Related articles by
Conservation In Practice
Other versions:
- ContentsContents
- Article InfoArticle Info
- CiteCite
- MetricsMetrics
- CommentComment
- RelatedRelated
- FigsFigs
- DataData
- RefsRefs
- CitedCited
- NanopubsNanopubs
-
Article title
-
Abstract
-
Keywords
-
Introduction
-
Methods
-
Study area and context
-
Data Collection
-
Limitations
-
Measures
-
Data analysis
-
-
Results
-
RQ1: With what landscape characteristics do participants tend to connect
-
RQ 2: How do participants’ favorite sounds and prevalent sounds compare within the places where they feel most connected to nature
-
RQ 3: How acceptable are anthrophonic sounds participants observe within the places where they feel most connected to nature
-
RQ4: Do participants’ anthrophonic sound acceptability ratings differ based on the prevalence of those sounds within the places where participants feel most connected to nature
-
-
Discussion
-
Landscape features and favorite/prevalent sounds in the places where CNR visitors felt most connected to nature (RQs 1 and 2)
-
Social norms and the acceptability of anthrophonic sounds in the nature places with which CNR visitors felt most connected (RQs 3 and 4)
-
-
Conclusions
-
Acknowledgements
-
References
-
Supplementary material
Subscribe to email alerts for current Article's categories