↓ Skip to main content

A conceptual framework for understanding illegal killing of large carnivores

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
45 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
373 Mendeley
Title
A conceptual framework for understanding illegal killing of large carnivores
Published in
Ambio, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13280-016-0852-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Neil H. Carter, José Vicente López-Bao, Jeremy T. Bruskotter, Meredith Gore, Guillaume Chapron, Arlyne Johnson, Yaffa Epstein, Mahendra Shrestha, Jens Frank, Omar Ohrens, Adrian Treves

Abstract

The growing complexity and global nature of wildlife poaching threaten the survival of many species worldwide and are outpacing conservation efforts. Here, we reviewed proximal and distal factors, both social and ecological, driving illegal killing or poaching of large carnivores at sites where it can potentially occur. Through this review, we developed a conceptual social-ecological system framework that ties together many of the factors influencing large carnivore poaching. Unlike most conservation action models, an important attribute of our framework is the integration of multiple factors related to both human motivations and animal vulnerability into feedbacks. We apply our framework to two case studies, tigers in Laos and wolverines in northern Sweden, to demonstrate its utility in disentangling some of the complex features of carnivore poaching that may have hindered effective responses to the current poaching crisis. Our framework offers a common platform to help guide future research on wildlife poaching feedbacks, which has hitherto been lacking, in order to effectively inform policy making and enforcement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 X users 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 373 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
India 1 <1%
Bulgaria 1 <1%
Unknown 368 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 66 18%
Researcher 64 17%
Student > Master 60 16%
Other 22 6%
Student > Bachelor 21 6%
Other 69 18%
Unknown 71 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 112 30%
Environmental Science 108 29%
Social Sciences 19 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 2%
Other 33 9%
Unknown 85 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 14 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,205,614
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#185
of 1,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,121
of 289,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#6
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 289,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.