↓ Skip to main content

Contrasting Colonist and Indigenous Impacts on Amazonian Forests

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, May 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Readers on

mendeley
36 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.
Article details
Title
Contrasting Colonist and Indigenous Impacts on Amazonian Forests
Published in
Conservation Biology, May 2010
DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01463.x
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To examine differences in land use and environmental impacts between colonist and indigenous populations in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon, we combined data from household surveys and remotely sensed imagery that was collected from 778 colonist households in 64 colonization sectors, and 499 households from five indigenous groups in 36 communities. Overall, measures of deforestation and forest fragmentation were significantly greater for colonists than indigenous peoples. On average, colonist households had approximately double the area in agriculture and cash crops and 5.5 times the area in pasture as indigenous households. Nevertheless, substantial variation in land-use patterns existed among the five indigenous groups in measures such as cattle ownership and use of hired agricultural labor. These findings support the potential conservation value of indigenous lands while cautioning against uniform policies that homogenize indigenous ethnic groups.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 34 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 25%
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 12 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 22%
Social Sciences 5 14%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 5 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 March 2010.
All research outputs
#7,605,073
of 28,841,988 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#2,770
of 4,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,212
of 116,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#16
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,841,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,649 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 116,481 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.