ArticleAmbio2020
A scoping review into the impact of animal imagery on pro-environmental outcomes.
Article in Ambio, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Emotional and attitudinal responses to social media depictions of human-wildlife interactions at wildlife tourist attractions.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Threats to conservation from artificial-intelligence-generated wildlife images and videos.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
- Human-elephant conflict in communities bordering Kruger National Park: Revealing causes and unpicking social media narratives.PloS one · 2026Article
- Evolution of European bison image and its implications for current species conservation.PloS one · 2023Article
- Factors Influencing the Sponsoring of Animals in Slovak Zoos.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Article
- Visualising an invisible symbiosis.Plants, people, planet · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the recognition that most global environmental problems are a result of human actions, there is an increasing interest in approaches which have the potential to influence human behaviour. Images have a powerful role in shaping persuasive messages, yet research on the impacts of visual representations of nature is a neglected area in biodiversity conservation. We systematically screened existing studies on the use of animal imagery in conservation, identifying 37 articles. Although there is clear evidence that images of animals can have positive effects on people's attitudes to animals, overall there is currently a dearth of accessible and comparable published data demonstrating the efficacy of animal imagery. Most existing studies are place and context-specific, limiting the generalisable conclusions that can be drawn. Transdisciplinary research is needed to develop a robust understanding of the contextual and cultural factors that affect how animal images can be used effectively for conservation purposes.
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.