↓ Skip to main content

A review of critical perspectives on private land conservation in academic literature

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, October 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
31 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
A review of critical perspectives on private land conservation in academic literature
Published in
Ambio, October 2019
DOI 10.1007/s13280-019-01258-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Gooden, Michael ‘t Sas-Rolfes

Abstract

In recent years, private land conservation has increased in profile among policymakers and academics. Conservation initiatives on privately owned land help to mitigate global biodiversity loss and introduce new actors to conservation. However, they have also been the subject of numerous critical accounts. This review catalogs issues that emerge in critical literature, identifying 25 themes, classified into three groups: Implementation Effectiveness, Value Conflict, and Economic Inefficiency. Gaps in the literature include the need for broader geographic coverage; assessment of the issues' specificity to private land conservation; and evaluation of the extent to which issues in the literature reflect broader societal values. The literature's strong emphasis on value conflict suggests that greater attention to governance effectiveness may steer private land conservation toward practices that are more just, equitable, and representative and lead to increased societal support. We recommend further research to address identified gaps, with a greater orientation toward inclusive governance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 18%
Student > Master 18 15%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 38 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 30 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 15%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Engineering 4 3%
Arts and Humanities 3 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 48 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 17 August 2023.
All research outputs
#1,887,641
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#334
of 1,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,957
of 371,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#14
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,954 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 371,438 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.