| Title |
Factors influencing local ecological knowledge maintenance in Mediterranean watersheds: Insights for environmental policies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-014-0556-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Irene Iniesta-Arandia, David García del Amo, Ana Paula García-Nieto, Concepción Piñeiro, Carlos Montes, Berta Martín-López |
| Abstract |
Local ecological knowledge (LEK) has been found to be one of the main bridges to manage biocultural diversity. We analyzed the factors affecting LEK maintenance and transmission in a Mediterranean watershed. We used a mixed methods approach to evaluate the agricultural LEK in three different dimensions: biological, soil and water management, and forecasting. We found that the main factors for its maintenance were the respondent's time living in the area and the social relationships established among farmers, which involved partner collaboration and farmer information exchanges. Protected areas also played a key role for maintaining the LEK associated with soil and water management. Finally, we found that outmigration and mechanization were the most important indirect drivers of change underlying LEK erosion. We suggest that environmental policies should focus on promoting this experiential knowledge, considering both intergenerational renewal and the gendered aspects of this knowledge. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 177 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 40 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 21 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 31 | 17% |
| Unknown | 24 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 76 | 42% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 35 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 14 | 8% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 3% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Unknown | 33 | 18% |
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 01 September 2021.
All research outputs
#8,262,193
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,257
of 1,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,057
of 271,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#12
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 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 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 is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 271,665 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.