↓ Skip to main content

Summarizing the Evidence on the International Trade in Illegal Wildlife

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, June 2010
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
314 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
754 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Summarizing the Evidence on the International Trade in Illegal Wildlife
Published in
EcoHealth, June 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10393-010-0317-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gail Emilia Rosen, Katherine F. Smith

Abstract

The global trade in illegal wildlife is a multi-billion dollar industry that threatens biodiversity and acts as a potential avenue for invasive species and disease spread. Despite the broad-sweeping implications of illegal wildlife sales, scientists have yet to describe the scope and scale of the trade. Here, we provide the most thorough and current description of the illegal wildlife trade using 12 years of seizure records compiled by TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network. These records comprise 967 seizures including massive quantities of ivory, tiger skins, live reptiles, and other endangered wildlife and wildlife products. Most seizures originate in Southeast Asia, a recently identified hotspot for future emerging infectious diseases. To date, regulation and enforcement have been insufficient to effectively control the global trade in illegal wildlife at national and international scales. Effective control will require a multi-pronged approach including community-scale education and empowering local people to value wildlife, coordinated international regulation, and a greater allocation of national resources to on-the-ground enforcement.

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 754 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 1%
United Kingdom 6 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 730 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 157 21%
Student > Bachelor 130 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 93 12%
Researcher 87 12%
Student > Postgraduate 39 5%
Other 109 14%
Unknown 139 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 227 30%
Environmental Science 185 25%
Social Sciences 61 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 21 3%
Other 87 12%
Unknown 149 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,060,256
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#61
of 756 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,133
of 109,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 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 756 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 109,599 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them