The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation
Open accessAbstract
Engaging local stakeholders is a central feature of many biodiversity conservation and natural resource management projects globally. Current literature on engagement predominantly focuses on individual case studies or specific geographical contexts, making general conclusions regarding the effect of these efforts on conservation outcomes difficult. We reviewed evidence from the peer-reviewed and grey literatures related to the role of stakeholder engagement (both externally-driven and self-organized engagement) in biodiversity conservation at the local scale using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. We critically appraised and extracted data using mixed methods for case studies (n = 82) and meta-analyses (n = 31) published from 2011 to 2015. We conducted an inductive thematic analysis on background literature references published from 2000 to 2016 (n = 283). The quantitative analysis assessed multiple variables, and yielded no significant results, but suggested a possible relationship between success in producing attitudinal change towards conservation and four engagement factors. Our qualitative analysis identified six dimensions of engagement processes that are critical for successful outcomes when a project is externally-driven, and suggests that understanding of governance and social-cultural context plays an important role in all types of stakeholder engagement efforts. Finally, we reflect on the effectiveness of relying primarily on evidence available from published literature to understand links between conservation and stakeholder engagement, in particular with regard to self-organized engagement.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Ladder Of Citizen Participation
Arnstein, S. R. (1969) · Journal of the American Institute of Planners · doi:10.1080/01944366908977225 · Cited by 17,064
Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 · Cited by 9,312
Tengö, M., Brondizio, E. S., Elmqvist, T., Malmer, P., & Spierenburg, M. (2014) · AMBIO · doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3 · Cited by 1,329 · cited 1×
“More investments should be made to learn how to synthesize across knowledge systems, ensuring that the best available, appropriately validated evidence is brought to the decision-making process (Tengö et al., 2014).”
Background
Cited by
Reed, M. S., Vella, S., Challies, E., de Vente, J., Frewer, L., Hohenwallner‐Ries, D., Huber, T., Neumann, R. K., Oughton, E. A., Sidoli del Ceno, J., et al. (2018) · Restoration Ecology · doi:10.1111/rec.12541 · Cited by 746
Foundations of translational ecology
Enquist, C. A., Jackson, S. T., Garfin, G. M., Davis, F. W., Gerber, L. R., Littell, J. A., Tank, J. L., Terando, A. J., Wall, T. U., Halpern, B., et al. (2017) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1002/fee.1733 · Cited by 273
Stakeholder engagement in the co-production of knowledge for environmental decision-making
Gerlak, A. K., Guido, Z., Owen, G., McGoffin, M. S. R., Louder, E., Davies, J., Smith, K. J., Zimmer, A., Murveit, A. M., Meadow, A., et al. (2023) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106336 · Cited by 114
Holifield, R., & Williams, K. C. (2019) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.081 · Cited by 62
Ekowati, D., Abbas, A., Anwar, A., Suhariadi, F., & Fahlevi, M. (2023) · Cogent Business & Management · doi:10.1080/23311975.2023.2196041 · Cited by 19
“Though participative approaches, especially in sustainable development, do not entirely overcome the expected beneficial or societal effects in some instances, e.g., (Sterling et al., 2017).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Sterling, E. J., Betley, E., Sigouin, A., Gomez, A., Toomey, A., Cullman, G., Malone, C., Pekor, A., Arengo, F., Blair, M., Filardi, C., Landrigan, K., & Porzecanski, A. L.
- Venue
- Biological Conservation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-05
- Volume
- 209
- Pages
- 159-171
- ISSN
- 0006-3207 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2591317636
- Cited by
- 476
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 22.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.008
- The paper
- Sterling, E. J., Betley, E., Sigouin, A., Gomez, A., Toomey, A., Cullman, G., Malone, C., Pekor, A., Arengo, F., Blair, M., Filardi, C., Landrigan, K., & Porzecanski, A. L. (2017). Assessing the evidence for stakeholder engagement in biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.02.008
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.