Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38473194›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024

Human-Wildlife Interaction-A Social Survey.

Lara-Luisa Grundei, Franziska M Schöttes, Friederike Gethöffer, Daniel Tost, Laurin Kluge, Ursula Siebert, Michael Pees

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. 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

7 authors.

Lara-Luisa GrundeiDepartment of Small Mammal, Reptile and Avian Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bünteweg 9, 30559 Hanover, Germany.
Franziska M SchöttesInstitute for Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Research, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany.
Friederike GethöfferInstitute for Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Research, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1092-6099
Daniel TostInstitute for Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Research, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9545-9647
Laurin KlugeDepartment of Small Mammal, Reptile and Avian Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bünteweg 9, 30559 Hanover, Germany.
Ursula SiebertInstitute for Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Research, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bischofsholer Damm 15, 30173 Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2556-3948
Michael PeesDepartment of Small Mammal, Reptile and Avian Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Bünteweg 9, 30559 Hanover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7244-9697

Funding

Lower Saxony VORAB by Lower Saxony Ministry of Science and Culture and the Volkswagen Foundation ZN 3886.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the results of a survey presented in this paper, we provide insight into public attitudes towards dealing with wildlife. Based on 1569 data sets derived from participating stakeholders, we inquired about the individual experience the participants had made with wild animals, and asked about their personal engagement, attitude towards management, and emotions involved and tried to evaluate basic contextual knowledge. As a result, we discovered a positive effect showing that a strong opinion about dealing with wildlife is associated with increasing contextual knowledge. People that are experienced in and engaged in wildlife conservation expressed significantly stronger positive emotions in this context. We conclude that education is essential in dealing with wildlife responsibly and that positive emotions are a main trigger for such engagement. The results of the survey underline that a combination of contextual knowledge and a positive attitude towards wildlife leads to a higher awareness of possible conflicts between humans and wildlife. Furthermore, these criteria are crucial when developing strategies that strive for a sustainable coexistence.

Indexed as

human–wildlife interactionurban wildlifewildlife carewildlife rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID38473194
PMCPMC10930541

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.