Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36639605›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental management2023

Threat Perception and Adaptive Capacity of Natural World Heritage Site Management.

Martin Thomas Falk, Eva Hagsten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Martin Thomas FalkSchool of Business, Department of Business and IT, University of South-Eastern Norway, Campus Bø, Gullbringvegen 36, 3800, Bø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0003-0518-6513
Eva HagstenSchool of Business, Department of Business and IT, University of South-Eastern Norway, Campus Bø, Gullbringvegen 36, 3800, Bø, Norway. eva.m.hagsten@usn.no.ORCID 0000-0001-7091-1449

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study offers new insights into the largest threats to natural and mixed World Heritage sites in developed countries as considered by their management. In addition to this, the capacity of the management to deal with threats is examined. An Ordered Probit model is used that distinguishes three groups of threats and four categories of adaptive capacity of the management. Data originate from the 2014 UNESCO Periodic Report II for sites in economically advanced countries (Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea) linked to the World Heritage Site database. Estimation results reveal that the probability of a major threat to World Heritage sites is perceived to be highest in the category of climate change and extreme weather events, followed by local conditions affecting the physical structure (temperature, rain, dust). Sites in tropical climates are perceived as significantly more threatened, as are those earlier listed as in danger. The likelihood of perceiving a major threat is highest in Turkey, Italy, Norway and North America. Threats related to climate change are those the management has the lowest capacity to deal with when other important aspects are controlled for. Large and natural areas have a higher perceived administrative capacity to deal with threats than others.

Indexed as

Climate ChangeConservation of Natural ResourcesDeveloped CountriesHumansPerceptionAdaptive capacityClimate changeNatural World Heritage sitesOrdered Probit modelThreats

Identifiers

PMID36639605
PMCPMC9892164

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.