Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33026581›Full record

ArticleAmbio2021

Avoiding negativity bias: Towards a positive psychology of human-wildlife relationships.

Arjen Buijs, Maarten Jacobs

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ambio, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Arjen BuijsForest and Nature Conservation Policy Group, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708 PG, Wageningen, The Netherlands. arjen.buijs@wur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1683-6182
Maarten JacobsCultural Geography Group, Wageningen University, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, 6708 PG, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Wageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, new approaches to wildlife management are being developed, such as coexistence management and convivial conservation. These approaches aim to shift management practices from mitigating human-wildlife conflicts towards cohabitation and explore mutual benefits. To align empirical research to these new approaches, we argue for the relevance of positive psychology theory to inspire and structure research into the benefits of human-wildlife interactions. Positive psychology suggests three pathways through which human-wildlife interactions may lead to happiness and well-being: pleasure, engagement, and meaning. Applying these pathways to human-wildlife research may (i) structure existing research into the benefits of human-wildlife interactions, (ii) disclose unidentified benefits of human-wildlife interactions, and (iii) unravel mechanisms which make experiencing and protecting wildlife worthwhile and rewarding. Also, we suggest a potential feedback loop between wildlife experiences, happiness and well-being, and pro-environmental behaviours. More in-depth research into these mechanisms may improve our understanding of attitudes towards conservation of wildlife and its habitat and may suggest strategies to strengthen stewardship actions and public support for conservation strategies. Together, these strands of research could initiate research into what could be called a "Positive Ecology".

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesPsychology, PositiveAnimalsAnimals, WildAttitudeEcosystemHumansAttitudesConservationHuman–wildlife interactionsStewardshipWell-beingWildlife

Identifiers

PMID33026581
PMCPMC7782602
OpenAlexW3091863329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.