ArticleScientific reports2024
Novel insights into the cognitive, emotional, and experiential dimensions of stakeholder acceptance of wildlife management.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding wildlife stakeholders is vital in mitigating the risk for inertia in the implementation of management and illegal activities, e.g., poaching. We used a unique set of questionnaire data of stakeholders in Sweden (n = 8728) comprising birdwatchers, hunters, farmers, and the general public, to analyze evaluations of geese, beliefs about goose management at multiple levels, and acceptance of management tools. Also, a hierarchical model incorporating prior wildlife experience and integrating cognitions and emotions for acceptance was tested. The overall attitude towards geese was positive, but ecosystem disservices caused by large populations were acknowledged. The general public and birdwatchers displayed trust in the national, regional, and local levels. In contrast, farmers and hunters trusted mainly the local level. Broad stakeholder acceptance was found for several non-lethal tools for damage reduction and more generally a goose conservation approach including e.g., hunting free zones, but also for hunting during open hunting season. We found support for the proposed model in relation to acceptance of both the conservation and the lethal approach, thereby advancing theory integration. Results suggest that while goose conservation is widely accepted, problems caused by geese and distrust in the higher management levels among some stakeholder groups need to be addressed.
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.