Geology ReportsSearch

place

Colombia, Ecuador, Peru

Colombia, Ecuador, Peru: explore 1 source-linked works published from 2026 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: usgs. Collection updated 2026-09-14. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

Bayesian belief network model to predict human-wildlife conflict in protected areas

Human-wildlife conflict (HWC) poses a pervasive global challenge, affecting livelihoods and threatening biodiversity. To better anticipate and mitigate HWC risk, we developed a large-scale predictive model using a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN). We surveyed 1,011 park rangers across 135 terrestrial protected areas in three Andean countries, documenting recent HWC incidents involving wildlife persecution or killing, livestock depredation, crop damage, or threats to human safety and property. We identified key drivers of HWC risk, including governance, wildlife acceptance, participation, and habitat quality. A sensitivity analysis revealed that enhancing governance and improving wildlife acceptance could reduce HWC risk by > 85%. The BBN model demonstrated scalability, effectively identifying strategies to reduce HWC risk at multiple scales, from individual protected areas to national networks. Our findings highlight the importance of strengthening governance, increasing wildlife acceptance, and enhancing community participation in conservation efforts. BBNs provide a flexible, cost-effective, and data-driven tool to guide protected areas and wildlife managers in monitoring, anticipating, and making informed decisions to mitigate conflict and promote coexistence.

Scientific Reports
Compare source metadata on this page

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.