Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41129093›Full record

ArticleAmbio2026

Preferences of experts and the general public about wildlife management in Spain.

Daniela Alba-Patiño, Miguel Delibes-Mateos, María Martínez-Jauregui, Rafael Villafuerte Jordán, Beatriz Arroyo-Lopez, Jenny Anne Glikman, Mario Soliño

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ambio, 2026. 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

7 authors.

Daniela Alba-PatiñoDepartment of Biology and Geology, Centro Andaluz para el Cambio Global -Hermelindo Castro (ENGLOBA), University of Almería, Carretera Sacramento, S/N, 04120, Almería, Spain. fap912@ual.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1405-8126
Miguel Delibes-MateosInstituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados (IESA-CSIC), Plaza Campo Santo de los Mártires, 7, 14004, Córdoba, Spain.
María Martínez-JaureguiCentro de Investigación Forestal (INIA-CSIC), Carretera La Coruña, 7.5 Km, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Rafael Villafuerte JordánCentro de Investigación Forestal (INIA-CSIC), Carretera La Coruña, 7.5 Km, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
Beatriz Arroyo-LopezInstituto de Investigación en Recursos Cinegéticos (IREC, CSIC-UCLM-JCCM), Ronda de Toledo 12, 13005, Ciudad Real, Spain.
Jenny Anne GlikmanInstituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados (IESA-CSIC), Plaza Campo Santo de los Mártires, 7, 14004, Córdoba, Spain.
Mario SoliñoInstituto de Investigaciones Marinas, CSIC, Rúa Eduardo Cabello 6, 36208, Vigo, Spain.

Funding

Agencia Estatal de Investigación RTI2018-096348-R-C21/C22 (MCI/AEI/FEDERAgencia Estatal de Investigación SpainAgencia Estatal de Investigación UE)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biodiversity loss is a global challenge that requires conservation policies integrating ecological, social, and economic considerations. While scientific evidence guides policy decisions, public preferences can also shape strategies, sometimes diverging from optimal ecological outcomes. This study examines the alignment between expert and public preferences regarding wildlife management in Spain, one of Europe's most biodiverse countries. Using a discrete choice experiment conducted among experts attending the 2021 Spanish Society for the Conservation and Study of Mammals (SECEM) Conference, we compared their views with those of the Spanish public. Both groups prioritized managing scarce species over overabundant ones, though experts showed greater concern about human impacts on wildlife. Experts also exhibited more nuanced views on conservation beyond protected areas. Latent class modeling identified five behavioral classes within each group, highlighting substantial preference heterogeneity. Experts and the public also diverged in their willingness to pay for conservation efforts. These results emphasize the need to integrate expert knowledge with public values for socially acceptable and ecologically effective policies.

Indexed as

Animals, WildConservation of Natural ResourcesPublic OpinionAnimalsBiodiversityHumansSpainBiodiversity conservationBirdsMammalsOnline questionnaireOverabundant speciesScarce species

Identifiers

PMID41129093
PMCPMC12960859

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.