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
| 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) |
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.
*indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between perspectives among two stakeholder groups.