Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40653815›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2025

Barriers to public engagement with biodiversity conservation.

Emily A Gregg, Georgia E Garrard, Sarah A Bekessy, Alexander M Kusmanoff, Jen K Martin, Matthew J Selinske, Lindall R Kidd, Jennifer A Robinson

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 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. Barriers to public engagement with 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

8 authors.

Emily A GreggICON Science Research Group, School of Global, Urban, and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0144-7854
Georgia E GarrardICON Science Research Group, School of Global, Urban, and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4031-9054
Sarah A BekessyICON Science Research Group, School of Global, Urban, and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0503-1979
Alexander M KusmanoffICON Science Research Group, School of Global, Urban, and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1344-1767
Jen K MartinSchool of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Matthew J SelinskeICON Science Research Group, School of Global, Urban, and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0191-9364
Lindall R KiddICON Science Research Group, School of Global, Urban, and Social Studies, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jennifer A RobinsonSchool of Media and Communication, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6029-3309

Funding

National Environmental Science Program, Threatened Species Recovery Hub
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Addressing biodiversity loss requires public engagement and action, including changes to individual consumption habits, support for on-the-ground conservation actions, and advocacy for government action and policy change. Conservation organizations are increasingly focused on encouraging probiodiversity attitudes and behaviors through interventions, such as education programs and marketing campaigns. Yet, motivating public audiences to change their behavior or become more active participants in conservation remains a challenge. We used a strategic communication approach to conceptualize barriers to public engagement with conservation and explored how these barriers manifest differently across audiences based on their current level of engagement (e.g., aware vs. active). The psychological, social, and structural barriers discussed are lack of knowledge, misaligned values, low self-efficacy, low personal or social relevance, and limiting structural context. These barriers are recognized across conservation science, behavioral science, and social change literature. Many different communication approaches may be used to overcome these barriers, including raising awareness, working with values, social norming, strategic calls to action, social mobilization, and advocacy. Regardless of the approach, understanding individual behaviors, audience types, and their social context is key to supporting biodiversity conservation actions and positive social change.

Indexed as

BiodiversityCommunity ParticipationConservation of Natural ResourcesCommunicationaudiencesbehaviorcommunicationscommunity‐based conservationcomportamientocomunicaciónconservación basada en la comunidadpúblico传播, 基于社区的保护, 受众, 行为

Identifiers

PMID40653815
PMCPMC12309641

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.