Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41913539›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2026

Valuing the contributions of conservation volunteers to coastal society.

Erin Pichler, John M Kandulu, Sean D Connell, Dominic McAfee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Valuing the contributions of conservation volunteers to coastal society.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    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

4 authors.

Erin PichlerSouthern Seas Ecology Laboratories, School of Biological Sciences, Adelaide University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8981-6625
John M KanduluCentre for Social Impact, College of Business, Government and Law, National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Sean D ConnellSouthern Seas Ecology Laboratories, School of Biological Sciences, Adelaide University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5350-6852
Dominic McAfeeSouthern Seas Ecology Laboratories, School of Biological Sciences, Adelaide University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8278-8169

Funding

Australian Research Council LP200201000
6 · The paper itself

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

Conservation of Natural ResourcesFisheriesRecreationVolunteersFemaleHumansSouth Australiacoastal recreationcommunity‐based conservationcommunity resilienceConservación basada en comunidadesecosystem restorationenvironmental stewardshipgestión medioambientalrecreación costeraresiliencia de la comunidadrestauración del ecosistemasocioeconomicsocioeconómico

Identifiers

PMID41913539
PMCPMC13392708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.