ArticleScientific reports2026
Bayesian belief network model to predict human-wildlife conflict in protected areas.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) poses a pervasive global challenge, affecting livelihoods and threatening biodiversity. To better anticipate and mitigate HWC risk, we developed a large-scale predictive model using a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN). We surveyed 1,011 park rangers across 135 terrestrial protected areas in three Andean countries, documenting recent HWC incidents involving wildlife persecution or killing, livestock depredation, crop damage, or threats to human safety and property. We identified key drivers of HWC risk, including governance, wildlife acceptance, participation, and habitat quality. A sensitivity analysis revealed that enhancing governance and improving wildlife acceptance could reduce HWC risk by > 85%. The BBN model demonstrated scalability, effectively identifying strategies to reduce HWC risk at multiple scales, from individual protected areas to national networks. Our findings highlight the importance of strengthening governance, increasing wildlife acceptance, and enhancing community participation in conservation efforts. BBNs provide a flexible, cost-effective, and data-driven tool to guide protected areas and wildlife managers in monitoring, anticipating, and making informed decisions to mitigate conflict and promote coexistence.
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.