↓ Skip to main content

Wildlife Conservation and Private Protected Areas: The Discrepancy Between Land Trust Mission Statements and Their Perceptions

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
Title
Wildlife Conservation and Private Protected Areas: The Discrepancy Between Land Trust Mission Statements and Their Perceptions
Published in
Environmental Management, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00267-016-0713-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashley A. Dayer, Amanda D. Rodewald, Richard C. Stedman, Emily A. Cosbar, Eric M. Wood

Abstract

In 2010, land trusts in the U.S. had protected nearly 50 million acres of land, with much of it providing habitat for wildlife. However, the extent to which land trusts explicitly focus on wildlife conservation remains largely unknown. We used content analysis to assess land trust involvement in wildlife and habitat conservation, as reflected in their mission statements, and compared these findings with an organizational survey of land trusts. In our sample of 1358 mission statements, we found that only 17 % of land trusts mentioned "wildlife," "animal," or types of wildlife, and 35 % mentioned "habitat" or types. Mission statements contrasted sharply with results from a land trust survey, in which land trusts cited wildlife habitat as the most common and significant outcome of their protection efforts. Moreover, 77 % of land trusts reported that at least half of their acreage protected wildlife habitat, though these benefits are likely assumed. Importantly, mission statement content was not associated with the percentage of land reported to benefit wildlife. These inconsistencies suggest that benefits to wildlife habitat of protected land are recognized but may not be purposeful and strategic and, thus, potentially less useful in contributing toward regional wildlife conservation goals. We outline the implications of this disconnect, notably the potential omission of wildlife habitat in prioritization schema for land acquisition and potential missed opportunities to build community support for land trusts among wildlife enthusiasts and to develop partnerships with wildlife conservation organizations.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 63 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 28%
Student > Master 11 17%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 6 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 30 46%
Social Sciences 12 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 12 18%
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 09 June 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#1,476
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#225,653
of 354,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#12
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 354,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.