possible gendered discrepancies, women's perceptions of conservation management are often insufficiently explored, leading to incomplete understandings of conservation dynamics, and unjust conservation policies. In an effort to investigate if and how perceptions of tiger reintroductions are disparate, we conducted focus group discussions with women and men living in and around Sariska Tiger Reserve in Rajasthan, India. Results demonstrate clear gendered delineations in perceptions, where male participants predominantly focused on economic and ecological benefits, and female participants highlighted threats to personal safety and hidden costs (e.g., potential abuse, dowry concerns). This research underscores the importance of documenting and understanding gendered perceptions of carnivores to achieve the broad community support necessary for successful reintroduction efforts worldwide.

Indexed as

Animals, WildConservation of Natural ResourcesAnimalsAttitudeFemaleHumansIndiaMalePovertyCarnivoresFocus groupsHuman–wildlife conflictQualitative analysisWildlife conservation

Identifiers

PMID34697766
PMCPMC8931145

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.