Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39199947›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024

Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions in Tasmania: Tourists' Attitudes and Behaviour.

Elleke Leurs, James B Kirkpatrick

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

2 authors.

Elleke LeursDepartment of Geography, Planning, and Social Science, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8514-522X
James B KirkpatrickDepartment of Geography, Planning, and Social Science, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS 7001, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The surge in wildlife-vehicle collision research has not yet translated into a substantial decrease in animal fatalities. In line with the prevailing view, we suspect that drivers' behaviour may be the most crucial element. We address a research gap in drivers' attitudes towards and behaviour in response to wildlife-vehicle collisions from a tourist perspective. We designed a questionnaire to examine tourists' attitudes and behaviour in relation to wildlife-vehicle collisions while driving in Tasmania. We found that the respondents' sociodemographic attributes had minimal effect on their practical responses to roadkill. Tourists consider wildlife-vehicle collisions a serious problem for both biodiversity loss and animal welfare reasons, and their willingness to change their behaviour was high. However, many respondents did not stop to check for surviving pouch young. This inaction resulted either from overlooking the importance of pouch checking or a lack of knowledge on what action needed to be taken. There may also be a lack of understanding that roadkill left on the road leads to secondary roadkill incidents. Even though tourist behaviour does not automatically represent residents' behaviour, these findings will help to improve and tailor educational approaches to rectify the driver awareness/behaviour gap for both tourists and residents.

Indexed as

animal welfarebiodiversity conservationdriver behaviourroadkillTasmaniatourist perspectiveswildlife–vehicle collisions

Identifiers

PMID39199947
PMCPMC11350784

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.