Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36072352›Full record

SynthesisTheScientificWorldJournal2022

Human-Terrestrial Wildlife Conflict in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review.

Getahun Shanko, Bekele Tona

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Getahun ShankoDepartment of Natural Resource Management, Wolaita Sodo University Dawro Tarcha Campus, P. O. Box 01, Tarcha, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9129-2461
Bekele TonaDepartment of Natural Resource Management, Wolaita Sodo University Dawro Tarcha Campus, P. O. Box 01, Tarcha, Ethiopia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6479-2700
Wolaita Sodo University · ET

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We conducted a review of 26 articles published between 2009 and 2021 to determine human-wildlife conflict based on spatial and temporal patterns, biological components, drivers of conflict, and mitigation methods used. We employed search, synthesis, appraisal, and analysis framework for review and VOSviewer software for network analysis. We included articles that only focused on relations between terrestrial wildlife and humans, while others deal with ecology, distribution, and biology of wildlife because it does not go with HWC. Forty-seven species of terrestrial vertebrates were reported in conflict-related studies, being Bovidae and Cercopithecidae the most frequently studied groups, of which eleven are found in threatened list species. The main drivers reported were land use change, proximity to protected areas, and illegal resource exploitation. In the management case, the use of traditional protection techniques such as fencing, guarding, and physical barriers was reported. About 178 keywords' analysis revealed a focus on "coexistence," "mitigation," and "food security." The literature focused mainly on larger mammals, led by Ethiopian authors, and excluded the social dimensions of HWC. Therefore, identifying conflict-prone species focuses on the social dimensions of coexistence, such as human attitudes towards terrestrial wildlife, and broadening the taxonomic and cultural breadth of HWC is required.

Indexed as

Animals, WildConservation of Natural ResourcesAnimalsEcologyEndangered SpeciesEthiopiaHumansMammals

Identifiers

PMID36072352
PMCPMC9444465
OpenAlexW4293766339

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.