What does this research mean for the field?

Negative perceptions towards wildlife conservation are significantly driven by the cumulative effects of frequent, lower-intensity conflicts with multiple species, such as monkeys and wild boars, rather than solely by high-impact large animals. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.CHALLENGES_CONSENSUS.

What question did this study set out to answer?

Identify the types of human–wildlife conflicts and determine the factors driving negative local attitudes toward wildlife conservation.

August 22, 2026Scientific ReportsOpen Access

Cumulative multi-species effects in human–wildlife conflict shift the focus beyond large animals in the Western Ghats

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

LMLakshmi Chenandi Methatta TSTanner Smith SCStefina Cheriyath Chandroth

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Cross-sectional survey reveals frequent multi-species conflicts drive negative conservation attitudes among rural residents, highlighting the need to look beyond large high-impact animals.

Key Points

Identify the types of human–wildlife conflicts and determine the factors driving negative local attitudes toward wildlife conservation.
Administered a structured questionnaire survey to N=998 individuals across 49 villages in the Wayanad region of Kerala, India.
Evaluated conflict characteristics, species-specific encounter frequencies, intensity of disturbances, and community perceptions of wildlife conservation.
Overall, 84% of respondents reported experiencing human–wildlife conflict, 88% reported crop damage, and 81% expressed negative attitudes toward wildlife conservation.
Eight species were identified as conflict-causers, with bonnet macaques and wild boars driving the most frequent conflicts, while forest-fringe areas reported interactions with up to six species.
Negative perceptions of wildlife were significantly associated with the number of species encountered (β = −0.275, p < 0.001) alongside higher encounter frequencies and conflict intensities.

Cite This Study

Methatta et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a895eeeca7ade938187d282 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-67454-5

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

August 22, 2026Scientific ReportsOpen Access

Cumulative multi-species effects in human–wildlife conflict shift the focus beyond large animals in the Western Ghats

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

LMLakshmi Chenandi Methatta TSTanner Smith SCStefina Cheriyath Chandroth

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Cross-sectional survey reveals frequent multi-species conflicts drive negative conservation attitudes among rural residents, highlighting the need to look beyond large high-impact animals.

Key Points

Identify the types of human–wildlife conflicts and determine the factors driving negative local attitudes toward wildlife conservation.
Administered a structured questionnaire survey to N=998 individuals across 49 villages in the Wayanad region of Kerala, India.
Evaluated conflict characteristics, species-specific encounter frequencies, intensity of disturbances, and community perceptions of wildlife conservation.
Overall, 84% of respondents reported experiencing human–wildlife conflict, 88% reported crop damage, and 81% expressed negative attitudes toward wildlife conservation.
Eight species were identified as conflict-causers, with bonnet macaques and wild boars driving the most frequent conflicts, while forest-fringe areas reported interactions with up to six species.
Negative perceptions of wildlife were significantly associated with the number of species encountered (β = −0.275, p < 0.001) alongside higher encounter frequencies and conflict intensities.

Cite This Study

Methatta et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a895eeeca7ade938187d282 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-67454-5

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark