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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Attitudes Toward Consumption and Conservation of Tigers in China
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, July 2008
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0002544 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brian Gratwicke, Judy Mills, Adam Dutton, Grace Gabriel, Barney Long, John Seidensticker, Belinda Wright, Wang You, Li Zhang |
| Abstract |
A heated debate has recently emerged between tiger farmers and conservationists about the potential consequences of lifting the ban on trade in farmed tiger products in China. This debate has caused unfounded speculation about the extent of the potential market for tiger products. To fill this knowledge gap, we surveyed 1880 residents from a total of six Chinese cities to understand Urban Chinese tiger consumption behavior, knowledge of trade issues and attitudes towards tiger conservation. We found that 43% of respondents had consumed some product alleged to contain tiger parts. Within this user-group, 71% said that they preferred wild products over farmed ones. The two predominant products used were tiger bone plasters (38%) and tiger bone wine (6.4%). 88% of respondents knew that it was illegal to buy or sell tiger products, and 93% agreed that a ban in trade of tiger parts was necessary to conserve wild tigers. These results indicate that while Urban Chinese people are generally supportive of tiger conservation, there is a huge residual demand for tiger products that could resurge if the ban on trade in tiger parts is lifted in China. We suspect that the current supply of the market is predominantly met by fakes or substitutes branded as tiger medicines, but not listing tiger as an ingredient. We suggest that the Traditional Chinese Medicine community should consider re-branding these products as bone-healing medicines in order to reduce the residual demand for real tiger parts over the long-term. The lifting of the current ban on trade in farmed tiger parts may cause a surge in demand for wild tiger parts that consumers say are better. Because of the low input costs associated with poaching, wild-sourced parts would consistently undercut the prices of farmed tigers that could easily be laundered on a legal market. We therefore recommend that the Chinese authorities maintain the ban on trade in tiger parts, and work to improve the enforcement of the existing ban. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 273 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 3 | 1% |
| United States | 3 | 1% |
| Indonesia | 2 | <1% |
| South Africa | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Mozambique | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 257 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 53 | 19% |
| Researcher | 45 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 41 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 19 | 7% |
| Other | 39 | 14% |
| Unknown | 44 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 97 | 36% |
| Environmental Science | 75 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 8 | 3% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 31 | 11% |
| Unknown | 47 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 2018.
All research outputs
#3,194,320
of 24,176,243 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#42,579
of 207,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,224
of 85,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#129
of 470 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,176,243 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 207,884 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
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 85,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 470 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 71% of its contemporaries.