↓ Skip to main content

Exploring conservation discourses in the Galapagos Islands: A case study of the Galapagos giant tortoises

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
Title
Exploring conservation discourses in the Galapagos Islands: A case study of the Galapagos giant tortoises
Published in
Ambio, March 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13280-016-0774-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francisco Benitez-Capistros, Jean Hugé, Farid Dahdouh-Guebas, Nico Koedam

Abstract

Conservation discourses change rapidly both at global and local scales. To be able to capture these shifts and the relationships between humans and nature, we focused on a local and iconic conservation case: the Galapagos giant tortoises (Chelonoidis spp.). We used the Q methodology to contextualize conservation for science and decision making and to explore the multidimensionality of the conservation concept in Galapagos. The results indicate four prevailing discourses: (1) Multi-actor governance; (2) giant tortoise and ecosystems conservation; (3) community governance; and (4) market and tourism centred. These findings allow us to identify foreseeable points of disagreement, as well as areas of consensus, and to discuss the implication of the findings to address socio-ecological conservation and sustainability challenges. This can help the different involved stakeholders (managers, scientists and local communities) to the design and apply contextualized conservation actions and policies to contribute to a better sustainable management of the archipelago.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 111 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 27 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 29 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 20%
Social Sciences 11 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 4%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 29 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 27 December 2017.
All research outputs
#5,592,965
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#836
of 1,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,298
of 300,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#14
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,628 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 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 300,491 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.