↓ Skip to main content

Getting past the blame game: Convergence and divergence in perceived threats to salmon resources among anglers and indigenous fishers in Canada’s lower Fraser River

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Getting past the blame game: Convergence and divergence in perceived threats to salmon resources among anglers and indigenous fishers in Canada’s lower Fraser River
Published in
Ambio, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13280-016-0769-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vivian M. Nguyen, Nathan Young, Scott G. Hinch, Steven J. Cooke

Abstract

This article examines threat perception as a potential dimension of inter-group conflict over salmon fisheries in Canada's Fraser River watershed. Environmental changes and the entry of new user groups are putting pressure on both the resource and regulators, as well as threatening to exacerbate conflicts, notably between First Nation (indigenous) fishers and non-indigenous recreational anglers. While resource conflicts are often superficially conceptualized as cases of competing interests, we build on recent studies suggesting that conflicts are associated with deeper cognitive and perceptual differences among user groups. We report findings from 422 riverbank interviews with First Nation fishers and recreational anglers focusing on perceptions of threat to the fisheries. Responses reveal both substantial agreement and disagreement in threat perceptions between the two groups. These patterns provide a potential roadmap for consensus building, and suggest possible avenues for policy-makers to defuse the "blame game" that often dominates this type of conflict.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 77 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Researcher 8 10%
Other 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 21 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 14 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 14%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 3%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 28 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 February 2016.
All research outputs
#13,253,554
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,328
of 1,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,649
of 299,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#21
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 299,481 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 54% 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.