Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27441300›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2016

Public preferences for ecosystem services on exurban landscapes: A case study from the Mid-Atlantic, USA.

Joshua M Duke, Jules Bruck, Susan Barton, Megan Murray, Shreeram Inamdar, Douglas W Tallamy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Joshua M DukeDepartment of Applied Economics and Statistics, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA.
Jules BruckDepartment of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA.
Susan BartonDepartment of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA.
Megan MurrayDepartment of Applied Economics and Statistics, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA.
Shreeram InamdarDepartment of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA.
Douglas W TallamyDepartment of Entomology and Wildlife Ecology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Economics

Identifiers

PMID27441300
PMCPMC4946306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.