↓ Skip to main content

Compensation Payments for Downsides Generated by Protected Areas

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 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
Compensation Payments for Downsides Generated by Protected Areas
Published in
Ambio, July 2012
DOI 10.1007/s13280-012-0330-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Pechacek, Guo Li, Junsheng Li, Wei Wang, Xiaopu Wu, Jing Xu

Abstract

Protected areas are powerful instruments to tackle the biodiversity crises. However, local communities believe that protected areas generate downsides for which they should be compensated. We reviewed (1) problem evolution, (2) the idea of compensation schemes, and (3) practical considerations. We found that compensations for conservation-related losses are insufficiently considered when protected areas are established. Schemes include controversial resettlements of human populations, traditional reimbursements, and recently favored incentive payments to encourage local communities to conserve biodiversity on their lands. The compensation process is typically composed of the verification of losses/facts, estimation of costs, and delivery of payments. Compensation schemes promote tolerance and awareness, and responsibility of the broader society while minimizing confrontations. They have the power to mainstream concern about human welfare in protected area management, and are therefore a key to successful conservation. Verifying the impact of compensations on achievement of conservation goals remains, however, difficult to prove.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 114 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 21%
Student > Master 21 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 6 5%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 24 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 32 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 26%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 31 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 31 January 2024.
All research outputs
#7,897,330
of 25,271,884 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,094
of 1,785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,382
of 170,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#9
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,271,884 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 170,380 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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 52% of its contemporaries.