Related: ”The Chrysalis Effect: How Ugly Initial Results Metamorphosize Into Beautiful Articles”

doi.org/10.1177/0149...

Possibly of interest to:
@worldwildlife.org
@greenpeace.org
@greenpeace.eu
@aspca.org
@theclimatereality.bsky.social
@oxconservationsoc.bsky.social
@climatecentral.org
@wclnews.bsky.social
@lgspace.bsky.social
@naturebasedsols.bsky.social
@sierraclub.org

Possibly of interest to
@ipbes.net
@unep.org
@unbiodiversity.bsky.social
@thegef.bsky.social
@society4conbio.bsky.social
@scbeurope.bsky.social
@biodivoxford.bsky.social
@nature.org
@science.nature.org
@globallf.bsky.social
@conservationorg.bsky.social
@protectparks.bsky.social
@wcs.org

A second experiment on domestic-level policy regimes shows similar, but somewhat more diverse, results across countries.

Results include a widespread preferences of protected areas that prioritize nature values (even over social or economic), and general dislike of funding PAs through general taxes

Experimentally, we find highly consistent policy preferences for international-level expansion regimes.

Results include widespread preferences for rich countries bearing higher costs, and generally that each country should protect 30% (instead of e.g., according to conservation benefits)

We find 30x30 support levels in the range of 80-90% for Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, South Africa and Spain samples.

Swedish (66% in favor) and USA (71%) respondents show strong majority support, albeit at comparatively lower levels.

My own branch has replicated several times

^this is true

Thanks for organizing, would love to be added!