↓ Skip to main content

Factors driving collaboration in natural resource conflict management: Evidence from Romania

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 Mendeley
Title
Factors driving collaboration in natural resource conflict management: Evidence from Romania
Published in
Ambio, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13280-018-1016-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Constantina Alina Hossu, Ioan Cristian Ioja, Lawrence E. Susskind, Denisa L. Badiu, Anna M. Hersperger

Abstract

A critical challenge in natural resource management is to bring all stakeholders together to negotiate solutions to critical problems. However, various collaborative approaches to heading off conflicts and resolving natural resource management disputes have been used. What drives these efforts, however, still needs further research. Our study provides a systematic look at the drivers likely to initiate collaborative problem-solving efforts in four cases in Romania. We use Emerson's et al. (2012) framework for collaborative governance and multi-value qualitative comparative analysis (mvQCA) to analyze cases involving endangered species, restrictions on forest harvest, conflicts associated with infrastructure development projects, and disputes over the management of environmentally sensitive areas. Our findings contribute to the already existing collaborative governance literature indicating which of the four factors: uncertainty, interdependence, consequential incentives, and leadership, in which combination, are necessary and sufficient to spur collaborative resource management efforts. Our results showed that in Romania the initiation of collaboration is best explained by positive consequential incentives (i.e., financial opportunities) which has determined leaders to take initiative. This study provides additional information for the complicated process of natural resource management which is often overriding collaboration by investigating what enables and constrains collaborative efforts in a country where natural resources were managed and used according to the principles of central planning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 162 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 16%
Student > Master 25 15%
Researcher 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Student > Bachelor 8 5%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 52 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 31 19%
Environmental Science 29 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 4%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 57 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,877,408
of 25,315,460 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,505
of 1,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,995
of 451,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#26
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,315,460 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 451,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.