| Title |
A Review of the Elements of Human Well-Being with an Emphasis on the Contribution of Ecosystem Services
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-012-0256-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. K. Summers, L. M. Smith, J. L. Case, R. A. Linthurst |
| Abstract |
Natural ecosystems perform fundamental life-support services upon which human civilization depends. However, many people believe that nature provides these services for free and therefore, they are of little or no value. While we do not pay for them, we pay significantly for their loss in terms of wastewater treatment facilities, moratoriums on greenhouse gases, increased illnesses, reduced soil fertility and losses in those images of nature that contribute to our basic happiness. Little is understood about the well-being benefits of the natural environment and its ecosystem services. The interwoven relationship of ecosystems and human well-being is insufficiently acknowledged in the wider philosophical, social, and economic well-being literature. In this article, we discuss an approach to examine human well-being and the interactions of its four primary elements-basic human needs, economic needs, environmental needs, and subjective well-being-and ecosystem services. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 615 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | <1% |
| South Africa | 4 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Sweden | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Namibia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | <1% |
| Unknown | 586 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 114 | 19% |
| Researcher | 102 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 91 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 42 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 36 | 6% |
| Other | 113 | 18% |
| Unknown | 117 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 181 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 80 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 68 | 11% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 19 | 3% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 17 | 3% |
| Other | 89 | 14% |
| Unknown | 161 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 06 August 2023.
All research outputs
#4,978,221
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#907
of 1,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,083
of 180,363 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#6
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,954 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 180,363 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.