ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026
Valuing the contributions of conservation volunteers to coastal society.
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.
- Valuing the contributions of conservation volunteers to coastal society.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
Abstract
Coastal living offers diverse recreational activities that contribute to local society. We investigated the economic value and social perceptions of conservation volunteering and recreational fishing, which are tied to the health and productivity of coastal communities. The broader community value of recreational fishing is regularly assessed, whereas that of conservation volunteering remains underexplored. We surveyed 180 coastal residents in South Australia, where fishing is an iconic part of coastal living and tied to the functioning of ecosystems that sustain the fishing economy. We used the travel cost method, applied to fishing and volunteering trips, and inductive thematic coding to examine the value of recreational fishing relative to conservation volunteering. Volunteers showed greater willingness than fishers to continue participating in their activity when personal costs increased, suggesting they had a deeper commitment to their activity than fishers. Fishers were more sensitive to cost increases, with predicted participation falling by 30% when trip costs doubled, compared with a 4% decline in conservation volunteering. This contrast was reflected by the gap between what participants were willing to pay and what they actually spent; conservation volunteers had an estimated consumer surplus of $994 per trip compared with $610 per trip for fishers. We suggest this disparity in commitment may partly reflect how participants perceived the benefits of their engagement. Volunteers regarded their benefits as mostly collective (e.g., environmental and societal), whereas fishers perceived benefits as more individual (e.g., well-being and recreation). Volunteers and fishers appear to play distinct but complementary roles in strengthening coastal communities. Our findings emphasize the need for more inclusive economic valuation of conservation to capture the range of benefits conservation activities provide. A deeper understanding of conservation volunteering's contribution can inform more inclusive and effective coastal management to the benefit of both the environment and local communities.
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.