Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of stakeholder perspectives regarding important human-animal interfaces, with percentage (number) of human-animal interfaces ranked as important by wildlife officials and project scientists compared to PREDICT sampling activities

From: Capacity building efforts and perceptions for wildlife surveillance to detect zoonotic pathogens: comparing stakeholder perspectives

Interface Wildlife official (n = 22) Project scientist (n = 16) PREDICT sampling efforts (n = 16)
Hunting 86% (19) 75% (12) 63% (10)
Butchering wildlife* 86% (19) 31% (5) 19% (3)
Wildlife consumption* 73% (16) 38% (6) 44% (7)
Markets 91% (20) 69% (11) 56% (9)
Crop-raiding 36% (8) 19% (3) 19% (3)
Wildlife living near human dwellings 82% (18) 63% (10) 63% (10)
Wildlife-livestock interaction* 86% (19) 50% (8) 38% (6)
Captive wildlife 82% (18) 63% (10) 38% (6)
Eco-tourism 36% (8) 44% (7) 44% (7)
Shared water sources* 73% (16) 6% (1) 6% (1)
Extraction areas 59% (13) 63% (10) 31% (5)
Areas of land use change* 77% (17) 44% (7) 25% (4)
  1. Note: These rankings are intended to be used as a comparison of stakeholder perspectives and do not represent the actual scientific importance of all possible interfaces or sampling situations encountered in zoonotic pathogen surveillance.
  2. *indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between perspectives among two stakeholder groups.