Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41798789›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of New Zealand2026

Do Public Perceptions of the Environment Align With Empirical Measures?

Pamela L Booth, Lynette J McLeod, Philip Stahlmann-Brown

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Pamela L BoothBioeconomy Science Institute Wellington New Zealand.
Lynette J McLeodSchool of Psychology Speech and Hearing University of Canterbury Christchurch New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9408-3342
Philip Stahlmann-BrownBioeconomy Science Institute Wellington New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To create effective environmental communications and policies, it is crucial to understand how laypeople, scientists, and experts perceive the environment. This study, based on a large-scale, nationally representative survey from Aotearoa New Zealand and scientific reports and literature, examines the similarities and differences in perceptions across ten environmental domains: air; protected natural areas; native bush and forests; marine environments; coastal waters and beaches; marine plants and animals; terrestrial (land and freshwater) plants and animals; natural environments in towns and cities; wetlands; and rivers and lakes. The New Zealand public rated their air quality highest and rivers and lakes lowest, aligning with empirical measures and expert opinions. For other domains, public perceptions varied, often seeing the overall state as better than what the scientific studies indicated. These discrepancies highlight the complex factors influencing perceptions, such as public awareness, visibility, familiarity with environmental issues, and media influence. By highlighting these similarities and differences, we aim to help laypeople, scientists, and policymakers recognise their perceptual biases, improve communication of scientific findings, and assist in creating regulations that involve the entire community in environmental improvement.

Indexed as

empirical measuresenvironmental managementNew Zealandperceptual biasespublic perceptions

Identifiers

PMID41798789
PMCPMC12965024

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.