Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35997806›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental management2022

Expanding and Evaluating Public Satisfaction with Wildlife Governance: Insights from Deer Management in Indiana, USA.

Taylor R Stinchcomb, Zhao Ma, Robert K Swihart, Joe N Caudell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Taylor R StinchcombDepartment of Forestry & Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA. tstinchcomb@pm.me.
Zhao MaDepartment of Forestry & Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
Robert K SwihartDepartment of Forestry & Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
Joe N CaudellIndiana Department of Natural Resources Division of Fish & Wildlife, Bloomington, IN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wildlife agencies in North America desire to incorporate broader public interests into decision-making so they can realize the principle of governing wildlife in the public trust. Public satisfaction is a key component of good governance but evaluating satisfaction with wildlife management focuses on traditional user experiences rather than perceptions of agency performance. We draw from political science, business, and conservation social science to develop a multidimensional concept of satisfaction with wildlife management that includes agency performance, service quality, trust in the managing agency, and informational trust. We use data collected from a 2021 survey of Indiana residents to analyze the social and cognitive determinants of satisfaction with white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) management. Quantile regression models revealed that respondents' acceptability of management methods and deer-related concerns most strongly affected performance and quality components, whereas respondent characteristics mostly affected trust components of the index. Future research should associate satisfaction with key variables we did not fully capture including perceived control, psychological distance, and norms of interaction between wildlife agencies and the public. Expanding agency conceptions of public satisfaction represents a critical step toward public trust thinking and the practice of good wildlife governance in North America.

Indexed as

Animals, WildDeerAnimalsIndianaPersonal SatisfactionSurveys and QuestionnairesGovernancePublic trustSatisfactionSocial scienceWhite-tailed deerWildlife management

Identifiers

PMID35997806
PMCPMC9519643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.