ArticlePloS one2026
Public interest in biodiversity and climate change: A comparative culturomics study of China and the UK.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Understanding how the public engages with biodiversity loss and climate change is critical for designing effective environmental policies and conservation strategies. Here we applied a conservation culturomics approach to compare public interest in biodiversity and climate change across China and the United Kingdom, two major environmental actors with distinct governance models and cultural contexts. Using search volume data from the Baidu Index and Google Trends between 2011 and 2022, we identified peak periods of search interest in both countries. We then analysed associated news content during peak and non-peak periods using grounded theory and thematic coding to uncover the dominant drivers of public attention. Our findings reveal a stark contrast between sources of public engagement. In China, the public interest is predominantly state-driven, with peaks aligned with government-led campaigns and international events. Themes, such as domestic governance and ecological civilisation, were the most significant. In the UK, civil society, scientific discourse, and environmental activism act as the key catalysts in shaping public engagement. These differences reflect greater variations in political structures, media ecosystems, and cultural values. Our results highlight the need for context-sensitive communication strategies. By linking digital behaviour with media discourse we offer new insights into public environmental engagement. Our findings further suggest that enhancing bottom-up participation and diversifying environmental narratives in China could foster greater public ownership of conservation efforts, whereas in the UK maintaining inclusive and coherent narratives is essential. However, limitations such as platform algorithms should be considered when interpreting these cross-country comparisons, as they may affect the comparability of search data between Baidu Index and Google Trends.
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.