ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
Addressing environmental misperceptions for nature recovery.
Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Addressing environmental misperceptions for nature recovery.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A poorly understood and systemic challenge to global conservation agreements is shifting baseline syndrome (SBS), wherein people misperceive the extent to which nature has changed. This can diminish societal expectations for nature recovery. We broadened the conceptual framing of SBS beyond the more common elements of nature loss to include nature recovery and the cognitive mechanisms underlying misperceptions. To demonstrate the utility of the framework, we surveyed people living in Qunli New Town, Harbin, China. We first conducted in-depth interviews with a semirandomized sample of 42 people to qualitatively explore the diverse manifestations of environmental misperceptions and the cognitive processes that drive misperceptions in the study area. We then administered an online survey of 1018 people to quantitatively estimate the scale of SBS and identify factors affecting individual misperceptions. The accuracy of these perceptions was determined by comparing participants' reported environmental conditions with actual measurements. Inaccurate perceptions were linked to media-based (e.g., television) environmental information sources; direct interaction with nature did not foster ecological understanding in most cases; depth of personal engagement (e.g., interest in local nature and time spent per visit) was associated with such understanding; and cognitive errors underlying environmental misperceptions, including errors of omission and commission, were related to cognitive processes, such as sensation, attention, learning, thinking, and memory. More nuanced, place-based strategies are needed that explicitly address the structural and cognitive dimensions of environmental misperceptions. Minimizing such misperceptions is important so that people affected by environmental change can better respond to it. This is essential for pursuing resilient, sustainable, and inclusive societies under the Sustainable Development Goals and the Global Biodiversity Framework.
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.