ArticleHeliyon2024
Public perception vs ecological quality status: Examining the ecological restoration of the Congost River's Environment.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examines the public's perceptions of the ecological restoration of the Congost River over the past thirty years, focusing on the period between 2010 and 2022. We conducted a survey of 112 river users across five key zones identified through a pilot study for their high pedestrian density, aiming to analyse how different sociodemographic groups perceive the river's ecological state. A structured questionnaire was distributed along both sides of the river to engage a diverse range of individuals typically utilizing the river environment. The collected data were analysed using regression models and Mann-Whitney U tests to assess differences between groups, with Bonferroni adjustments applied to control for multiple comparisons. The results reveal a broad increase in appreciation for the river since 2010, alongside measurable ecological improvements supported by scientific data. Despite these positive changes, a majority of surveyed users remain sceptical about the river's recovery, with less pronounced scepticism among older respondents, those with higher education, and environmental volunteers. These groups' perceptions align more closely with empirical evidence, highlighting the influence of sociodemographic factors on environmental awareness. Individuals living closer to natural settings and frequent river visitors were found to be more attuned to changes in the river's environment, particularly in aesthetic and sensory aspects. The study underscores the persistence of a perceptual gap between scientific assessments of ecological health and public sentiment, emphasizing the complex relationship between community perceptions and objective environmental indicators. These insights underline the complex relationship between community perceptions and objective environmental indicators, reflecting a broader trend in environmental awareness and the importance of factual communication in ecological issues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.