ArticlePeerJ2026
Drivers of wolf depredation reporting and compensation use intentions by livestock producers.
Article in PeerJ, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Across the western United States, compensation programs that pay livestock producers for losses seek to mitigate the impact of carnivore depredation on livestock. However, data suggest not all livestock producers report wolf depredations or utilize compensation programs. Understanding factors influencing producers to report depredations and to use compensation programs will be critical to program efficacy. Methods: We designed a questionnaire expanding the Theory of Planned Behavior to explore which social-psychological and demographic factors most strongly correlate with compensation use and conflict reporting intentions. Our questionnaire was distributed across the inland western United States with confirmed wolf populations including Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico, as well as Alberta, Canada. Results: Perceptions of how commonly other producers were reporting wolf depredation (descriptive norms) and worry about future wolf depredation (perceptions of risk probability) were the strongest predictors of reporting intention. A lack of trust in state agencies, perceived financial risk without access to depredation compensation, descriptive norms, attitudes, age, and producer state of residence were the strongest predictors of compensation use intention. Our findings suggest that reducing operational financial vulnerability, building trust in agency personnel, and peer-to-peer knowledge sharing may be effective strategies for increasing reporting and compensation use. Though our sample size was relatively small, our results are informative and have important implications for compensation programs and reporting.
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.