ArticlePloS one2022
Stakeholder perceptions of bird-window collisions.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Field-testing effectiveness of window markers in reducing bird-window collisions.Urban ecosystems · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bird-window collisions are a major source of human-caused avian mortality for which many mitigation and prevention options are available. However, because very little research has characterized human perspectives related to this issue, there is limited understanding about the most effective ways to engage the public in collision reduction efforts. To address this research need, we: (1) evaluated how two stakeholder groups, homeowners and conservation practitioners, prioritize potential benefits and obstacles related to bird-window collision management, (2) compared priorities between these groups, and (3) evaluated potential conflicts and collective strength of opinions within groups. We addressed these objectives by merging the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) survey approaches. Specifically, survey respondents made pairwise comparisons between strengths and weaknesses (respectively, direct outcomes and barriers related to management, such as fewer collisions and increased costs) and opportunities and threats (indirect outcomes and barriers, such as increased bird populations and fewer resources for other building-related expenses). Both homeowners and conservation practitioners ranked strengths and opportunities higher than weaknesses and threats, indicating they have an overall positive perception toward reducing bird-window collisions. However, key obstacles that were identified included costs of management and a lack of policy and guidelines to require or guide management. These results suggest that substantial advances can be made to reduce bird-window collisions because both homeowners and conservation practitioners had positive views, suggesting their receptivity toward collision management measures. However, because of more neutral views and conflicting responses within the homeowner group, results also highlight the importance of targeting homeowners with education materials that provide information about bird-window collisions and solutions that reduce them. Because bird-window collisions are a human-caused phenomenon, such information about human perspectives and priorities will be crucial to addressing this threat and thus benefitting bird populations.
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.