Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Original Research

Frontiers in Bird Science ·

Volume 5 - 2026 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fbirs.2026.1819176

Raptors’ contributions to people and human–raptor conflicts worldwide: an expert assessment

  • Santiago Zuluaga1,2,3*corresponding author
  • F. Hernán Vargas3
  • Juan M. Grande2
  1. 1Department of Evolutionary Ecology, National Museum of Natural Sciences (MNCN), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Madrid, Spain
  2. 2Colaboratorio de Biodiversidad, Ecología y Conservación (ColBEC/INCITAP-CONICET/FCEyN-UNLPam), Santa Rosa, LP, Argentina
  3. 3Neotropical Student and Science Program, The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID, United States
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

Wildlife provides a wide range of nature’s contributions to people (NCP). At the same time, while they provide beneficial contributions, several detrimental contributions and/or human–wildlife conflicts (HWC) may also arise, particularly for wild predators and scavengers. Thus, interdisciplinary approaches that explicitly address both beneficial and detrimental contributions can make wildlife conservation efforts more effective. Despite this, historically, there has been an overall lack of interdisciplinary research on NCP/HWC provided by aerial predators and scavengers, such as raptors. Our study aimed to assess the viewpoints of experts on the NCP/HWC provided by raptors with the objective of understanding: i) the main NCP/HWC that experts recognize are provided by the different raptor groups and ii) how key factors such as the conservation approach and expert gender are related to experts’ viewpoints on these raptors’ NCP/HWC. Through an online survey, we received responses from experts on four raptor groups: hawks and eagles, vultures, owls, and falcons. Our results, based on experts’ viewpoints on raptors, revealed a consistent pattern that all raptor groups are perceived to provide more benefits than detriments to society. Vultures and owls were perceived as the most beneficial, whereas hawks and eagles were regarded as the most controversial raptor group. Experts considering an interdisciplinary approach as more effective for raptor conservation and women experts recognized a higher proportion of both beneficial NCP and detrimental NCP/HWC than experts considering a disciplinary approach and men experts. Similarly, recent literature reviews show that vultures, owls, and overall raptors provide more beneficial NCP than detrimental NCP/HWC. Due to the lack of data for many raptor species and some NCP/HWC being context-dependent, expert-based knowledge assessments will be indispensable to estimate detailed and comprehensible species contributions to people worldwide at finer regional scales and taxonomic levels. According to our results, experts’ conservation approach and gender should be considered in these future expert-based NCP mapping. Thus, it is hoped that this work can serve as a starting point for more comprehensive and detailed expert-based estimates of raptor contribution to people worldwide.

Keywords

1 Introduction

Nature’s contribution to people (hereafter NCP) includes all the ecosystem functions that benefit people or are perceived as negative for human wellbeing (Díaz et al., 2018). Wild predators and scavengers are connected to society in contradictory ways as they provide key NCP, but also cause some unwanted NCP (Gilbert et al., 2021). For example, while beneficial NCP may be provided if predators and scavengers support socially valued activities (e.g., wildlife-related tourism or removal of organic waste), detrimental NCP can occur when these species negatively interfere with socially valued activities (e.g., predation on domestic livestock or competition with hunters for wild prey) (Lozano et al., 2019). In addition, some recurring detrimental NCP linked to predators and scavengers can also lead to human–wildlife and human–human conflicts over wildlife (hereafter HWC) (Peterson et al., 2010; Zimmermann et al., 2020). Thus, management efforts to encourage the coexistence of human–predators and human–scavengers should apply interdisciplinary frameworks that explicitly address both beneficial and detrimental NCP/HWC (e.g., Ceauşu et al., 2019; Díaz et al., 2018).

Interdisciplinarity has been recognized as one of the most important advances for effectively leading wildlife conservation in the Anthropocene (Sutherland et al., 2020; Stenseke et al., 2026). Interdisciplinary frameworks can improve conservation capacity by supporting informed decision making, recognizing other stakeholders’ perspectives, defining the right socio-ecological priorities, and facilitating cross-validation of conservation measures, among others (Guerrero and Wilson, 2017; Lischka et al., 2018; Ceauşu et al., 2019; Carter et al., 2019). Because wildlife conservation inherently involves social and ecological issues, the use of interdisciplinary frameworks that combine social and ecological research sciences makes wildlife conservation worldwide more effective (Kareiva and Marvier, 2012; Ferraz et al., 2022).

Several studies on wild mammals have identified NCP and HWC as the two core areas of wildlife interdisciplinary research and conservation (Lozano et al., 2019; Expósito-Granados et al., 2019; Pascual-Rico et al., 2020, 2021). With an increasing number of approaches proposed to assess interdisciplinarity in wildlife conservation, several studies have found some disciplinary biases in this field (i.e., more focused on either social or ecological research). For instance, several studies have shown that interdisciplinary work involving ungulates and terrestrial carnivores is biased toward social research of detrimental NCP/HWC, whereas ecological research focused on the beneficial NCP provided by these groups is much scarcer (Lozano et al., 2019; Expósito-Granados et al., 2019; Pascual-Rico et al., 2020, 2021). On the other hand, current interdisciplinary scientific evidence generated for other wildlife groups such as raptors (i.e., birds of prey and vultures) (McClure et al., 2019) shows that it may be biased toward an ecological focus on NCP/HWC (Canney et al., 2021; Carucci et al., 2022; Bonetti et al., 2024; Formoso et al., 2025), thus contrasting with the evidence of human–wild mammal interaction studies, which are biased toward social research (Lozano et al., 2019; Expósito-Granados et al., 2019; Pascual-Rico et al., 2020, 2021).

The lack of interdisciplinary research (i.e., integrated social and ecological studies) in raptor conservation may limit our ability to provide adequate answers and management options, particularly in cases where species severely threatened by HWC also offer important contributions to humans (e.g., some imperiled vultures and endangered eagles) (Donázar et al., 2016; McClure et al., 2018). Historically, raptor researchers have investigated the NCP and HWC that raptors provide to humans mainly from an ecological perspective without considering social or cultural factors (Canney et al., 2021). However, over the last decade, this focus has been changing, as new social evidence shows that the number of detrimental NCP/HWC caused by raptors and the human–human conflicts over raptor management could be very significant as well (see Redpath et al., 2015; Young et al., 2016; Hodgson et al., 2018, 2019; Zuluaga et al., 2021, 2022; Salom et al., 2021; Giraldo-Amaya et al., 2021; Miranda et al., 2022b; Antonio et al., 2025).

On the other hand, it is well established that gender consistently influences perspectives on wildlife across species, stakeholders, cultures, and geographical regions (Kellert and Berry, 1987; Sanborn and Schmidt, 1995; Newsom et al., 2025). Furthermore, similar to other fields such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), conservation science also exhibits gender biases—favoring men or disadvantaging women—that hinder the attainment of gender-balanced representation (Handley et al., 2015; Liévano-Latorre et al., 2020). For example, the underrepresentation of women persists across conservation sectors, as evidenced by women comprising only 29% of the editorial board members across 31 biodiversity conservation journals indexed in the Web of Science (Liévano-Latorre et al., 2020). However, a number of studies from the 1980s and 1990s demonstrated that expert gender plays an important role in shaping wildlife social values and management strategies and that women’s viewpoints do not necessarily coincide with those of men (Kellert and Berry, 1987; Sanborn and Schmidt, 1995). However, to our knowledge, no study has examined whether expert gender can influence viewpoints on NCP/HWC within new interdisciplinary frameworks. Such information would be highly valuable, for instance, in understanding the contemporary negative consequences of gender bias for wildlife conservation practice (Sanborn and Schmidt, 1995).

We defined raptor conservation experts as individuals of different genders (i.e., woman, man, and non-binary individuals) with diverse backgrounds (e.g., naturalists, ecologists, social scientists, environmental educators, and veterinarians, among others) and levels of formal education (e.g., non-formal education, technical, bachelor, or post-graduate) who work with raptors and use their knowledge to help save these species in the wild. Given the different habits and ecological roles of raptor species in ecosystems (Ferguson-Lees and Christie, 2001; McClure et al., 2018), we expect that experts’ viewpoints would reflect differences among beneficial NCP and detrimental NCP/HWC provided by the different raptor groups (i.e., hawks and eagles, vultures, owls, and falcons).

Here, we aimed to assess expert viewpoints regarding the NCP/HWC provided by raptors to people to understand: i) the main NCP/HWC that experts recognize are provided by the different raptor groups and ii) how key factors such as the conservation approach and expert gender are related to experts’ viewpoints on these raptors’ NCP/HWC. Thus, based on the literature, we postulated three hypotheses/predictions (H), as follows:

H1: Experts’ viewpoints on the beneficial NCP and detrimental NCP/HWC provided by raptors are non-balanced. Consequently, we expect that raptor conservation experts will tend to recognize a higher proportion of beneficial NCP than detrimental NCP/HWC provided by raptors (Donázar et al., 2016; Michel et al., 2020; Carucci et al., 2022; Formoso et al., 2025).

H2: The conservation approach (i.e., interdisciplinary versus disciplinary) considered by experts as more effective for raptor conservation will influence the proportion of NCP/HWC of raptors they recognize. We anticipate that experts considering an interdisciplinary approach will have broader viewpoints of the NCP/HWC of raptors perceiving more of both beneficial NCP and detrimental NCP/HWC (Lischka et al., 2018).

H3: Expert gender will also influence the proportion of NCP of raptors recognized by them (Kellert and Berry, 1987), with male experts holding more traditional viewpoints on raptors (i.e., disciplinary and, thus, narrower) than female experts (Sanborn and Schmidt, 1995).

2 Methods

2.1 Raptor groups

Raptors are a paraphyletic group consisting of 561 bird species traditionally distributed across four orders: Accipitriformes (i.e., hawks and eagles and Old World vultures), Falconiformes (i.e., falcons), Cathartiformes (i.e., New World vultures), and Strigiformes (i.e., owls) (Ferguson-Lees and Christie, 2001; McClure et al., 2018). Most recently, the order Cariamiformes (i.e., seriemas) was included (McClure, 2025; McClure and Johnson, 2025). However, the latter was not considered in this study as it was recognized as related to raptors only after the study had begun (McClure et al., 2019). All of them are represented by phylogenetic orders, but vultures are a functional group consisting of Old World (i.e., order Accipitriformes) and New World (i.e., order Cathartiformes) vultures.

Vultures (Accipitriformes and Cathartiformes) are mainly specialized scavengers; therefore, they play a key role in the removal of organic waste (Grilli et al., 2019). However, some vultures occasionally deviate from their scavenging habits to injure or kill young livestock, leading to human–raptor conflicts and, subsequently, human–human conflicts (Manzano-García et al., 2017; Duriez et al., 2019; Grilli et al., 2019; Zuluaga et al., 2020b; Salom et al., 2021). Hawks and eagles (Accipitriformes, excluding Old World vultures) and falcons (Falconiformes) are diurnal predators that primarily hunt live prey and, thus, can control species that may be damaging to agriculture or that may cause human injury, disease, or death (Kross et al., 2018), although a number of them (especially some hawks and eagles) can also be facultative scavengers (Ferguson-Lees and Christie, 2001). They can also prey on pets, livestock, or game species, thus generating human–raptor conflicts (Valkama et al., 2005; Restrepo-Cardona et al., 2019; Miranda et al., 2022b) and subsequent human–human conflicts (Thirgood et al., 2000; Redpath et al., 2013; Hodgson et al., 2018, 2019). Owls (Strigiformes) are predators that capture live prey predominantly at night. They can help increase agricultural output by preying on agricultural pests and reduce the abundance of species that cause human injury, disease, or death (O’Bryan et al., 2018). However, in some areas, they are also regarded as vermin species and are consequently persecuted, even when protected by law (e.g., Martínez et al., 2006). Moreover, in certain societies, owls are regarded as omens of death and disaster (Enriquez and Mikkola, 1997; Rashid et al., 2021). Therefore, owls can also be involved in both human–raptor and human–human conflicts (Redpath et al., 2013; Peery et al., 2019). These four groups were analyzed separately because their varied ecological characteristics can lead to different NCP and HWC.

2.2 Data collection

We conducted a global web-based survey of raptor experts, which included questions on beneficial NCP and detrimental NCP/HWC, conservation approaches, socio-demographic factors, and professional development. In this study, we emphasized beneficial NCP (Díaz et al., 2018) and detrimental NCP/HWC (Peterson et al., 2010) because they represent the core areas of interdisciplinary wildlife conservation (see Expósito-Granados et al., 2019; Lozano et al., 2019; Pascual-Rico et al., 2020, 2021). We developed four separate surveys (i.e., one questionnaire for each group): hawks and eagles, vultures, owls, and falcons (McClure et al., 2018). Afterward, these were hosted on Google Forms (https://docs.google.com/forms). English was used as the survey language to maximize accessibility for raptor conservation experts worldwide. Each survey had nearly identical questions, with only a few changes to the names of the raptor groups and some additional questions specific to each group to ensure clarity for participants. Before sending the survey, we conducted a pilot survey among five non-native English-speaking colleagues working in conservation with several raptor groups to identify potential issues and gather any necessary adjustments or unclear details. On 30 September 2019, we sent the four survey links via e-mail to the World Working Group on Birds of Prey and Owls (WWGBP) e-mail list “Raptor Conservation” e-mail discussion group. This group includes approximately 1,300 subscribers, out of roughly 3,000 members worldwide (http://www.raptors-international.org/), and promotes communication among professionals working on raptor ecology, biology, medicine, and conservation. The call was also circulated among the boards of the Raptor Research Foundation and The Peregrine Fund, in the Asian Raptor Research & Conservation Network and the website “European Raptors: Biology and Conservation,” and two raptor-specialized Facebook groups, i.e., Fororapaces and Neotropical Raptor Conservation (Conservación de Rapaces Neotropicals in Spanish). Our target group included people working specifically on raptor conservation. Therefore, using convenience sampling (see Lute et al., 2018), we asked participants to pass the survey along to their colleagues and regional networks involved in raptor conservation around the world. Ethical standards for social surveys were followed by informing participants that their participation is voluntary and that their anonymity would be protected. As such, the survey did not request personal information such as names, institutions, or other identifying information. The only personal information collected was the e-mail addresses provided by participants through Google Forms. However, these were not used in the study and were deleted from the final dataset to ensure participant anonymity. Although we did not have a massive participation in this first call on 30 September 2019, we decided to close the survey by 30 January 2020 after the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We considered that the pandemic could potentially have uncontrollable effects on expert responses compared with those already collected.

2.2.1 Questionnaire

The questionnaire was developed within the framework of a broad-scope study on experts’ viewpoints on raptor conservation worldwide, which consisted of 60 questions (see Supporting material: Appendix A) and was based on previous studies on mammalian carnivores (see Lute et al., 2018, 2020; Lozano et al., 2019). In this study, we have included a set of 12 overall questions that were used to test our hypothesis/predictions.

2.2.1.1 NCP/HWC

We included one question about beneficial NCP (Question 4, Appendix A) and one other about detrimental NCP/HWC (Question 6, Appendix A), which were classified into categories and subcategories. For beneficial NCP, these were defined a priori following Díaz et al. (2018), while the assessed items were derived from three literature review studies and the references cited in these studies (Sekercioglu, 2006; Donázar et al., 2016; O’Bryan et al., 2018). We also reviewed recent papers that cited these three literature review studies to add subcategories for beneficial NCP that were not included in our initial searches. This search was conducted using Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com). In this non-systematic review, we found bibliographic references supporting 11 beneficial NCP (Table 1). The categories on detrimental NCP/HWC were defined a priori based on Peterson et al. (2010), while the subcategories and assessed items were sourced from an assessment of terrestrial carnivores by Lute et al. (2018). We used this already established list of detrimental NCP/HWC to create a more standardized set of items to assess, given that there were no review studies covering all the detrimental NCP/HWC involving raptors when we designed and distributed the questionnaire online, ending 2019 (see some more recent alternative classifications in Canney et al., 2021 and Carucci et al., 2022). The “assessed items” in the questionnaire represent an overall term for each NCP/HWC subcategory. We reviewed all the assessed items that were represented by at least one example in the raptor literature (see Tables 1, 2).

Table 1. Categories of beneficial nature’s contributions to people (NCP) provided by raptors.

CategorySubcategoryAssessed itemExamples from raptor literature
MaterialMaterials, companionship, and labor (NCP13)Provide materials for craft or traditional cultural activitiesWilliams et al., 2012; Bochenski et al., 2016
Non-materialPhysical and psychological experience (NCP16)EcotourismBecker et al., 2005; Aguilera-Alcalá et al., 2020; García-Jiménez et al., 2021; García-Jiménez et al., 2022
Supporting identities (NCP17)Intellectual, spiritual, and aesthetic inspirationMorelli et al., 2015
RegulatingHabitat creation and maintenance (NCP1)Positive effect on other groups of biodiversitySergio et al., 2005; Sergio et al., 2008
Pollination and dispersal of seeds and other propagules (NCP2)Primary and secondary seed dispersalGaletti and Guimarães, 2004; López-Darias and Nogales, 2016; Pérez-Méndez and Rodríguez, 2018; Fitzsimons and Leighton, 2021
Relevant links among ecosystemsLundberg and Moberg, 2003
Regulation of detrimental organisms and biological processes (NCP10)Controlling food websMorales-Reyes et al., 2017
Reduce species that cause human injury and deathO’Bryan et al., 2018
Reduce disease riskMarkandya et al., 2008
Remove organic wasteGrilli et al., 2019
Increase agricultural outputKross et al., 2018; O’Bryan et al., 2018

Based on Díaz et al. (2018).

Table 2. Categories of detrimental nature’s contributions to people (NCP)/human–wildlife conflicts (HWC) provided by raptors.

CategorySubcategoryAssessed itemExamples from the raptor literature
Human–raptorDamage to livestockPredation on domestic livestockAmador-Alcalá et al., 2013; Li et al., 2015
Damage to gameCompetition with hunters for wild preyValkama et al., 2005
Human safetyRisks to human safetyCurti and Valdez, 2009; Kumar et al., 2019; Epelboin et al., 2025
FearFear of raptorsEnríquez Rocha and Rangel-Salazar, 2004; Epelboin et al., 2025
Human–humanHuman disagreements over raptor managementLack of transparency in decision-making processesHodgson et al., 2019
Mistrust between decision-makers and localsHodgson et al., 2018
Misunderstanding among stakeholdersRedpath et al., 2015
Unequal power among stakeholdersYoung et al., 2016

Based on Peterson et al. (2010) and Lute et al. (2018), with examples from the literature.

2.2.1.2 Conservation approach

We included one question about what approach would be more effective for raptor conservation (Question 48, Appendix A), with one of three response options, as follows: i) use of biological science theories and methods for conservation (hereafter disciplinary); ii) use of a mix of biological and social science theories and methods for conservation (hereafter interdisciplinary); or iii) other (i.e., with an open space for filling out).

2.2.1.3 Professional development and socio-demographic

We included five questions (Questions 50–52, 54, and 55, Appendix A) asking experts about: their years of experience working on raptor conservation, the continents with experience, the role that best describes expert involvement in conservation, and the primary sector of work. Finally, we included four questions (Questions 56–59, Appendix A) such as age, gender, formal education, and country of residence.

Although we initially fostered several answers from the same expert for different raptor group questionnaires, here, we only considered the first questionnaire responded for a raptor group per expert in order to avoid pseudo-replication issues in our analyses. The final dataset containing the original answers for all of the above variables was included in the Supporting material.

2.2.2 Variable coding for modeling

We codified our response variable from the original dataset as the number of recognized versus non-recognized items for beneficial NCP and detrimental NCP/HWC, respectively, for each expert. This allowed us to model the proportion of items recognized from the total assessed as our response variable using a binomial structure [i.e., cbind(recognized, not recognized)]. To examine differences in the recognition patterns between beneficial NCP and detrimental NCP/HWC, we created a categorical explanatory variable, namely, NCP type, with two levels: beneficial (i.e., beneficial NCP) and detrimental (i.e., detrimental NCP/HWC). The total number of item evaluations was 1,444, comprising 836 evaluations of beneficial items (i.e., 76 questionnaires × 11 items) and 608 evaluations of detrimental items (76 questionnaires × 8 items). Although some NCP/HWC categories are conceptually much broader than others, we treated all items equivalently following some pioneering interdisciplinary work (Lute et al., 2018; Lozano et al., 2019; Expósito-Granados et al., 2019; Pascual-Rico et al., 2020, 2021).

The raptor group (i.e., hawks and eagles, falcons, vultures, and owls) was based on the questionnaire answered by experts since we had one for each raptor group (see Section 2). The majority of the answers regarding which approach would be more effective for raptor conservation fell into two main categories: interdisciplinary, with 62 answers, and disciplinary, with eight answers. There were six responses that required re-categorization: four were reassigned to existing categories based on semantic similarity (two to interdisciplinary and two to disciplinary). However, two more expert answers described specific actions rather than approaches and thus were excluded from the analysis. These referred to education and prioritizing field action for hawks and eagles and vulture, respectively; however, they do not clearly represent a particular approach. Regarding expert gender, we only included female and male categories. One hawk-and-eagle non-binary expert was excluded due to insufficient sample size for meaningful comparisons.

2.3 Statistical analyses

All analyses were conducted using R 3.6.3 (R Core Team, 2020). Firstly, descriptive statistics for beneficial NCP and detrimental NCP/HWC were calculated and plotted from the raw data. We considered the number of beneficial NCP and detrimental NCP/HWC that experts agreed on (i.e., >50% of experts) (Lute et al., 2018) to provide an overall view of the most important proportion of recognized contributions with respect to the total assessed for each raptor group. Nevertheless, values under this threshold were also reported.

2.3.1 Modeling

To test our hypotheses, we implemented a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) framework using the glmmTMB package in R (Zuur et al., 2009; Ripley and Venables, 2021). Our hypothetical mathematical (HM) model was:

cbind(recognized, not recognized) ~ NCP type * Raptor group + Conservation approach + Expert gender + (1 | Expert)

where cbind(recognized, not recognized) represents the binomial response variable, which was constructed as the number of items recognized (events) and not recognized (non-events) by each interviewee for the beneficial and detrimental NCP/HWC categories, respectively. NCP type refers to whether it is beneficial or detrimental. As our model structure is based on events, it ensures stability of the model estimates (Peduzzi et al., 1996; Vittinghoff and McCulloch, 2007) despite a small sample of individual experts. Raptor group refers to hawks and eagles, vultures, owls, and falcons. It also included the conservation approach that experts consider to be more effective for raptor conservation (i.e., interdisciplinary or disciplinary) and expert gender (i.e., men or women). We specified the random effects structure as (1 | Expert) to explicitly account for the multiple assessed items within experts. This reflects our sampling design and accounts for dependency between paired responses where each expert completed both responses for the beneficial and detrimental items.

2.4 Sampling and participants’ characteristics

Half of the 76 participants had a PhD degree, 26% had a Master’s degree, 17% had a Bachelor’s degree, and the remaining 7% had an education ranging from middle school to some college. The mean age was 46 years (range = 23–77 years). Experts came from 31 countries worldwide. Many of these countries are from Europe (15 countries), followed by North and Central America (seven countries), with South America, Asia, and Africa each represented by five countries and Oceania by two countries. A third of experts have experience working with raptor conservation on at least two continents (29% of 76), while the rest had experience on just one continent. The percentage of women experts varied per raptor group: 44% (n = 9) for falcons, 28% (n = 32) for hawks and eagles, 27% (n = 11) for owls, and 25% (n = 24) for vultures. Table 3 shows more details.

Table 3. Expert participation according to socio-demographics and professional development.

VariableCategoryRaptor experts
NumberPercentage
GenderMen5370
Women2229
Non-binary11
Age (years)35–452330
45–551824
>551824
<351722
Overall experience working with raptor (years)>104255
6–101824
1–51621
<100
Specific experience working on raptor conservation measures in the wild (years)>103141
6–101824
1–51925
<1810
Expert by continentNorth and Central America2938
Europe2330
South America1317
Africa57
Asia45
Oceania23
Roles that best describe expert involvement in conservation (multiple answers per expert)Conservation biologist2924
Wildlife biologist1916
Ecologist2420
Conservationist1513
Zoologist87
Naturalist98
Wildlife manager33
Veterinarian33
Conservation social scientist22
Other87
Primary sector of work (multiple answers per expert)Non-governmental organization2935
University1822
Research institute1518
Private sector1113
Government56
Zoo22
Other34

3 Results

All of the assessed items for both beneficial NCP (mean expert agreement = 52%, range = 4%–96%) and detrimental NCP/HWC (mean expert agreement = 35%, range = 8%–64%) were recognized by at least one expert across all the assessed raptor groups (Figure 1; Supplementary Tables 1, S2). Based on the expert agreement (values >50%; see Section 2), owls comprised the group of raptors that provided the highest proportion of beneficial NCP (0.72, 8/11), followed by vultures (0.54, 6/11), and finally falcons, and hawks and eagles (0.45, 5/11 in both cases). In contrast, hawks and eagles and falcons comprised the raptor group most involved in detrimental NCP/HWC (0.25, 2/8 in both cases), followed by vultures and owls (0.12, 1/8 in both cases). Accordingly, all raptor groups had greater overlap with respect to their beneficial NCP than with respect to their detrimental NCP/HWC; thus, the latter were more group-specific (see the proportion of experts recognizing these) (Figure 1; Supplementary Tables 1, S2).

Percentage of experts who agreed with the questions covering two topics: beneficial nature’s contribution to people (i.e., *Beneficial NCP*) and detrimental nature’s contribution to people/human–wildlife conflicts (i.e., *Detrimental NCP/HWC*). The *dashed black line* represents the 50% threshold.
Figure 1. Percentage of experts who agreed with the questions covering two topics: beneficial nature’s contribution to people (i.e., Beneficial NCP) and detrimental nature’s contribution to people/human–wildlife conflicts (i.e., Detrimental NCP/HWC). The dashed black line represents the 50% threshold.

Although there was better overlap on beneficial contribution, four of these had higher expert percentage within one or two raptor groups than the others. The highest value was found for reduce disease risk provided by vultures (96%), followed by owls (73%), while hawks and eagles and falcons had much lower values (Figure 1; Supplementary Table 2). Remove organic waste had the highest expert agreement to vultures (92%) by far. Reduce species that cause human injury and death (64%) and increase agricultural output (64%) had the highest percentage of experts to owls. A low percentage of experts recognized that raptors either provide materials for craft or traditional cultural activities (range = 27%–41%) (Figure 1) or are involved in primary and secondary seed dispersal (range = 9%–19%) (Figure 1) for all raptor groups.

Four detrimental NCP/HWC had higher percentage of experts for one or two raptor groups than for the others. Experts recognized that hawks and eagles are mainly involved in two detrimental NCP/HWC: predation on domestic livestock (63%) and competition with hunters for wild prey (53%). Experts also recognized that falcons are primarily involved in two detrimental NCP/HWC: predation on domestic livestock and mistrust between decision-makers and locals (53% in both cases). Vultures and owls are mainly involved in one detrimental NCP/HWC each: misunderstanding among stakeholders (54%) and fear (63%), respectively. Some percentages of experts were low across majority of the raptor groups, including: mistrust between decision-makers and locals (range = 33%–47%), unequal power among stakeholders (range = 27%–34%), risks to human safety (range = 8%–31%), and lack of transparency in decision-making processes (range = 9%–41%).

The majority of experts agreed that an interdisciplinary approach is more effective for raptor conservation than a disciplinary approach across all raptor groups. The proportion of experts varied from 87% (n = 32) for hawks and eagles, to 89% (n = 9) for falcons, to 82% (n = 11) for owls, and finally 79% (n = 24) for vultures. The remaining experts considered a disciplinary approach more effective for raptor conservation (range = 11%–21%).

3.1 Expert viewpoints’ modeling

Our model revealed significant main and interaction effects on expert recognition of raptor NCP/HWC [Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) = 565.2] (Table 4; Figure 2). Experts showed a significant tendency to recognize a higher proportion of beneficial than detrimental contributions (β = 0.43, p = 0.015). Significant effects were also found for majority of the raptor groups, with experts recognizing a lower overall proportion of both beneficial and detrimental contributions for vultures (β = −0.52, p = 0.033) compared with hawks and eagles. A marginal negative effect was observed for owls (β = −0.53, p = 0.088), while falcons did not show a significant effect (β = −0.37, p = 0.255). We found significant interactions between beneficial NCP and owls (β = 0.71, p = 0.045) and vultures (β = 0.57, p = 0.039), indicating that the higher recognition for beneficial contributions was particularly pronounced for these groups compared with hawks and eagles (Table 4). The interaction between beneficial NCP and falcons was not significant (β = 0.02, p = 0.965). Experts who considered a disciplinary approach as more effective for raptor conservation also recognized significantly lower proportions of both contributions than those considering an interdisciplinary approach (β = 0.70, p = 0.002). Women experts recognized significantly higher proportions of beneficial NCP and of detrimental NCP/HWC (β = 0.40, p = 0.018) than men experts.

Table 4. Influence of the nature’s contributions to people (NCP)/human–wildlife conflict (HWC) type, raptor group, expert gender, and conservation approach on the proportion of beneficial and detrimental contribution recognized by experts.

PredictorEstimateStd. errorz valuep-value
Intercept−1.030.26−4.00<0.001
NCP type: beneficial0.430.182.430.015
Raptor group: falcons−0.370.33−1.140.255
Raptor group: owls−0.530.31−1.710.088
Raptor group: vultures−0.520.24−2.130.033
Conservation approach: interdisciplinary0.700.233.030.002
Expert gender: women0.400.172.370.018
Beneficial × falcons0.020.370.040.965
Beneficial × owls0.710.352.000.045
Beneficial × vultures0.570.272.070.039

Significant interactions (i.e., NCP type × raptor group) indicate that the proportions of beneficial and detrimental vary across raptor groups. Random intercepts for experts were considered. Significant effects (p < 0.05) are shown in bold.

Predicted effects on the proportion of beneficial nature’s contribution to people (11 assessed items; *green*) and detrimental nature’s contribution to people/human–wildlife conflicts (eight assessed items; *orange*) recognized by experts across raptor groups. Expert gender **(A)** and the conservation approach **(B)**, which are considered more effective for raptor conservation, are shown as separate panels. *Error bars* show 95% confidence intervals. *Dashed line* indicates the 0.5 reference.
Figure 2. Predicted effects on the proportion of beneficial nature’s contribution to people (11 assessed items; green) and detrimental nature’s contribution to people/human–wildlife conflicts (eight assessed items; orange) recognized by experts across raptor groups. Expert gender (A) and the conservation approach (B), which are considered more effective for raptor conservation, are shown as separate panels. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals. Dashed line indicates the 0.5 reference.

Our model accounted for individual expert variability through random intercepts (variance = 0.169, SD = 0.411). The final dataset included 146 responses from 73 experts. Importantly, the effective sample size for model estimation was based on 639 recognized items from 1,387 total item evaluations. This yields an events-per-predictor ratio of 64, which is well above the recommended minimum of 10–20 events per predictor. Therefore, despite the modest number of individual experts, the event-based structure ensures stability and adequate statistical power for our model estimates. Moreover, there was no significant overdispersion (dispersion ratio = 0.909, p = 0.944), confirming that the binomial distribution was appropriate for modeling our data.

4 Discussion

Experts’ viewpoints showed a consistent pattern that all raptor groups are more beneficial than detrimental to people. This result supported our first hypothesis (H1), which was based on literature reviews for vultures and owls (Carucci et al., 2022; Formoso et al., 2025). However, this pattern is also evident in more general reviews considering raptors (Donázar et al., 2016; Michel et al., 2020). The proportion of beneficial versus detrimental contributions to people was higher for vultures and owls than for hawks and eagles, while this latter group was the most controversial raptor group as they were recognized to provide a higher proportion of both beneficial and detrimental contributions than the other raptor groups. Importantly, we found overall variation among experts in the proportions of both beneficial NCP and detrimental NCP/HWC they recognized based on conservation approach and expert gender.

In support of our second hypothesis (H2), experts who considered an interdisciplinary approach more effective for raptor conservation significantly recognized a higher proportion of both beneficial and detrimental contributions of raptors than experts considering a disciplinary approach. Thus, while all experts recognize that raptors tend to be more beneficial than detrimental, an interdisciplinary approach gives them a broader context to consider additional contributions and, thus, other stakeholders’ views and interests (Lischka et al., 2018). Furthermore, the majority of raptor conservation experts consider that raptor conservation is more effective through an interdisciplinary approach (i.e., integration of social and biological factors) than from a disciplinary approach (i.e., biological sciences alone). This, despite the majority of experts did not have a social science background; only 2% identified themselves as social scientists. Thus, such an important finding indicates that the majority of raptor conservation experts not only hold broad viewpoints but also recognize the importance of an interdisciplinary approach to addressing the contemporary challenges of raptor conservation in the Anthropocene.

In support of our third hypothesis (H3), women experts recognized a higher proportion of both beneficial and detrimental contributions from raptors than men experts did. Thus, our results provide new evidence of the importance of gender-balanced teams in interdisciplinary wildlife conservation (Nielsen et al., 2017). This matches with previous studies suggesting that women keep their own viewpoints on wildlife management and that these do not necessarily coincide with those of men (Kellert and Berry, 1987; Sanborn and Schmidt, 1995; Newsom et al., 2025). However, women represented fewer than one-third of the respondents, suggesting that gender remains underrepresented in raptor conservation. This proportion is consistent with previous findings reflecting the underrepresentation of women across raptor groups and geographic regions (e.g., 29% of women among vulture experts) (Santangeli et al., 2024). Therefore, by identifying and eliminating these barriers that create gender bias (Handley et al., 2015; Jones and Solomon, 2019; Liévano-Latorre et al., 2020), raptor conservation may be significantly improved by increasing not only viewpoint diversity but also gender equity (i.e., a win–win situation).

While overall team diversity has been identified as a key component of interdisciplinarity and better science (Read et al., 2016; Nielsen et al., 2017; Beck et al., 2019; Stenseke et al., 2026), it has been demonstrated that gender diversity leads to more efficient problem-solving through more creative solutions and smarter decision making (Hall et al., 2008; Nielsen et al., 2017). As women experts recognized a higher proportion of both beneficial and detrimental contributions of raptors, it is expected that, by encouraging more balanced participation from them, raptor conservation teams would be more holistic in practice. Thus, as conservation teams become more diverse in both approach and gender, they may be more capable of reshaping how both predators’ and scavengers’ contributions are perceived by stakeholders and how they are ultimately managed (Beck et al., 2019). However, more research is necessary to understand how gender-balanced teams can be better at managing raptors in the wild. As the conservation problem complexity increases, more diverse teams will also be more necessary (Guerrero and Wilson, 2017; Lischka et al., 2018; Ceauşu et al., 2019; Carter et al., 2019).

Our results are similar to those reported by recent literature reviews showing that raptors provide more beneficial NCP than detrimental NCP/HWC (e.g., Canney et al., 2021; Carucci et al., 2022; Bonetti et al., 2024; Formoso et al., 2025), although for two of the assessed raptor groups (i.e., owls and falcons) fewer questionnaires were obtained. We also have not included seriemas (see Section 2). Nevertheless, according to a recent literature review (Méndez et al., 2022), they may follow a similar pattern to that of the other assessed raptor groups. Further studies would be helpful to confirm the patterns for species with smaller sample sizes and for those not considered in this study (i.e., owls, falcons, and seriemas).

When HWC are mismanaged, they may escalate into more difficult-to-manage human–human conflicts over wildlife management, potentially jeopardizing effective management in the wild (Zimmermann et al., 2020; IUCN, 2023). Our results showed that detrimental NCP/HWC are more specific for each raptor group than beneficial NCP. In the case of hawks and eagles, detrimental contributions toward both farmers (i.e., livestock predation) and hunters (i.e., competition for wild prey) were recognized by the majority of the experts. This aligns with some recent studies showing that mainly farmers (Almuna et al., 2020; Miranda et al., 2022b; Zuluaga et al., 2022b; Antonio et al., 2025) and hunters (Thirgood et al., 2000; Arroyo et al., 2004; Hodgson et al., 2018, 2019) disproportionately consider hawks and eagles as more detrimental, in contrast to other stakeholders (e.g., those more tourism-focused) (Miranda et al., 2022a, 2022b). It is also important to highlight that, in a global systematic review of urban raptor contributions to people, there is a greater number of published studies on detrimental contributions than on beneficial contributions (Bonetti et al., 2024). This is relevant because the majority of the urban raptors analyzed have abundant non-threatened populations at present, some of which may impose monetary costs to humans. Likely, due to these two reasons, researchers were more interested in estimating the detrimental rather than the beneficial contributions to people for these urban raptor species.

In the case of vultures, while experts agreed that there is a misunderstanding among stakeholders over vulture management, they marginally disagreed that vultures are involved in predation on domestic livestock (i.e., 46% of the experts agreed) (Figure 1; Supplementary Table 2). Because these two detrimental NCP/HWC are likely linked, overlooking one of the detrimental NCP involving vultures—such as predation on domestic livestock—may unintentionally contribute to the escalation of human–vulture conflicts to human–human conflicts over vulture management (see Zimmermann et al., 2020). Therefore, it emphasizes the importance of recognizing the specific local detrimental contribution of New World vultures (order Cathartiformes) and addressing the underlying social issues (Grande et al., 2018; Zuluaga et al., 2020b, 2020a), although these may be difficult to quantify or understand from a disciplinary approach (Estrada-Pacheco et al., 2020; Ballejo et al., 2020). In contrast, it has been suggested that acknowledging the local-scale detrimental contribution of New World vultures will perpetuate a historical tendency to blame obligate scavengers as frequent killers (Lambertucci et al., 2021). However, if it is not recognized, our capacity to address the underlying social issues driving this conflict will be extremely limited (Grande et al., 2018; Zuluaga et al., 2020b, 2020). It will also unintentionally contribute to escalating conflict complexity with other stakeholders who have opposing views (Zimmermann et al., 2020). This can apply not only to human–vulture conflicts but also to human–owl conflicts, where, due to deeply rooted traditions and established beliefs (e.g., fear), educational initiatives aimed at raising awareness of the benefits to society are usually ineffective (Formoso et al., 2025).

The low percentage of experts recognizing a few beneficial NCP and many of the detrimental NCP/HWC is likely related to the fact that some of these contributions are local context-dependent and, thus, should be estimated at finer regional or national scales. Moreover, our sample was better represented by raptor experts from Central and North America, Europe, and South America. However, experts’ viewpoints from Africa, Asia, and Oceania were underrepresented. New research needs to consider better balance of data across continents and countries around the world in order to have a more accurate and detailed estimate of the NCP/HWC of raptors worldwide. As for many raptor species there is no information on either their biology or their contribution to people (Buechley et al., 2019; Sebastián-González et al., 2025), expert-based knowledge assessments will be indispensable for estimating detailed and more comprehensive species contributions to people at finer scales and taxonomic levels in the near future. This is relevant since these locally context-dependent NCPs may also motivate stakeholders to engage in actions that are either negative (e.g., poaching) or positive (e.g., species recovery) for raptors. For instance, people may poach raptors for use of the bird itself or its parts in crafts (e.g., NCP13), traditional cultural practices, and belief-based uses (e.g., NCP17), threatening raptor populations, as is the case for New World vultures in South America or Old World vultures in West Africa (Piana, 2019; Asso et al., 2024; Chaffra et al., 2025). On the other hand, from a practical conservation viewpoint, people may work to conserve imperiled raptors, as in Mumbai, India, where vultures feed on Zoroastrians’ (Parsis) human bodies as part of a centuries-old spiritual practice (e.g., NCP17) (Subramanian, 2008). If experts fail to recognize all these very important NCP at local scales, it will not be possible to incorporate these key factors into conservation planning at larger scales (McClure et al., 2025). Finally, changes in raptor contribution to people also need to be considered, including both raptor distribution changes due to climate warming and widespread raptor population declines (Zuluaga et al., 2022a, 2026; Rey et al., 2026).

Although our data were collected between 2019 and 2020, some important facts have occurred in the past 5 years that we want to highlight: i) the publication of several review studies with an interdisciplinary focus on different raptor groups (e.g., Canney et al., 2021; Carucci et al., 2022; Bonetti et al., 2024; Formoso et al., 2025); ii) the growing presence of interdisciplinary keynote speakers at relevant raptor conferences; and iii) the current interest of prominent non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in integrating interdisciplinary professionals into their teams. All of these facts indicate that raptor conservation is becoming more and more interdisciplinary. Thus, this may enable both a more effective mapping of raptor contribution to people and better human–raptor coexistence planning worldwide.

5 Conclusion

Our results suggest that experts’ viewpoints follow a consistent pattern, as also observed in literature reviews, that all raptor groups are perceived to be more beneficial than detrimental to society. The proportion of beneficial to detrimental contributions to people was higher for vultures and owls than for hawks and eagles. Importantly, we also found some variation among experts in the overall proportions of beneficial and detrimental NCP/HWC they recognized. Future expert-based assessment will need to consider that some NCP/HWC are local context-dependent; thus, they should be estimated at lower regional or national scales. As for many raptor species there is no information on their contribution to people, it is hoped that this work will be useful and serve as a starting point for future expert knowledge-based estimates of raptors’ contributions to people at finer geographical scales and taxonomic levels.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbirs.2026.1819176/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Scott Rush, Mississippi State University, United States

Reviewed by: Zsolt Végvári, Hungarian Academy of Science, Hungary

László Patkó, Royal Commission of AlUla, Saudi Arabia

Statements

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. Santiago Zuluaga wrote this paper while funded by doctoral and post-doctoral grants from CONICET, The Peregrine Fund, Fundación Proyecto Águila Crestada-Colombia, and an ABAX Foundation grant hosted by the FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology (Faculty of Science-UCT). The final stage of the analysis, writing, and manuscript submission was completed while funded by a Juan de la Cierva contract (JDC2023-051093-I) from the Spanish government, hosted by the National Museum of Natural Sciences (MNCN)-Spanish National Research Council (CSIC).

Data availability

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics approval

The study was conducted in accordance with local legislation and institutional requirements. Ethical standards for social surveys were followed by informing participants that their participation was voluntary and that their anonymity would be protected. Accordingly, the survey did not request personal information such as names, institutions, or other identifying information. Email addresses provided by participants through Google Form were not used in the study and were deleted from the final dataset to ensure participants’ anonymity.

Author contributions

SZ: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JG: Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. FV: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

Acknowledgements

We want to especially thank each one of the 76 expert interviewees for their kind participation, which made this study possible. I.M. Luque Romero, A.S. Costan, and M.S. Liébana kindly helped us test the online survey. Thanks to Marta Curti for English proofreading and Markus Jais for voluntarily sharing our online questionnaire on his website “European Raptors: Biology and Conservation”. An Associate Editor and two reviewers helped us to improve the final version of this manuscript with their constructive suggestions. We dedicate this study to the memory of Javier Heredia, a friend and raptor expert from Las Sierras de Córdoba, Argentina.

References

  1. Aguilera-Alcalá N., Morales-Reyes Z., Martín-López B., Moleón M., Sánchez-Zapata J. A. (2020). Role of scavengers in providing non-material contributions to people. Ecol. Indic. 117, 106643. doi: doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106643
  2. Almuna R., Cruz J. M., Vargas F. H., Ibarra J. T. (2020). Landscapes of coexistence: generating predictive risk models to mitigate human-raptor conflicts in forest socio-ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 251, 108795. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108795
  3. Amador-Alcalá S., Naranjo E. J., Jiménez-Ferrer G. (2013). Wildlife predation on livestock and poultry: implications for predator conservation in the rainforest of south-east Mexico. Oryx 47, 243 – 250. doi: doi:10.1017/s0030605311001359
  4. Antonio B., Iniunam I. A., Tende T., Chaskda A. A. (2025). Threatened raptor species distribution in Nigeria: influence of socio-cultural factors and human–wildlife conflicts. Diversity 17, 602. doi: doi:10.3390/d17090602
  5. Arroyo B., Redpath S., Viñuela J. (2004). “ Conflicts in raptor conservation: an overview ”, in: Raptors Worldwide: Proceedings of the 6th World Conference on Birds of Prey and Owls, 307 – 315.
  6. Asso A. A., Koné N. A., Salewski V. (2024). Cultural attitudes and human pressure towards vultures around the Comoé National Park, Côte d’Ivoire (West Africa). J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 20, 30. doi: doi:10.1186/s13002-024-00657-0
  7. Ballejo F., Plaza P. I., Lambertucci S. A. (2020). The conflict between scavenging birds and farmers: field observations do not support people’s perceptions. Biol. Conserv. 248, 108627. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108627
  8. Beck J. M., Lopez M. C., Mudumba T., Montgomery R. A. (2019). Improving human-lion conflict research through interdisciplinarity. Front. Ecol. Evol. 7. doi: doi:10.3389/fevo.2019.00243
  9. Becker N., Inbar M., Bahat O., Choresh Y., Ben-Noon G., Yaffe O. (2005). Estimating the economic value of viewing griffon vultures Gyps fulvus: a travel cost model study at Gamla Nature Reserve, Israel. Oryx 39, 429 – 434. doi: doi:10.1017/S0030605305001122
  10. Bochenski Z. M., Tomek T., Wertz K., Wojenka M. (2016). Indirect evidence of falconry in medieval Poland as inferred from published zooarchaeological studies. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 26, 661 – 669. doi: doi:10.1002/oa.2457
  11. Bonetti E. A., Isacch J. P., Paterlini C. A., Bó M. S., Biondi L. M. (2024). Global review of services and conflicts provided by raptors in urbanized habitats. Urban Ecosyst. 27, 2101 – 2120. doi: doi:10.1007/s11252-024-01579-1
  12. Buechley E. R., Santangeli A., Girardello M., Neate-Clegg M. H. C., Oleyar D., McClure C. J. W.. (2019). Global raptor research and conservation priorities: tropical raptors fall prey to knowledge gaps. Divers. Distrib. 25, 856 – 869. doi: doi:10.1111/ddi.12901
  13. Canney A. C., McGough L. M., Bickford N. A., Wallen K. E. (2021). Systematic map of human–raptor interaction and coexistence research. Animals 12, 45. doi: doi:10.3390/ani12010045
  14. Carter N. H., Bruskotter J. T., Vucetich J., Crabtree R., Jaicks H., Karns G.. (2019). “ Towards Human–Wildlife Coexistence through the Integration of Human and Natural Systems ”. in Human–Wildlife Interactions, Frank B., Glikman J. A., Marchini S. eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 384–413. doi: doi:10.1017/9781108235730.021
  15. Carucci T., Whitehouse-Tedd K., Yarnell R. W., Collins A., Fitzpatrick F., Botha A.. (2022). Ecosystem services and disservices associated with vultures: a systematic review and evidence assessment. Ecosyst. Serv. 56, 101447. doi: doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101447
  16. Ceauşu S., Graves R. A., Killion A. K., Svenning J. C., Carter N. H. (2019). Governing trade-offs in ecosystem services and disservices to achieve human–wildlife coexistence. Conserv. Biol. 33, 543 – 553. doi: doi:10.1111/cobi.13241
  17. Chaffra A. S., Arcilla N., Yabi B. F., Lissagbé H. M., Honfo E. E., Houéssou M. G.. (2025). Conservation implications of the illegal trade in Hooded Vultures (Necrosyrtes monachus) for belief-based use in Benin, West Africa. Bird Conserv. Int. 35, e14. doi: doi:10.1017/s0959270925000073
  18. Curti M., Valdez U. (2009). Incorporating community education in the strategy for Harpy Eagle conservation in Panama. J. Environ. Educ. 40, 3 – 16. doi: doi:10.3200/JOEE.40.4.3-16
  19. Díaz S., Pascual U., Stenseke M., Martín-López B., Watson R. T., Molnár Z.. (2018). Assessing nature’s contributions to people: recognizing culture, and diverse sources of knowledge, can improve assessments. Science 359, 270 – 272. doi: doi:10.1126/science.aap8826
  20. Donázar J. A., Cortés-Avizanda A., Fargallo J. A., Margalida A., Moleón M., Morales-Reyes Z.. (2016). Roles of raptors in a changing world: from flagships to providers of key ecosystem services. Ardeola 63, 181 – 234. doi: doi:10.13157/arla.63.1.2016.rp8
  21. Duriez O., Descaves S., Gallais R., Neouze R., Fluhr J., Decante F. (2019). Vultures attacking livestock: a problem of vulture behavioural change or farmers’ perception ? Bird Conserv. Int. 29, 437 – 453. doi: doi:10.1017/s0959270918000345
  22. Enriquez P. A., Mikkola H. (1997). “ Comparative study of general public owl knowledge in Costa Rica, Central America and Malawi, Africa,” in Biology and Conservation of Owls of the Northern Hemisphere: 2nd International Symposium. Eds. Duncan J. R., Johnson D. H., Nicholls T. H. (Winnipeg: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station), 160 – 166. doi: doi:10.2737/NC-GTR-190
  23. Enríquez Rocha P., Rangel-Salazar L. (2004). Conocimiento popular sobre los búhos en los alrededores de un Bosque Húmedo Tropical protegido en Costa Rica. Etnobiología 4, 41 – 53.
  24. Epelboin L., Mutricy R., Pelletier V., Fremery A., Dechelle M., Ottema O.. (2025). Unveiling the myth: Harpy Eagle (Harpia harpyja) attacks on a human in the Amazon Forest. Ecol. Evol. 15, e71266. doi: doi:10.1002/ece3.71266
  25. Estrada-Pacheco R., Jácome N. L., Astore V., Borghi C. E., Piña C. I. (2020). Pesticides: the most threat to the conservation of the Andean condor (Vultur gryphus). Biol. Conserv. 242, 108418. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108418
  26. Expósito-Granados M., Castro A. J., Lozano J., Aznar-Sanchez J. A., Carter N. H., Requena-Mullor J. M.. (2019). Human-carnivore relations: conflicts, tolerance and coexistence in the American West. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 123005. doi: doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab5485
  27. Ferguson-Lees J., Christie D. A. (2001). Raptors of the World (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company).
  28. Ferraz K. B.. (2022). Best of both worlds: combining ecological and social research to inform conservation decisions in a Neotropical biodiversity hotspot. J. Nat. Conserv. 66, 126146. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2022.126146
  29. Fitzsimons J. A., Leighton J. (2021). Frugivory in raptors: new observations from Australia and a global review. Birds 2, 338 – 350. doi: doi:10.3390/birds2040025
  30. Formoso A. E., Plaza P., Lambertucci S. A. (2025). Global assessment of ecosystem services and disservices associated with owls. Ecosyst. Serv. 72, 101707. doi: doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101707
  31. Galetti M., Guimarães P. R. (2004). Seed dispersal of Attalea phalerata (Palmae) by Crested caracaras (Caracara plancus) in the Pantanal and a review of frugivory by raptors. Ararajuba 12, 133 – 135.
  32. García-Jiménez R., Morales-Reyes Z., Pérez-García J. M., Margalida A. (2021). Economic valuation of non-material contributions to people provided by avian scavengers: harmonizing conservation and wildlife-based tourism. Ecol. Econ. 187, 107088. doi: doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107088
  33. García-Jiménez R., Pérez-García J. M., Margalida A., Morales-Reyes Z. (2022). Avian scavengers’ contributions to people: the cultural dimension of wildlife-based tourism. Sci. Total Environ. 806, 150419. doi: doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150419
  34. Gilbert S., Carter N., Naidoo R. (2021). Predation services: quantifying societal effects of predators and their prey. Front. Ecol. Environ. 19, 292 – 299. doi: doi:10.1002/fee.2336
  35. Giraldo-Amaya M., Aguiar-Silva F. H., Aparicio-U. K. M., Zuluaga S. (2021). Human persecution of the Harpy Eagle: a widespread threat ? J. Raptor Res. 55, 281 – 286. doi: doi:10.3356/0892-1016-55.2.281
  36. Grande J. M., Zuluaga S., Marchini S. (2018). Casualties of human-wildlife conflict. Science 360, 1309. doi: doi:10.1126/science.aau2465
  37. Grilli M. G., Bildstein K. L., Lambertucci S. A. (2019). Nature’s clean-up crew: quantifying ecosystem services offered by a migratory avian scavenger on a continental scale. Ecosyst. Serv. 39, 100990. doi: doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100990
  38. Guerrero A. M., Wilson K. A. (2017). Using a social–ecological framework to inform the implementation of conservation plans. Conserv. Biol. 31, 290 – 301. doi: doi:10.1111/cobi.12832
  39. Hall K. L., Feng A. X., Moser R. P., Stokols D., Taylor B. K. (2008). Moving the science of team science forward. Am. J. Prev. Med. 35, S243 – S249. doi: doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.007
  40. Handley I. M., Brown E. R., Moss-Racusin C. A., Smith J. L. (2015). Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 13201 – 13206. doi: doi:10.1073/pnas.1510649112
  41. Hodgson I. D., Redpath S. M., Fischer A., Young J. (2018). Fighting talk: organisational discourses of the conflict over raptors and grouse moor management in Scotland. Land Use Policy 77, 332 – 343. doi: doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.042
  42. Hodgson I. D., Redpath S. M., Fischer A., Young J. (2019). Who knows best? Understanding the use of research-based knowledge in conservation conflicts. J. Environ. Manage. 231, 1065 – 1075. doi: doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.023
  43. IUCN (2023). IUCN SSC guidelines on human-wildlife conflict and coexistence. First edition. International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Gland, Switzerland. doi: doi:10.2305/YGIK2927
  44. Jones M. S., Solomon J. (2019). Challenges and supports for women conservation leaders. Conserv. Sci. Pract., 1, e36. doi: doi:10.1111/csp2.36
  45. Kareiva P., Marvier M. (2012). What Is Conservation Science ? BioScience 62, 962 – 969. doi: doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.11.5
  46. Kellert S. R., Berry J. K. (1987). Attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors toward wildlife as affected by gender. Wildl. Soc Bull. 15, 363 – 371.
  47. Kross S. M., Ingram K. P., Long R. F., Niles M. T. (2018). Farmer perceptions and behaviors related to wildlife and on-farm conservation actions. Conserv. Lett. 11, 1 – 9. doi: doi:10.1111/conl.12364
  48. Kumar N., Jhala Y. V., Qureshi Q., Gosler A. G., Sergio F. (2019). Human-attacks by an urban raptor are tied to human subsidies and religious practices. Sci. Rep. 9, 2545. doi: doi:10.1038/s41598-019-38662-z
  49. Lambertucci S. A.. (2021). Presumed killers? Vultures, stakeholders, misperceptions, and fake news. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3. doi: doi:10.1111/csp2.415
  50. Li C., Jiang Z., Li C., Tang S., Li F., Luo Z.. (2015). Livestock depredations and attitudes of local pastoralists toward carnivores in the Qinghai Lake Region, China. Wildl. Biol. 21, 204 – 212. doi: doi:10.2981/wlb.00083
  51. Liévano-Latorre L. F., da Silva R. A., Vieira R. R. S., Resende F. M., Ribeiro B. R., Borges F. J. A.. (2020). Pervasive gender bias in editorial boards of biodiversity conservation journals. Biol. Conserv. 251, 108767. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108767
  52. Lischka S. A., Teel T. L., Johnson H. E., Reed S. E., Breck S., Don Carlos A.. (2018). A conceptual model for the integration of social and ecological information to understand human-wildlife interactions. Biol. Conserv. 225, 80 – 87. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2018.06.020
  53. López-Darias M., Nogales M. (2016). Raptors as legitimate secondary dispersers of weed seeds. Ibis 158, 428 – 432. doi: doi:10.1111/ibi.12360
  54. Lozano J., Olszańska A., Morales-Reyes Z., Castro A. A., Malo A. F., Moleón M.. (2019). Human-carnivore relations: A systematic review. Biol. Conserv. 237, 480 – 492. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.07.002
  55. Lundberg J., Moberg F. (2003). Mobile link organisms and ecosystem functioning: Implications for ecosystem resilience and management. Ecosystems 6, 87 – 98. doi: doi:10.1007/s10021-002-0150-4
  56. Lute M. L., Carter N. H., López-Bao J. V., Linnell J. D. C. (2018). Conservation professionals agree on challenges to coexisting with large carnivores but not on solutions. Biol. Conserv. 218, 223 – 232. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2017.12.035
  57. Lute M. L., Carter N. H., López-Bao J. V., Linnell J. D. C. (2020). Conservation professionals’ views on governing for coexistence with large carnivores. Biol. Conserv. 248, 108668. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108668
  58. Manzano-García J., Jiménez-Escobar N. D., Allende R. L., Cailly-Arnulphi V. B. (2017). El cóndor andino (Vultur gryphus): ¿Predador o carroñero? Pluralidad de percepciones entre los saberes locales y discurso acdémico en las Sierras Centrales de Agentina. Hornero 32, 29 – 37.
  59. Markandya A., Taylor T., Longo A., Murty M. N., Murty S., Dhavala K. (2008). Counting the cost of vulture decline-an appraisal of the human health and other benefits of vultures in India. Ecol. Econ. 67, 194 – 204. doi: doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.04.020
  60. Martínez J. A., Martínez J. E., Mañosa S., Zuberogoitia I., Calvo J. F. (2006). How to manage human-induced mortality in the Eagle Owl Bubo bubo. Bird Conserv. Int. 16, 265 – 278. doi: doi:10.1017/S0959270906000402
  61. McClure C. J. W. (2025). “ The need to assess the state of the world’s raptors,” in State of the World’s Raptors. Eds. McClure C. J. W., Dunn L., Johnson J. A., Katzner T. E., Gumbs R., Buechley E. R. (Boise: The Peregrine Fund), 1.1 –.10. doi: doi:10.4080/swr.endk4929
  62. McClure C. J. W., Dunn L., Johnson J. A., Katzner T. E., Gumbs R., Buechley E. R. (2025). State of the World’s Raptors. Boise: The Peregrine Fund.
  63. McClure C. J. W., Westrip J. R.S., Johnson J. A., Schulwitz S. E., Virani M. Z., Davies R.. (2018). State of the world’s raptors: Distributions, threats, and conservation recommendations. Biol. Conserv. 227, 390 – 402. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2018.08.012
  64. McClure C. J. W., Johnson J. A. (2025). “ Evolution of diet defines raptors,” in State of the World’s Raptors. Eds. McClure C. J. W., Dunn L., Johnson J. A., Katzner T. E., Gumbs R., Buechley E. R. (Boise: The Peregrine Fund), 2.1 – 2.20. doi: doi:10.4080/swr.weoq8259
  65. McClure C. J. W., Schulwitz S. E., Anderson D. L., Robinson B. W., Mojica E. K., Therrien J.-F.. (2019). Commentary: Defining raptors and birds of prey. J. Raptor Res. 53, 419. doi: doi:10.3356/0892-1016-53.4.419
  66. Méndez D., Szymczycha Z., Sullivan J., McClure C. J. W. (2022). Seriemas: A literature assessment and recommendations for future research. J. Raptor Res. 56, 138 – 146. doi: doi:10.3356/JRR-21-23
  67. Michel N. L., Whelan C. J., Verutes G. M. (2020). Ecosystem services provided by Neotropical birds. Condor 122, 1 – 21. doi: doi:10.1093/condor/duaa022
  68. Miranda E. B.P., Kenup C. F., Munn C. A., Huizinga N., Lormand N., Downs C. T. (2022 a). Harpy eagle (Harpia harpyja) nest activity patterns: Potential ecotourism and conservation opportunities in the Amazon Forest. Bird Conserv. Int. 32, 609 – 623. doi: doi:10.1017/s095927092100040x
  69. Miranda E. B. P., Peres C. A., Downs C. T. (2022 b). Landowner perceptions of livestock predation: Implications for persecution of an Amazonian apex predator. Anim. Conserv. 25, acv.12727. doi: doi:10.1111/acv.12727
  70. Morales-Reyes Z., Sánchez-Zapata J. A., Sebastián-González E., Botella F., Carrete M., Moleón M. (2017). Scavenging efficiency and red fox abundance in Mediterranean mountains with and without vultures. Acta Oecologica 79, 81 – 88. doi: doi:10.1016/j.actao.2016.12.012
  71. Morelli F., Kubicka A. M., Tryjanowski P., Nelson E. (2015). The vulture in the sky and the hominin on the land: Three million years of human–vulture interaction. Anthrozoös 28, 449 – 468. doi: doi:10.1080/08927936.2015.1052279
  72. Newsom A., Lozano J., Martín-López B. (2025). Social perceptions of carnivores across the globe – a literature review. Hum. Dimens. Wildl., 1 – 24. doi: doi:10.1080/10871209.2025.2459733
  73. Nielsen M. W., Alegria S., Börjeson L., Etzkowitz H., Falk-Krzesinski H. J., Joshi A.. (2017). Gender diversity leads to better science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 1740 – 1742. doi: doi:10.1073/pnas.1700616114
  74. O’Bryan C. J., Braczkowski A. R., Beyer H. L., Carter N. H., Watson J. E. M., McDonald-Madden E. (2018). The contribution of predators and scavengers to human well-being. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 229 – 236. doi: doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0421-2
  75. Pascual-Rico R.. (2021). Usually hated, sometimes loved: A review of wild ungulates’ contributions to people. Sci. Total Environ., 149652. doi: doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149652
  76. Pascual-Rico R., Martín-López B., Sánchez-Zapata J. A., Morales-Reyes Z. (2020). Scientific priorities and shepherds’ perceptions of ungulate’s contributions to people in rewilding landscapes. Sci. Total Environ. 705, 135876. doi: doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.135876
  77. Peduzzi P., Concato J., Kemper E., Holford T. R., Feinstein A. R. (1996). A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 49, 1373 – 1379. doi: doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(96)00236-3
  78. Peery M. Z., Jones G. M., Gutiérrez R., Redpath S. M., Franklin A. B., Simberloff D.. (2019). The conundrum of agenda‐driven science in conservation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 17, 80 – 82. doi: doi:10.1002/fee.2006
  79. Pérez-Méndez N., Rodríguez A. (2018). “ Raptors as seed dispersers,” in Birds of Prey, eds. Sarasola J. H., Grande J. M., Negro J. J. (Cham: Springer), 139–158. doi: doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73745-4_6
  80. Peterson M. N., Birckhead J. L., Leong K., Peterson M. J., Peterson T. R. (2010). Rearticulating the myth of human-wildlife conflict. Conserv. Lett. 3, 74 – 82. doi: doi:10.54739/3jxt
  81. Piana R. P. (2019). Human-caused and Yawar Fiesta-derived mortality of Andean condors (Vultur gryphus) in Peru. Wilson J. Ornith. 131 (4), 833 – 838. doi: doi:10.1676/1559-4491-131.4.833
  82. R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. Reference Index Version 3.6.3. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online at: www.R-project.org.
  83. Rashid G. M., Ali M. H., Butt A., Qadir A. (2021). A cross-sectional study on knowledge, attitude and practices related to owls in central Punjab, Pakistan. Ornis Hungarica 29, 66 – 81. doi: doi:10.2478/orhu-2021-0005
  84. Read E. K., O’Rourke M., Hong G. S., Hanson P. C., Winslow L. A., Crowley S.. (2016). Building the team for team science. Ecosphere 7. doi: doi:10.1002/ecs2.1291
  85. Redpath S. M., Bhatia S., Young J. (2015). Tilting at wildlife: reconsidering human–wildlife conflict. Oryx 49, 222 – 225. doi: doi:10.1017/S0030605314000799
  86. Redpath S. M.. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol. Evol. 28, 100 – 109. doi: doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.08.021
  87. Restrepo-Cardona J. S., Márquez C., Echeverry-Galvis M.Á., Vargas F. H., Sánchez-Bellaizá D. M., Renjifo L. M. (2019). Deforestation may trigger black-and-chestnut eagle (Spizaetus isidori) predation on domestic fowl. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 12. doi: doi:10.1177/1940082919831838
  88. Rey P.-L., Adde A., Külling N., Lehmann A., Guisan A. (2026). Advancing species-based predictions of Nature’s contributions to people. Trends Ecol. Evol. 41, 219 – 229. doi: doi:10.1016/j.tree.2025.12.003
  89. Ripley B., Venables W. (2021). Package “nnet”: feed-forward neural networks and multinomial log-linear models V 7.3-15. doi: doi:10.32614/cran.package.nnet
  90. Salom A., Suárez M. E., Destefano C. A., Cereghetti J., Vargas F. H., Grande J. M. (2021). Human-wildlife conflicts in the Southern Yungas: What role do raptors play for local settlers ? Animals 11, 1428. doi: doi:10.3390/ani11051428
  91. Sanborn W., Schmidt R. (1995). Gender effects on views of wildlife professionals about wildlife management. Wildl. Soc Bull. 23, 583 – 587.
  92. Santangeli A., Lambertucci S. A., Margalida A., Carucci T., Botha A., Whitehouse-Tedd K.. (2024). The global contribution of vultures towards ecosystem services and sustainability: An experts’ perspective. iScience 27, 109925. doi: doi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.109925
  93. Sebastián-González E., Carrión S., Pérez-Granados C., López-Iborra G. M., Botella F., Pérez C.. (2025). Servibirds: Quantitative assessment of the ecosystem services provided by native birds in Spain. Ardeola 73. doi: doi:10.13157/arla.73.1.2026.ra3
  94. Sekercioglu C. (2006). Increasing awareness of avian ecological function. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 464 – 471. doi: doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.05.007
  95. Sergio F., Caro T., Brown D., Clucas B., Hunter J., Ketchum J.. (2008). Top predators as conservation tools: Ecological rationale, assumptions, and efficacy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 39, 1 – 19. doi: doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173545
  96. Sergio F., Newton I., Marchesi L. (2005). Top predators and biodiversity. Nature 436, 192 – 192. doi: doi:10.1038/436192a
  97. Stenseke M., Harris F. L., Crowe T. (2026). Advice for interdisciplinary biodiversity research. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 8, e70203. doi: doi:10.1111/csp2.70203
  98. Subramanian M. (2008). Towering silence: For millennia Zoroastrians have used vultures to dispose of their dead. What will happen when the birds disappear ? Sci. Spirit 19, 34 – 39. doi: doi:10.3200/sspt.19.3.34-39
  99. Sutherland W. J., Brotherton P. N. M., Davies Z. G., Ockendon N., Pettorelli N., Vickery J. A. (2020). Conservation Research, Policy and Practice. Sutherland W. J., Brotherton P. N. M., Davies Z. G., Ockendon N., Pettorelli N., Vickery J. A. eds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: doi:10.1017/9781108638210
  100. Thirgood S., Redpath S., Newton I., Hudson P. (2000). Raptors and red grouse: Conservation conflicts and management solutions. Conserv. Biol. 14, 95 – 104. doi: doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99013.x
  101. Valkama J.. (2005). Birds of prey as limiting factors of gamebird populations in Europe: A review. Biol. Rev. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 80, 171 – 203. doi: doi:10.1017/s146479310400658x
  102. Vittinghoff E., McCulloch C. E. (2007). Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and cox regression. Am. J. Epidemiol. 165, 710 – 718. doi: doi:10.1093/aje/kwk052
  103. Williams R., Jara J., Matsufuiji D., Plenge A. (2012). Trade in andean condor vulture gryphus feathers and body parts in the city of cusco and the sacred valley, cusco region, Peru. Vulture News 61, 175 – 267. doi: doi:10.4314/vulnew.v61i1.2
  104. Young J. C., Searle K., Butler A., Simmons P., Watt A. D., Jordan A. (2016). The role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts. Biol. Conserv. 195, 196 – 202. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.030
  105. Zimmermann A., McQuinn B., Macdonald D. W. (2020). Levels of conflict over wildlife: understanding and addressing the right problem. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2, e259. doi: doi:10.1111/csp2.259
  106. Zuluaga S., Grande J. M., Marchini S. (2020 a). A better understanding of human behavior, not only of 'perceptions', will support evidence-based decision making and help to save scavenging birds: A comment to Ballejo et al. (2020). Biological Conservation, 250, 108747. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108747
  107. Zuluaga S., Murgatroyd M., Visagie R., Tate G., Amar A. (2026). Road counts expose widespread declines in South African raptors underestimated by atlas data. Biol. Conserv., 111764. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2026.111764
  108. Zuluaga S., Salom A., Vargas F. H., Coulson J. O., Kohn S., Grande J. M. (2020 b). Acknowledging andean condor predation on livestock, a first step in addressing the human-condor conflict: a commentary to estrada pacheco et al., (2020). Biol. Conserv. 247, 108618. doi: doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108618
  109. Zuluaga S., Speziale K. L., Lambertucci S. A. (2022 a). Flying wildlife may mask the loss of ecological functions due to terrestrial habitat fragmentation. Sci. Total Environ. 803, 150034. doi: doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150034
  110. Zuluaga S., Vargas F. H., Grande J. M. (2021). Integrating socio-ecological information to address human–top predator conflicts: the case of an endangered eagle in the eastern andes of Colombia. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 19, 98 – 107. doi: doi:10.1016/j.pecon.2020.10.003
  111. Zuluaga S., Vargas F. H., Kohn S., Grande J. M. (2022 b). Top-down local management, perceived contribution to people, and actual detriments influence a rampant human–top predator conflict in the neotropics. Perspect. Ecol. Conserv. 20, 91 – 102. doi: doi:10.1016/j.pecon.2021.11.001
  112. Zuur A. F., Ieno E. N., Walker N. J., Saveliev A. A., Smith G. M. (2009). Mixed Effects Model and Extension in Ecology With R (New York: Springer).

Citation

Zuluaga, S., et al. (2026). Raptors’ contributions to people and human–raptor conflicts worldwide: an expert assessment. Frontiers in Bird Science, Volume 5. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
5 - 2026

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Zuluaga, Vargas and Grande.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Santiago Zuluaga

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

Original ResearchThe eagle as an agricultural ally: quantifying the predation of medically significant snakes and public perception gaps in the Thar DesertRadheshyam Bishnoi, Govind Tiwari, Randeep SinghPerspectiveBeyond the frontiers: avian organoid and stem cell models for genetic rescue in bird conservationSittipon Intarapat, Oleg Gusev, Guojun ShengOriginal ResearchBirdwatching intensity and its impacts on mental health, happiness, mindfulness and nature connectedness among birders: a cross-sectional study in BrazilKarina Pavão Patricio, Victor Castanho, Victor Rodrigues Antonelli, Giulia Catissi, Eliseth Ribeiro Leão