ArticlePloS one2025
Knowledge increases informative reporting by the public about urban coyotes.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many municipalities use information about human-wildlife interactions collected in citizen-provided reports to monitor conflicts and guide management actions. However, high volumes of reports that describe benign wildlife behaviour can reduce the efficiency with which officials address reports that require management interventions, a situation that has occurred in Edmonton, Canada. We used data from a survey of Edmonton residents (n = 5,926) that asked respondents to anticipate whether they would alert officials if they witnessed (a) a coyote exhibiting benign behaviour in a natural area and (b) conflict-prone behaviour near human dwellings. We used path models to explore the predictors for two response variables; the agreement with reporting a benign sighting and the difference between scores for agreement to report conflict-prone behaviour and a benign sighting, which we interpreted as more informed reporting. As predictor variables, we considered a set of demographic, situational, cognitive, and experiential factors measured in the survey. A greater tendency to report the benign sighting was associated with prior 311 calls, higher risk perceptions, having experienced less severe interactions with coyotes, and greater knowledge of the consequences of food conditioning in coyotes. A greater tendency to anticipate reporting a conflict-prone coyote was associated with lower risk perceptions and greater knowledge of the consequences of food conditioning in coyotes, which is frequently associated with conflict. Further, individuals with higher risk perceptions were more likely to have experienced more severe interactions with coyotes, which were sometimes associated with living on a greenspace. Our results suggest that education campaigns could help people recognize benign behavior and identify and mitigate potential conflicts with coyotes. Education could occur as part of report receipt by city staff and outreach could target areas where coyote interactions are more likely, such as in residential areas along greenspaces.
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.