Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39604429›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Novel insights into the cognitive, emotional, and experiential dimensions of stakeholder acceptance of wildlife management.

Louise Eriksson, Maria Johansson, Johan Månsson, Camilla Sandström, Niklas Liljebäck, Johan Elmberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

6 authors.

Louise ErikssonDepartment of Geography, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden. louise.eriksson@umu.se.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6673-0079
Maria JohanssonEnvironmental Psychology, Department of Architecture and Built Environment, Lund University, 221 00, Lund, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7947-3297
Johan MånssonGrimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 730 91, Riddarhyttan, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5189-2091
Camilla SandströmDepartment of Political Science, Umeå University, 901 87, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7674-6197
Niklas LiljebäckGrimsö Wildlife Research Station, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 730 91, Riddarhyttan, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9063-6405
Johan ElmbergDepartment of Environmental Science and Bioscience, Kristianstad University, 291 88, Kristianstad, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2337-4155

Funding

Naturvårdsverket 16/72 (NV-00695-17) and 19/129 (NV-01110-19) to JE and 16/71 NV-00695-17) and 19/128 (NV-01110-19) to JM.
6 · The paper itself

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

Animals, WildConservation of Natural ResourcesEmotionsGeeseAnimalsAttitudeCognitionEcosystemFarmersFemaleHumansMaleStakeholder ParticipationSurveys and QuestionnairesSwedenAnserBrantaDamage reductionGeeseMultilevel managementThe cognitive and emotional hierarchy model

Identifiers

PMID39604429
PMCPMC11603312

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.