ArticleEnvironmental management2020
Uptake and Engagement of Activities to Promote Native Species in Private Gardens.
Article in Environmental management, 2020. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Activities undertaken by householders in their gardens have huge potential to enhance city-wide biodiversity, but programs aimed at activating householders require an understanding of the factors encouraging or acting as barriers to the uptake of different kinds of activities. We provided 42 householders with two species-enhancing activities, selected from six possibilities, free-of-charge (to remove the barrier of initial cost). We collected socio-demographic data as well as information on knowledge of common urban species, pro-environmental behaviors and nature connectedness. We monitored ongoing engagement at two time points: 1 and 6 months. Characteristics of householders opting for different activities varied in terms of their degree of environmental engagement, their knowledge about common species, and the size of their gardens; e.g., bird feeders and bee planters were popular with people who did not know the names of common species and were not particularly engaged in pro-environmental activities respectively, whereas lizard habitat creation was attractive to people who were already engaged in wildlife gardening activities. Cost to continue with activities was a significant barrier for some people, but most householders were willing to practice relatively inexpensive activities in small spaces. Esthetics was an important factor to be considered when enhancing invertebrate habitat (e.g., bug hotels are more attractive than log piles, and planters for bees contain colorful flowers). A commonly cited barrier was lack of information about wildlife-friendly activities, despite much being available online. Most participants (85%) talked about their activities with others, potentially acting as influencers and shifting social norms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32338302What 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.