Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40165699›Full record

ReviewConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025

Use of theories of human action in recent conservation research.

Harold N Eyster, Rachelle K Gould, Kai M A Chan, Terre Satterfield

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 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. Review
  2. Use of theories of human action in recent conservation research.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Review
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

4 authors.

Harold N EysterGund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5571-3126
Rachelle K GouldGund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6307-8783
Kai M A ChanInstitute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Terre SatterfieldInstitute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Funding

Gund Institute for Environment Gund Postdoctoral Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social sciences are increasingly recognized as useful for reorienting human action toward environmental conservation. Fully realizing the social sciences' potential requires applying social science methods to conservation challenges and drawing from and building on human action theories from across the social sciences to better understand how and when actions can realize positive social and environmental priorities. We conducted an in-depth analysis of a bounded, systematically selected set of conservation science peer-reviewed articles to investigate the prevalence of social science theories of human action in conservation research and whether these theories represent the richness of the social science literature related to human action. We censused papers published in 2023 in Conservation Biology, Conservation Letters, and Biological Conservation and assessed each paper's geographic scope, social science engagement, whether it investigated human action, and weather it explicitly used human action theories and underlying metatheory (i.e., ways of understanding the world and how one gains knowledge of it). Results across 533 papers showed that 32% of papers incorporated social science and that 64% of these social science papers investigated human action. Twenty-seven percent of these human action papers used explicit human action theories. The theory of planned behavior was the most used explicit theory (17% of action theory papers). The independent self metatheory was the most prevalent; it underlies the theory of planned behavior and focuses on understanding how personal attributes, such as values, shape intentional individual behavior. The prevalence of a few theories and metatheories in these dominant conservation journals may indicate a limited capacity for conservation research to build on previous research, avoid redundant reinvention, and unmask novel applications of social science theory that could reorient human action toward conservation. Human action theory use in conservation might be broadened by changing attitudes on the importance of human action theories for research; incorporating social theory in conservation education; asking reviewers to comment on theory usage and mandating theory reporting; creating spaces for social scientists and theory scholars; providing social scientists and theorists with decision-making power in organizations; rewarding theory use; recognizing feedback loops among theory use; and replacing colonial and capitalistic approaches to conservation.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesHuman ActivitiesSocial SciencesHumansacciones humanasaplicación de teoríasapplying theorybehaviorbehavior changecambio conductualciencias sociales de la conservacióncomportamientoconservation social sciencehuman actionhuman action theoryinterdisciplinary theorysocial science theoryteoría de acciones humanasteoría de ciencias socialesteoría interdisciplinaria

Identifiers

PMID40165699
PMCPMC11959328

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.