Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33343227›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental science & policy2020

Social impacts of European Protected Areas and policy recommendations.

Nikoleta Jones, Mariagrazia Graziano, Panayiotis G Dimitrakopoulos

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental science & policy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Identification, spatial distribution, and associated factors of urban protected areas in China.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Nikoleta JonesDepartment of Land Economy, University of Cambridge Conservation Research Institute, University of Cambridge, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB23QZ, UK.
Mariagrazia GrazianoJoint Research Centre (JRC) European Commission Directorate D-Sustainable Resources, Via E. Fermi 2749 (TP124), I-21027, Ispra, VA, Italy.
Panayiotis G DimitrakopoulosDepartment of Environment, University of the Aegean, Mytilene, 81100, Greece.
Joint Research Centre · ITUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of the Aegean · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effective designation of Protected Areas (PAs) requires the careful consideration of their social impacts as these are perceived by people. These refer to a variety of issues such as the distribution of power, social equity, social relations and more importantly the impact of PAs on human wellbeing. A number of studies have emerged in the past decade aiming to capture social impacts of PAs across the world through non-monetary assessments taking into consideration people's perceptions. Although Europe is the region with the largest in proportion number of Protected Areas across the world it is also a region with very limited scientific evidence on this topic. As the European Union is preparing to implement its new Biodiversity Strategyto ipkmplement this paper aims to provide the first comprehensive review of the literature regarding social impacts of European PAs and highlight new directions for current policy frameworks in the region. The paper focuses on the perceived non-economic social costs and benefits of PAs and identifies 7 key categories of social impacts. We propose that policy planning for biodiversity conservation in Europe should incorporate subjective assessments of social costs and benefits with the aim to achieve an increase of benefits for people and their equal distribution across social groups.

Indexed as

BenefitsEU Biodiversity StrategyHuman rightsSocial costsSocial equityWellbeing

Identifiers

PMID33343227
PMCPMC7729820
OpenAlexW3036145167

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.