↓ Skip to main content

Threats to China’s Biodiversity by Contradictions Policy

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Threats to China’s Biodiversity by Contradictions Policy
Published in
Ambio, May 2014
DOI 10.1007/s13280-014-0526-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heran Zheng, Shixiong Cao

Abstract

China has among the highest biodiversities in the world, but faces extreme biodiversity losses due to the country's huge population and its recent explosive socioeconomic development. Despite huge efforts and investments by the government and Chinese society to conserve biodiversity, especially in recent decades, biodiversity losses may not have been reversed, and may even have been exacerbated by unintended consequences resulting from these projects. China's centralized approach to biodiversity conservation, with limited local participation, creates an inflexible and inefficient approach because of conflicts between local communities and national administrators over the benefits. Although community-based conservation may be an imperfect approach, it is an essential component of a successful future national conservation plan. Biodiversity conservation should be considered from the perspective of systems engineering and a governance structure that combines centralization with community-level conservation. In this paper, we describe China's complex challenge: how to manage interactions between humans and nature to find win-win solutions that can ensure long-term biodiversity conservation without sacrificing human concerns.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 22%
Student > Master 14 15%
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 27 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 16%
Social Sciences 11 12%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 23 25%
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 26 December 2023.
All research outputs
#6,950,322
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#966
of 1,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,286
of 227,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#19
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,625 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 227,920 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.