↓ Skip to main content

Children and Wild Foods in the Context of Deforestation in Rural Malawi

Overview of attention for article published in Human Ecology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Children and Wild Foods in the Context of Deforestation in Rural Malawi
Published in
Human Ecology, November 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10745-017-9956-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

H. Maseko, Charlie M. Shackleton, J. Nagoli, D. Pullanikkatil

Abstract

There is growing recognition of the contribution of wild foods to local diets, nutrition, and culture. Yet disaggregation of understanding of wild food use by gender and age is limited. We used a mixed methods approach to determine the types, frequencies, and perceptions of wild foods used and sold by children in four villages in southern Malawi that have different levels of deforestation. Household and individual dietary diversity scores are low at all sites. All households consume one or more wild foods. Across the four sites, children listed 119 wild foods, with a wider variety at the least deforested sites than the most deforested ones. Older children can name more wild foods than younger ones. More children from poor households sell wild foods than from well-off households. Several reasons were provided for the consumption or avoidance of wild foods (most commonly taste, contribution to health, limited alternatives, hunger, availability, local taboos).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 22 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 17%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Environmental Science 7 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 6%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 27 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,267,746
of 25,387,668 outputs
Outputs from Human Ecology
#57
of 827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,115
of 342,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Ecology
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,387,668 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 342,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.