Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39150962›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Finding common ground: Understanding and engaging with science mistrust in the Great barrier reef region.

Matthew I Curnock, Danielle Nembhard, Rachael Smith, Katie Sambrook, Elizabeth V Hobman, Aditi Mankad, Petina L Pert, Emilee Chamberland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Matthew I CurnockCSIRO Environment, Australian Tropical Science and Innovation Precinct, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2365-810X
Danielle NembhardCSIRO Environment, Australian Tropical Science and Innovation Precinct, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0009-0008-3385-9774
Rachael SmithQueensland Department of Environment and Science, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Katie SambrookC2O Consulting, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Elizabeth V HobmanCSIRO Environment, Dutton Park, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Aditi MankadCSIRO Environment, Dutton Park, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Petina L PertCSIRO Environment, Australian Tropical Science and Innovation Precinct, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Emilee ChamberlandCSIRO Environment, Australian Tropical Science and Innovation Precinct, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0009-0002-9944-6637

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At a time when ambitious environmental management initiatives are required to protect and restore aquatic ecosystems, public trust in the science that underpins environmental policy and decision-making is waning. This decline in public trust coincides with a rise in misinformation, and threatens to undermine public support for, and participation in, environmental protection. Our study investigates the prevalence and predictors of mistrust in science associated with the protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and its catchments. Using survey data from 1,877 residents of the GBR region, we identify environmental values, perceptions, and attitudes that are associated with science mistrust. Our results include a typology of GBR science trust and scepticism. Science-sceptical respondents, representing 31% of our sample, were likely to perceive waterway management decisions as being unfair, felt less responsible, and were less motivated to contribute to improving waterway health than those with greater trust in science. Science-sceptical respondents also had differing perceptions of some threats to waterways, in particular climate change. However, similarities and 'common ground' between respondents with varying levels of trust in science included a shared recognition of the importance of waterways' ecosystem services, and a shared perception of the relative health and problems within their regions' waterways. Our findings can help to break down assumptions about science-sceptical groups in the GBR region and elsewhere. We offer recommendations to guide more constructive engagement that seeks to restore trust and build consensus on mutual goals and pathways to protect vital ecosystem functions and services.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesCoral ReefsTrustAdultAustraliaClimate ChangeEcosystemFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPublic OpinionSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39150962
PMCPMC11329155

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.