Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39268844›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025

Eliciting diverse perspectives to prioritize community actions for biodiversity conservation.

Angela J Dean, Kelly S Fielding, Liam D G Smith, Emma K Church, Kerrie A Wilson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Eliciting diverse perspectives to prioritize community actions for biodiversity conservation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Angela J DeanCentre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4017-4809
Kelly S FieldingSchool of Communication and Arts, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5301-0331
Liam D G SmithSchool of Communication and Arts, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7433-364X
Emma K ChurchCentre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8611-6105
Kerrie A WilsonSchool of Biology and Environmental Science, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0092-935X

Funding

NSW Environmental Trust 2017-RD-0116
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Communities have a strong role in protecting biodiversity. In addition to participation in restoration, a range of actions in the public or private sphere may support biodiversity. Despite this, there is a lack of clarity about what actions should be prioritized for behavior change campaigns. We developed and applied a method to prioritize community actions for biodiversity conservation that incorporates an expert-based assessment of impact and a community-informed measure of the likelihood of uptake. In stage 1, experts (n = 143) completed a survey that quantified the relative impact of actions based on best-worst scaling of perceived impact. In stage 2, surveyed community members (n = 3200) ranked the likelihood of adopting actions based on the ease or difficulty of performing each action, and the opportunity for change based on the proportion of respondents not yet engaging in each behavior. Experts gave the following actions the highest ranking for impact: voting for the environment (first), participating in restoration in ecological priority areas (second), and purchasing and protecting remnant bushland (third). When considering the disciplinary background and institutional background of experts, voting and participating in restoration activities remained in the upper ranked options. However, there was some divergence between these groups. For example, reducing beef consumption was ranked third by university-based experts but ranked 28th by experts based in state government. Overall, community members ranked the following behaviors as most likely to be adopted: following quarantine laws (first), reducing plastic use (second), and managing pets (third). Top likelihood ranking of actions was minimally affected by community characteristics (nature relatedness, gender, location). Integrating these findings, the action ranked most favorably for impact, likelihood, and opportunity was participating in restoration. Choosing actions for behavior change campaigns requires consideration of the entire social-ecological system-from social factors that enable or constrain adoption to the ecological impact of actions across relevant social and ecological contexts.

Indexed as

BiodiversityCommunity ParticipationConservation of Natural ResourcesHumansadministraciónadopciónadoptionbehavioral sciencebehavior changebest–worst scalingcambio conductualciencias de la conductaconservation marketingescala mejor‐peorexpert elicitationinformación de expertosmarketing de la conservaciónpsicologíapsychologystewardship

Identifiers

PMID39268844
PMCPMC11959327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.