ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025
A spatially explicit assessment of factors shaping attitudes toward African elephant conservation.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring neglected places enabling conservation crime through place network investigations.iScience · 2026Article
- A spatially explicit assessment of factors shaping attitudes toward African elephant conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Conservation plans that explicitly account for the social landscape where people and wildlife co-occur can yield more effective and equitable conservation practices and outcomes. Yet, social data remain underutilized, often because social data are treated as aspatial or are analyzed with approaches that do not quantify uncertainty or address bias in self-reported data. We conducted a survey (questionnaires) of 177 households in a multiuse landscape in the Kenya-Tanzania borderlands. In a mixed-methods approach, we used Bayesian hierarchical models to quantify and map local attitudes toward African elephant (Loxodonta africana) conservation while accounting for response bias and then combined inference from attitude models with thematic analysis of open-ended responses and cointerpretation of results with local communities to gain deeper understanding of what explains attitudes of people living with wildlife. Model estimates showed that believing elephants have sociocultural value increased the probability of respondents holding positive attitudes toward elephant conservation in general (mean increase = 0.31 [95% credible interval, CrI, 0.02-0.67]), but experiencing negative impacts from any wildlife species lowered the probability of respondents holding a positive attitude toward local elephant conservation (mean decrease = -0.20 [95% CrI -0.42 to 0.03]). Qualitative data revealed that safety and well-being concerns related to the perceived threats that elephants pose to human lives and livelihoods, and limited incentives to support conservation on community and private lands lowered positive local attitude probabilities and contributed to negative perceptions of human-elephant coexistence. Our spatially explicit modeling approach revealed fine-scale variation in drivers of conservation attitudes that can inform targeted conservation planning. Our results suggest that approaches focused on sustaining existing sociocultural values and relationships with wildlife, investing in well-being, and implementing species-agnostic approaches to wildlife impact mitigation could improve conservation outcomes in shared landscapes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.