ArticleHeliyon2016
Public preferences for ecosystem services on exurban landscapes: A case study from the Mid-Atlantic, USA.
Article in Heliyon, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper reports data from a residential landscape preference study conducted in Delaware, USA. The researchers constructed an ecologically designed exurban residential landscape, which delivered 20 new environmental and human-related impacts, including 7 that delivered ecosystem services. Ecosystem services included impacts such as improved flood control and enhanced plant diversity. Using pictures before and after the intervention, an intercept survey of 105 non-neighboring residents estimated whether the 20 impacts positively, negatively, or did not affect the respondents' household wellbeing. The public found that most landscape-intervention impacts had a positive effect on their quality of life, especially those impacts involving ecosystem services. All but one ecosystem service were found to be strong amenities and the other (moving indoor activities outside) was an amenity. However, the landscape intervention delivered one clear disamenity: increased undesirable wildlife. Respondents also identified what impacts were the most important in affecting their welfare: undesirable wildlife (negative); flood control (positive); and water quality (positive). Ecosystem services accounted for 41.6% of the public's importance rating, while undesirable wildlife was 12.9%. A planning process seeking more ecosystem services from residential landscapes should focus on all the most important drivers of preference, if it is to be accepted by residents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.