ReviewConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2021
Conducting conservation social science surveys online.
Review in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 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
27 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fishing Participation Explained Through an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior Model.Environmental management · 2026Article
- SurveyNet: A Unified Deep Learning Framework for OCR and OMR-Based Survey Digitization.Journal of imaging · 2026Article
- Understanding Australian Adolescents' Perceptions of Healthy and Sustainable Diets, and Perceptions and Consumption of Pulses.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Investigating pathways to environmental civic engagement for diverse communities.Environmental management · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Perceived Threat Threshold from Various Drivers to Cranes Along Indus Flyway, Punjab, Pakistan.Biology · 2025Article
- Imposters, Bots, and Other Threats to Data Integrity in Online Research: Scoping Review of the Literature and Recommendations for Best Practices.Online journal of public health informatics · 2025Review
- The EORTC QLQ-F17 as a shortened version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 to assess self-reported functioning in cancer patients: investigating equivalence and psychometric properties in a randomized cross-over trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Perspectives of New York State residents on deer management, hunting, and predator reintroduction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Knowledge, Barriers, and Future Directions of Vestibular Rehabilitation Practice in Neurorehabilitation: An Italian Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Trust and subjective knowledge influence perceived risk of lead exposure.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2024Article
- Public perceptions of trophy hunting are pragmatic, not dogmatic.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Exploring the efficacy of identity priming and message framing in influencing American attitudes toward trophy hunting.PloS one · 2024Article
- AI-powered fraud and the erosion of online survey integrity: an analysis of 31 fraud detection strategies.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2024Article
- Article
- The influence of social interactions in mitigating psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic: a study in Sri Lanka.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Public attitudes toward the use of human induced pluripotent stem cells: insights from an Italian adult population.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Willingness toward post-mortem body donation to science at a Mexican university: an exploratory survey.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Midwives' perceptions of and attitudes towards prevention of mother-to-child-transmission of HIV.Curationis · 2023Article
- A critical assessment of a protected area conflict analysis based on secondary data in the age of datafication.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Digital technologies for motor rehabilitation in children: protocol for a cross-sectional European survey.BMJ open · 2023Article
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
The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is affecting the environment and conservation research in fundamental ways. Many conservation social scientists are now administering survey questionnaires online, but they must do so while ensuring rigor in data collection. Further, they must address a suite of unique challenges, such as the increasing use of mobile devices by participants and avoiding bots or other survey fraud. We reviewed recent literature on online survey methods to examine the state of the field related to online data collection and dissemination. We illustrate the review with examples of key methodological decisions made during a recent national study of people who feed wild birds, in which survey respondents were recruited through an online panel and a sample generated via a project participant list. Conducting surveys online affords new opportunities for participant recruitment, design, and pilot testing. For instance, online survey panels can provide quick access to large and diverse samples of people. Based on the literature review and our own experiences, we suggest that to ensure high-quality online surveys one should account for potential sampling and nonresponse error, design survey instruments for use on multiple devices, test the instrument, and use multiple protocols to identify data quality problems. We also suggest that research funders, journal editors, and policy makers can all play a role in ensuring high-quality survey data are used to inform effective conservation programs and policies.
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.