| Title |
International trade causes large net economic losses in tropical countries via the destruction of ecosystem services
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-016-0768-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Junning Chang, William S. Symes, Felix Lim, L. Roman Carrasco |
| Abstract |
Despite the large implications of the use of tropical land for exports ("land absorption") on ecosystem services (ES) and global biodiversity conservation, the magnitude of these externalities is not known. We quantify the net value of ES lost in tropical countries as a result of cropland, forestland and pastureland absorption for exports after deducting ES gains through imports ("land displacement"). We find that net ES gains occur only in 7 out of the 41 countries and regions considered. We estimate global annual net losses of over 1.7 x 10(12) international dollars (I$) (I$1.1 x 10(12) if carbon-related services are not considered). After deducting the benefits from agricultural, forest and livestock rents in land replacing tropical forests, the net annual losses are I$1.3 and I$0.7 x 10(12), respectively. The results highlight the large magnitude of tropical ES losses through international trade that are not compensated by the rents of land uses in absorbed land. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Australia | 1 | 14% |
| Sweden | 1 | 14% |
| Singapore | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 43% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 29% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 82 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 21% |
| Researcher | 17 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 13 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 30 | 35% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 26% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 5 | 6% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 65. 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 November 2022.
All research outputs
#667,257
of 25,845,749 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#85
of 1,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,714
of 317,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#2
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,845,749 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,937 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 317,249 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.