↓ Skip to main content

Trade-Offs Between Biodiversity Conservation and Economic Development in Five Tropical Forest Landscapes

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 Mendeley
Title
Trade-Offs Between Biodiversity Conservation and Economic Development in Five Tropical Forest Landscapes
Published in
Environmental Management, July 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00267-012-9888-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marieke Sandker, Manuel Ruiz-Perez, Bruce M. Campbell

Abstract

This study explores how conservation and development are interlinked and quantifies their reciprocal trade-offs. It identifies interventions which hold a promise to improve both conservation and development outcomes. The study finds that development trajectories can either be at the cost of conservation or can benefit conservation, but in all cases sustained poverty negatively affects conservation in the long term. Most scenarios with better outcomes for conservation come at a cost for development and the financial benefits of payments for environmental services (PES) are not sufficient to compensate for lost opportunities to earn cash. However, implementation of strategies for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in locations with low population densities come close to overcoming opportunity costs. Environmental services and subsistence income enhance the attractiveness of conservation scenarios to local people and in situations where these benefits are obvious, PES may provide the extra cash incentive to tip the balance in favor of such a scenario. The paper stresses the importance of external factors (such as industrial investments and the development of the national economy) in determining landscape scale outcomes, and suggests a negotiating and visioning role for conservation agencies.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 3%
United States 3 2%
Australia 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 153 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 27%
Researcher 32 19%
Student > Master 27 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 31 18%
Unknown 13 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 61 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 22%
Social Sciences 24 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 4%
Arts and Humanities 5 3%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 24 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 2012.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#1,406
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,000
of 178,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#13
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 178,722 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.