↓ Skip to main content

Potential Synergies between Nature-Based Tourism and Sustainable Use of Marine Resources: Insights from Dive Tourism in Territorial User Rights for Fisheries in Chile

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Potential Synergies between Nature-Based Tourism and Sustainable Use of Marine Resources: Insights from Dive Tourism in Territorial User Rights for Fisheries in Chile
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0148862
Pubmed ID
Authors

Duan Biggs, Francisca Amar, Abel Valdebenito, Stefan Gelcich

Abstract

Novel solutions to conserve biodiversity whilst allowing for resource harvesting are urgently needed. In marine systems, Territorial User Rights for Fisheries (TURFs) are promoted to enable sustainable use of resources. We investigate the potential for synergies between nature-based tourism and TURFs on Chile's central coast. Of 135 recreational divers surveyed, 77% indicated that the fish species they preferred sighting were declining and 80% indicated that they would dive more often in TURFs, which have higher abundance of favoured species. Regression analysis shows that respondents that perceive that TURFs fulfil a conservation function are more willing to pay to dive in a TURF. However, respondents who understand the bureaucratic functioning of a TURF are less willing to pay, and there is diversity in how divers feel payments should be made. A participatory approach is required to navigate these complexities to achieve synergies between nature-based tourism and resource harvesting in TURFs.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 110 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 10%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 25 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 20 18%
Social Sciences 16 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 12%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 6%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 31 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 April 2016.
All research outputs
#18,453,763
of 22,865,319 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#155,234
of 195,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,330
of 300,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,210
of 5,223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,865,319 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 300,967 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,223 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.