ArticlePeople and nature (Hoboken, N.J.)2023
A mixed methods approach for measuring topic sensitivity in conservation.
Article in People and nature (Hoboken, N.J.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bat Cave Vulnerability to Anthropogenic Factors: Status and Priorities for Conservation Within the Mount Elgon Region, Uganda.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Improving compliance around protected areas through fair administration of rules.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Cross-Cultural Applications of the New Ecological Paradigm in Protected Area Contexts.Environment and behavior · 2024Article
- Compounding impacts of COVID-19, cyclone and price crash on vanilla farmers' food security and natural resource use.PloS one · 2024Article
- Topic sensitivity still affects honest responding, even when specialized questioning techniques are used.Conservation science and practice · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conservationists increasingly aim to understand human behaviour to inform intervention design. However, obtaining information from people about their behaviour can be challenging, particularly if the research topic is considered sensitive. Topic sensitivity may raise methodological, ethical, political and legal concerns which, if poorly addressed, can have significant impacts on research participants, the research process, data quality and the success of conservation outcomes that are informed by research findings. While considerable effort has been invested in developing techniques for reducing bias when collecting data on sensitive topics, less attention has been focused on identifying if, and why, a topic is sensitive.We use a mixed methods approach to explore how willing people are to discuss topics that could be considered sensitive (e.g. illegal wildlife hunting). Collecting data from people living near protected areas in Indonesia (
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.