↓ Skip to main content

Co-management as a Catalyst: Pathways to Post-colonial Forestry in the Klamath Basin, California

Overview of attention for article published in Human Ecology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
Title
Co-management as a Catalyst: Pathways to Post-colonial Forestry in the Klamath Basin, California
Published in
Human Ecology, October 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10745-016-9851-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sibyl Diver

Abstract

Co-management frameworks are intended to facilitate sustainable resource management and more equitable power sharing between state agencies and Indigenous communities. However, there is significant debate about who benefits from co-management in practice. This article addresses two competing perspectives in the literature, which alternately portrays co-management as an instrument for co-optation or for transformation. Through a case study of co-management negotiations involving the Karuk Tribe and the U.S. Forest Service in the Klamath Basin of Northern California, this study examines how Indigenous communities use co-management to build greater equity in environmental decision-making, despite its limitations. The concept of pivot points is developed to describe how Indigenous communities like the Karuk Tribe are simultaneously following existing state policies and subverting them to shift federal forest management. The pivot point analytic demonstrates one mechanism by which communities are addressing Indigenous self-determination goals and colonial legacies through environmental policy and management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 18%
Student > Master 17 15%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 37 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 33 29%
Social Sciences 15 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 43 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2022.
All research outputs
#7,661,250
of 23,857,313 outputs
Outputs from Human Ecology
#331
of 794 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#112,634
of 323,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Ecology
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,857,313 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 794 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,779 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.