ArticleEcoHealth2026
Acceptability of Wildlife Interventions to Protect Biodiversity and Human and Animal Health in Peri-Urban Nature Parks.
Article in EcoHealth, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anthropogenic disturbances such as habitat fragmentation and climate change increasingly affect nature park ecosystems. In several Canadian peri-urban nature parks, these pressures contribute to ecological imbalances, including overabundant white-tailed deer populations and emerging tick-borne diseases. Wildlife management interventions can have different purposes such as biodiversity conservation and protection of animal health or human health, but the acceptability of some of them, like culling, can be controversial. This qualitative study explored factors influencing the acceptability of such interventions. Seven focus groups were conducted, involving 22 park users from six peri-urban nature parks in southeastern Québec, Canada. Discussions explored perceptions of current and potential wildlife interventions. Findings revealed that emotional connections to the park and its wildlife, concern for animal welfare, awareness of links between biodiversity, health and human behaviors, trust in science and management authorities, and transparent communication all influence acceptability. Participants showed a strong understanding of ecological issues and their connections to emerging health risks. Fostering understanding among the public and decision-makers, particularly regarding links between ecosystem imbalances and health, is crucial to improving the acceptability of wildlife interventions in peri-urban nature parks. Building on existing public awareness through transparent communication and proactive engagement by managers and scientists remains essential to building trust and supporting effective wildlife management to protect biodiversity and human and animal health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42640377What 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.