ArticleAmbio2026
Preferences of experts and the general public about wildlife management in Spain.
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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.