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.
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Engaging communities in co-designing and planning associated with buffalo programs can build social trust and help mitigate the risk of negative public perception (Watkins et al., 2021).”
From The Potential of Bison Restoration as an Ecological Approach to Future Tribal Food Sovereignty on the Northern Great Plains (2022) · cites this paper as Watkins et al., 2021
Citations
Cites
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3150783 · Cited by 12,222
Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224377701400320 · Cited by 10,390
Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2008) · Cited by 5,345
Internet, Phone, Mail, and Mixed‐Mode Surveys
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394260645 · Cited by 4,666
Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, Third Edition
Byrne, B. M. (2016) · doi:10.4324/9781315757421 · Cited by 4,653
The Value Basis of Environmental Concern
Stern, P. C., & Dietz, T. M. (1994) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02420.x · Cited by 2,396
Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge
Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. T. (2000) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.205064 · Cited by 1,453
Salient Value Similarity, Social Trust, and Risk/Benefit Perception
Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G. T., & Roth, C. (2000) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/0272-4332.203034 · Cited by 935
Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual and measurement approach
Fulton, D., Manfredo, M., & Lipscomb, J. (1996) · Human Dimensions of Wildlife · doi:10.1080/10871209609359060 · Cited by 779
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Vaske, 2008, Survey Research and Analysis: Application in Parks, Recreation, and Human Dimensions
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shamon, H., Cosby, O. G., Andersen, C. L., Augare, H., BearCub Stiffarm, J., Bresnan, C. E., Brock, B. L., Carlson, E., Deichmann, J. L., Epps, A., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.3389/fevo.2022.826282 · Cited by 56
Stakeholder perspectives on the prospect of lynx Lynx lynx reintroduction in Scotland
Bavin, D., MacPherson, J., Crowley, S. L., & McDonald, R. A. (2023) · People and Nature · doi:10.1002/pan3.10465 · Cited by 39
Social feasibility assessments in conservation translocations
Dando, T. R., Crowley, S. L., Young, R. P., Carter, S. P., & McDonald, R. A. (2022) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2022.11.013 · Cited by 37
Guidelines to Facilitate Human-Wildlife Interactions in Conservation Translocations
Consorte-McCrea, A., Kolipaka, S. S., Owens, J. R., Ruiz-Miranda, C. R., & Waters, S. (2022) · Frontiers in Conservation Science · doi:10.3389/fcosc.2022.788520 · Cited by 29
Chock, R. Y., Miller, W. B., King, S. N. D., Brehme, C. S., Fisher, R. N., Sin, H., Wilcox, P., Terp, J., Tremor, S., Major, M. R., et al. (2022) · Journal for Nature Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2022.126268 · Cited by 21
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
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- 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
