Dataset Information

Public perspectives and media reporting of wolf reintroduction in Colorado.

ABSTRACT: In the state of Colorado, a citizen ballot initiative to reintroduce gray wolves (Canis lupus) is eliciting polarization and conflict among multiple stakeholder and interest groups. Given this complex social landscape, we examined the social context surrounding wolf reintroduction in Colorado as of 2019. We used an online survey of 734 Coloradans representative in terms of age and gender, and we sampled from different regions across the state, to examine public beliefs and attitudes related to wolf reintroduction and various wolf management options. We also conducted a content analysis of media coverage on potential wolf reintroduction in 10 major daily Colorado newspapers from January 2019, when the signature-gathering effort for the wolf reintroduction initiative began, through the end of January 2020, when the initiative was officially added to the ballot. Our findings suggest a high degree of social tolerance or desire for wolf reintroduction in Colorado across geographies, stakeholder groups, and demographics. However, we also find that a portion of the public believes that wolves would negatively impact their livelihoods, primarily because of concerns over the safety of people and pets, loss of hunting opportunities, and potential wolf predation on livestock. These concerns-particularly those related to livestock losses-are strongly reflected in the media. We find that media coverage has focused only on a few of the many perceived positive and negative impacts of wolf reintroduction identified among the public. Our findings highlight the need to account for this diversity of perspectives in future decisions and to conduct public outreach regarding likely impacts of wolf reintroduction.

SUBMITTER: Niemiec R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7224228 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Public perspectives and media reporting of wolf reintroduction in Colorado.

Niemiec Rebecca R Berl Richard E W REW Gonzalez Mireille M Teel Tara T Camara Cassiopeia C Collins Matthew M Salerno Jonathan J Crooks Kevin K Schultz Courtney C Breck Stewart S Hoag Dana D

PeerJ 20200507

In the state of Colorado, a citizen ballot initiative to reintroduce gray wolves (<i>Canis lupus</i>) is eliciting polarization and conflict among multiple stakeholder and interest groups. Given this complex social landscape, we examined the social context surrounding wolf reintroduction in Colorado as of 2019. We used an online survey of 734 Coloradans representative in terms of age and gender, and we sampled from different regions across the state, to examine public beliefs and attitudes relat ...[more]

PMID: 32435536

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundQuality of care public reporting provides structural, process and outcome information to facilitate hospital choice and strengthen quality competition. Yet, evidence indicates that patients rarely use this information in their decision-making, due to limited awareness of the data and complex and conflicting information. While there is enthusiasm among policy makers for public reporting, clinicians and researchers doubt its overall impact. Almost no study has analyzed how users behave on public reporting portals, which information they seek out and when they abort their search.MethodsThis study employs web-usage mining techniques on server log data of 17 million user actions from Germany's premier provider transparency portal Weisse-Liste.de (WL.de) between 2012 and 2015. Postal code and ICD search requests facilitate identification of geographical and treatment area usage patterns. User clustering helps to identify user types based on parameters like session length, referrer and page topic visited. First-level markov chains illustrate common click paths and premature exits.ResultsIn 2015, the WL.de Hospital Search portal had 2,750 daily users, with 25% mobile traffic, a bounce rate of 38% and 48% of users examining hospital quality information. From 2013 to 2015, user traffic grew at 38% annually. On average users spent 7 min on the portal, with 7.4 clicks and 54 s between clicks. Users request information for many oncologic and orthopedic conditions, for which no process or outcome quality indicators are available. Ten distinct user types, with particular usage patterns and interests, are identified. In particular, the different types of professional and non-professional users need to be addressed differently to avoid high premature exit rates at several key steps in the information search and view process. Of all users, 37% enter hospital information correctly upon entry, while 47% require support in their hospital search.ConclusionsSeveral onsite and offsite improvement options are identified. Public reporting needs to be directed at the interests of its users, with more outcome quality information for oncology and orthopedics. Customized reporting can cater to the different needs and skill levels of professional and non-professional users. Search engine optimization and hospital quality advocacy can increase website traffic.

Project description:BackgroundTwo planned trials of pre-exposure prophylaxis tenofovir in Cambodia and Cameroon to prevent HIV infection in high-risk populations were closed due to activist pressure on host country governments. The international news media contributed substantially as the primary source of knowledge transfer regarding the trials. We aimed to characterize the nature of reporting, specifically focusing on the issues identified by media reports regarding each trial.MethodsWith the aid of an information specialist, we searched 3 electronic media databases, 5 electronic medical databases and extensively searched the Internet. In addition we contacted stakeholder groups. We included media reports addressing the trial closures, the reasons for the trial closures, and who was interviewed. We extracted data using content analysis independently, in duplicate.ResultsWe included 24 reports on the Cambodian trial closure and 13 reports on the Cameroon trial closure. One academic news account incorrectly reported that it was an HIV vaccine trial that closed early. The primary reasons cited for the Cambodian trial closure were: a lack of medical insurance for trial related injuries (71%); human rights considerations (71%); study protocol concerns (46%); general suspicions regarding trial location (37%) and inadequate prevention counseling (29%). The primary reasons cited for the Cameroon trial closure were: inadequate access to care for seroconverters (69%); participants not sufficiently informed of risks (69%); inadequate number of staff (46%); participants being exploited (46%) and an unethical study design (38%). Only 3/23 (13%) reports acknowledged interviewing research personnel regarding the Cambodian trial, while 4/13 (30.8%) reports interviewed researchers involved in the Cameroon trial.ConclusionOur review indicates that the issues addressed and validity of the media reports of these trials is highly variable. Given the potential impact of the media in formulation of health policy related to HIV, efforts are needed to effectively engage the media during periods of controversy in the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

Project description:Background While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why.Objective To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2.Methods The EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process.Results 143 participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus.Conclusions GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites.

Dataset Information

Public perspectives and media reporting of wolf reintroduction in Colorado.

Publications

Public perspectives and media reporting of wolf reintroduction in Colorado.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets