Cited by 35Wildlife Ecology and ConservationRisk Perception and ManagementAnimal and Plant Science Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk perception, trust and support for wildlife reintroduction and conservation.

Watkins, Cristina E, Poudyal, Neelam C, Jones, Robert E, Muller, Lisa I, Hodges, Donald G·2021·Environmental Conservation

Abstract

Summary Wildlife reintroduction projects often face resistance from local residents who see potential conflicts with the species or lack trust or confidence in the agencies and professionals involved in reintroduction. Yet the linkages between trust, confidence, risk perceptions, attitudes towards the species and local support for its reintroduction are not well known. The Dual-Mode Model of Cooperation and Cognitive Hierarchy Model were theoretical frameworks used to shed light on these linkages by exploring the potential roles trust and confidence play as mediators between risk perceptions and attitudes towards, and support for, reintroduced elk in Tennessee (USA). A mail survey of 1005 residents living in the five-county area surrounding the North Cumberland Elk Restoration Zone assessed resident attitudes and risk perceptions towards the reintroduced elk, trust towards the managing wildlife agency and support for continued conservation efforts. A structural equation model revealed that trust and confidence play positive roles in mitigating risk perceptions and improving support for the reintroduction of elk. The findings confirm the roles public trust and confidence play in wildlife reintroductions and should help agencies work towards building local trust and confidence, minimizing risks, improving attitudes and increasing the chances for successful outcomes for the species and people.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0376892921000011

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 51 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Vaske, 2008, Survey Research and Analysis: Application in Parks, Recreation, and Human Dimensions

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Watkins, C. E., Poudyal, N. C., Jones, R. E., Muller, L. I., & Hodges, D. G.
Affiliations
University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
Corresponding author
Poudyal, Neelam C
Venue
Environmental Conservation
Published
2021-02-09
Volume
48
Issue
2
Pages
127-135
ISSN
  • 0376-8929 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-4387
OpenAlex
W3128307882
Cited by
30
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5
FWCI
2.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Environmental Conservation (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Social Sciences › Education › Animal and Plant Science Education
Keywords
wildlife reintroduction, elk reintroduction, risk perception, trust, confidence, public support for conservation, local resistance, cognitive hierarchy model

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