Quantifying the role of online news in linking conservation research to Facebook and Twitter

Conservation Biology

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 825-833

  Papworth, S K ^a   Nghiem, T P L ^a   Chimalakonda, D ^a   Posa, M R C ^a   Wijedasa, L S ^b   Bickford, D ^a   Carrasco, L R ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^b SINGAPORE BOTANIC GARDENS   (Singapore)

Author keywords

Almetric.com; Facebook; Online news; Science communication; Social media; Twitter

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION STATUS; DATA TRANSMISSION; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; INTERNET; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT;

MAMMALIA;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; RESEARCH; SOCIAL MEDIA;

COMMUNICATION; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; RESEARCH; SOCIAL MEDIA;

EID: 84929289978     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12455     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Abroms LC, Maibach EW. 2008. The effectiveness of mass communication to change public behavior. Annual Review of Public Health 29:219-234.
2. Anderson A. 2009. Media, politics and climate change: towards a new research agenda. Sociology Compass 3:166-182.
3. Baron N. 2010. Escape from the ivory tower: a guide to making your science matter. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
4. Berkowitz D. 1992. Who sets the media agenda? The ability of policymakers to determine news decisions. Public Opinion, the Press, and Public Policy 2:81-102.
5. Bickford D, Posa MRC, Qie L, Campos-Arceiz A, Kudavidanage EP. 2012. Science communication for biodiversity conservation. Biological Conservation 151:74-76.
6. Bik HM, Goldstein MC. 2013. An introduction to social media for scientists. PLOS Biology 11(4). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001535.
7. Bowen-Jones E, Entwistle A. 2002. Identifying appropriate flagship species: the importance of culture and local contexts. Oryx 36:189-195.
8. Brossard D, Lewenstein BV. 2010. A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science. Pages 11-39 in Kaholr LA, Stout PA, editors. Communicating science: new agendas in communication. Routledge, New York.
9. Brossard D, Scheufele DA. 2013. Science, new media, and the public. Science 339:40-41.
10. Brown V, Gutknecht J, Harden L, Harrison C, Hively D, Jogensen C, Levi T, Pflugeisen B, Rovengno P, Wiedemann J. 2010. Understanding and engaging values in policy relevant science. Bulletin of the British Ecological Society 41:48-56.
11. Bubela T, Nisbet MC, Borchelt R, Brunger F, Critchley C, Einsiedel E, Geller G, Gupta A, Hampel J, Hyde-Lay R. 2009. Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology 27:514-518.
12. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York.
13. Campbell LM, Smith C. 2006. What makes them pay? Values of volunteer tourists working for sea turtle conservation. Environmental Management 38:84-98.
14. Cassidy A. 2012. Vermin, victims and disease: UK framings of badgers in and beyond the bovine TB controversy. Sociologia Ruralis 52:192-214.
15. Gerhards J, Schäfer MS. 2010. Is the internet a better public sphere? Comparing old and new media in the US and Germany. New Media & Society 12(1). DOI: 10.1177/1461444809341444.
16. Irwin A. 2009. Moving forwards or in circles? Science communication and scientific governance in an age of innovation. Pages 3-17 in Holliman R, Whitelegg E, Scanlon E, Smidt S, Thomas J, editors. Investigating science communication in the information age. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
17. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2014. The IUCN Red List of threatened species. Version 2014.2. Available from http://www.iucnredlist.org (accessed November 2014).
18. Livingstone S, Markham T. 2008. The contribution of media consumption to civic participation. The British Journal of Sociology 59:351-371.
19. Lo AY, Chow AT, Cheung SM. 2012. Significance of perceived social expectation and implications to conservation education: turtle conservation as a case study. Environmental Management 50:900-913.
20. Manovich L. 2001. The language of new media. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
21. McCombs M. 2004. Setting the agenda: the mass media and public opinion. Policy Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
22. McCombs M. 2005. A look at agenda-setting: past, present and future. Journalism Studies 6:543-557.
23. Mendez M, et al. 2013. Integrating multiple lines of evidence to better understand the evolutionary divergence of humpback dolphins along their entire distribution range: A new dolphin species in Australian waters? Molecular Ecology 22:5936-5948.
24. Murcott TH, Williams A. 2013. The challenges for science journalism in the UK. Progress in Physical Geography 37:152-160.
25. Muter BA, Gore ML, Gledhill KS, Lamont C, Huveneers C. 2013. Australian and US news media portrayal of sharks and their conservation. Conservation Biology 27:187-196.
26. Nadkarni NM. 2004. Not preaching to the choir: communicating the importance of forest conservation to nontraditional audiences. Conservation Biology 18:602-606.
27. 2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4:133-142.
28. Nekaris KA-I, Campbell N, Coggins TG, Rode EJ, Nijman V. 2013. Tickled to death: analysing public perceptions of 'cute' videos of threatened species (slow lorises-Nycticebus spp.) on Web 2.0 Sites. PLOS ONE 8(8). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0069215.
29. Novacek MJ. 2008. Engaging the public in biodiversity issues. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:11571-11578.
30. Pace ML, et al. 2010. Communicating with the public: opportunities and rewards for individual ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:292-298.
31. Parsons E, Shiffman D, Darling E, Spillman N, Wright A. 2014. How twitter literacy can benefit conservation scientists. Conservation Biology 28:299-301.
32. Phillis CC, O'Regan SM, Green SJ, Bruce JE, Anderson SC, Linton JN, Favaro B. 2013. Multiple pathways to conservation success. Conservation Letters 6:98-106.
33. Poloczanska ES, et al. 2013. Global imprint of climate change on marine life. Nature Climate Change 3:919-925.
34. R Development Core Team. 2014. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
35. Reed MS. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141:2417-2431.
36. Robinson-García N, Torres-Salinas D, Zahedi Z, Costas R. 2014. New data, new possibilities: exploring the insides of Altmetric. com. El profesional de la información 23:359-366.
37. Secko DM, Amend E, Friday T. 2013. Four models of science journalism: a synthesis and practical assessment. Journalism Practice 7:62-80.
38. Smith RJ, Verissimo D, Macmillan DC. 2010. Marketing and conservation: how to lose friends and influence people. Pages 215-232 in Leader-Williams N, Adams WM, Smith RJ, editors. Trade-offs in conservation: deciding what to save. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, United Kingdom.
39. Tisdell C, Nantha HS. 2007. Comparison of funding and demand for the conservation of the charismatic koala with those for the critically endangered wombat Lasiorhinus krefftii. Biodiversity and Conservation 16:1261-1281.
40. Uscinski JE. 2009. When does the public's issue agenda affect the media's issue agenda (and vice versa)? Developing a framework for media-public influence. Social Science Quarterly 90:796-815.
41. Verissimo D, MacMillan DC, Smith RJ, Crees J, Davies ZG. 2014. Has climate change taken prominence over biodiversity conservation? BioScience 64:625-629.
42. Webb TJ, Raffaelli D. 2008. Conversations in conservation: revealing and dealing with language differences in environmental conflicts. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:1198-1204.
43. Wild T. 2013. Civet coffee: why it's time to cut the crap. The Guardian. Available from http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2013/sep/13/civet-coffee-cut-the-crap (assessed December 2013).
44. Zuur A, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM. 2009. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Springer, New York.