The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Human-felid conflict: a review of patterns and priorities worldwide
Open accessAbstract
Conflict between people and felids is one of the most urgent wild cat conservation issues worldwide, yet efforts to synthesize knowledge about these conflicts have been few. For management strategies to be effective a thorough understanding of the dynamics of human-felid conflicts is necessary. Here we present the results of a cross-species, systematic review of human-felid conflicts worldwide. Using a combination of literature review and geographical information system analyses, we provide a quantitative as well as qualitative assessment of patterns and determinants that are known to influence the severity of human-felid conflicts, and a geographical overview of the occurrence of conflict worldwide. We found evidence of conflict affecting over 75% of the world's felid species. The severity of conflict increases with felid body mass and is of greatest conservation significance to nine species: caracal, cheetah, Eurasian lynx, jaguar, leopard, lion, puma, snow leopard and tiger. We also reveal specific gaps in knowledge about human-felid conflicts, and required actions within this aspect of felid conservation. With only 31% of implemented management strategies having been evaluated scientifically, there is a need for greater and more rigorous evaluation and a wider dissemination of results. Also urgently required are standardized reporting techniques to reduce the current disparity in conflict reporting methods and facilitate resolution of patterns and trends in the scale of human-felid conflict worldwide. This review provides a basis both for further synthesis and for the coordination of human-felid conflict management among researchers, practitioners and organizations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(2011) · Wildlife Society Bulletin · doi:10.1002/(issn)1938-5463a · Cited by 5,545
Edge Effects and the Extinction of Populations Inside Protected Areas
Woodroffe, R., & Ginsberg, J. R. (1998) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.280.5372.2126 · Cited by 1,757
(1996) · IUCN eBooks · Cited by 1,701
Human‐Carnivore Conflict and Perspectives on Carnivore Management Worldwide
TREVES, A., & KARANTH, K. U. (2003) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00059.x · Cited by 1,618
Sunquist, M., & Sunquist, F. (2002) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226518237.001.0001 · Cited by 1,179 · cited 1×
“…thought to have evolved to prey on lagomorphs (Jobin et al., 2000) and bobcats specialize on cottontails (Sylvilagus spp.) and snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus; Sunquist & Sunquist, 2002) and rarely attack livestock (Nowell & Jackson, 1996; Neale et al., 1998; LunaSoria & López-González, 2005).”
BackgroundGuidelines for systematic review in Conservation and environmental management
PULLIN, A. S., & STEWART, G. B. (2006) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00485.x · Cited by 1,137
People and wildlife: conflict or coexistence?
(2006) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-4669 · Cited by 880
MADDEN, F. (2004) · Human Dimensions of Wildlife · doi:10.1080/10871200490505675 · Cited by 649
Limiting Depredation by African Carnivores: the Role of Livestock Husbandry
OGADA, M. O., WOODROFFE, R., OGUGE, N. O., & FRANK, L. G. (2003) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00061.x · Cited by 601
Linnell, J. D. C., Swenson, J. E., & Anderson, R. (2001) · Animal Conservation · doi:10.1017/s1367943001001408 · Cited by 502
Cited by
Rangeland Systems: Processes, Management and Challenges
(2017) · Springer Series on Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46709-2 · Cited by 197
Breaking Through Disciplinary Barriers: Human–Wildlife Interactions and Multispecies Ethnography
Parathian, H. E., McLennan, M. R., Hill, C. M., Frazão-Moreira, A., & Hockings, K. J. (2018) · International Journal of Primatology · doi:10.1007/s10764-018-0027-9 · Cited by 62
Conflicts and Collisions With an Endangered Carnivore: Landscape Drivers and Spatial Risk Pattern
Prat‐Guitart, M., Onorato, D. P., Hines, J. E., & Oli, M. K. (2026) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.73931
“…safety, and increased mortality risk for carnivores, with consequences for livelihoods, public attitudes, and long-term population persistence (Inskip and Zimmermann 2009; Loveridge et al. 2010; Oli et al. 1994; Puri et al. 2022; Ripple et al. 2014; Thirgood et al. 2005; Treves and Karanth…”
Metadata
- Authors
- Inskip, C., & Zimmermann, A.
- Venue
- Oryx
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2009-01
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 18-34
- ISSN
- 0030-6053 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-3008
- OpenAlex
- W2124413118
- Cited by
- 831
- References
- 74
- FWCI
- 19.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Human-felid conflict: a review of patterns and priorities worldwide. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s003060530899030x
- The paper
- Inskip, C., & Zimmermann, A. (2009). Human-felid conflict: a review of patterns and priorities worldwide. Oryx. https://doi.org/10.1017/s003060530899030x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.