ArticleEnvironmental management2021
Local Decision-makers' Perspectives on Roadside Revegetation and Management in Iowa, USA.
Article in Environmental management, 2021. 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Environmental practitioners must understand those they collaborate with to implement programs that are both socially and ecologically effective. Practitioners who understand decision-makers' perspectives are better able to collaborate to lower political, financial, and cultural obstacles. In this study, we surveyed decision-makers involved with a voluntary environmental program in Iowa, USA. Iowa counties can choose to manage their roadside vegetation using an ecological approach, called integrated roadside vegetation management. Key decision-makers who decide whether a county has a roadside program are the county board of supervisors and the county conservation board. We used a mixed-mode design to survey the conservation board directors and chairs of the board of supervisors in each county. Our main goals were to understand the decision-makers' perceived benefits and barriers to having a roadside program in their counties, as well as the key factors influencing their decisions about roadside vegetation management. Safety, maintenance cost savings, and erosion control were the main factors that influenced decision-making, while pollinators and other wildlife received the least consideration. However, decision-makers in counties with a roadside vegetation manager were more influenced by pollinators and other wildlife compared to their counterparts in counties without a roadside vegetation manager. The main barriers to having a program include a lack of resources or other concerns being a higher priority. Emphasizing safety, cost savings, and erosion control benefits of roadside programs, and identifying ways to lower startup costs may increase buy-in with county decision-makers.
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.