↓ Skip to main content

A conceptual framework for understanding illegal killing of large carnivores

Overview of attention for article published in AMBIO - A Journal of the Human Environment, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 790)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
49 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
Title
A conceptual framework for understanding illegal killing of large carnivores
Published in
AMBIO - A Journal of the Human Environment, 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 3%
Bulgaria 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Unknown 139 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 27%
Researcher 29 20%
Student > Master 24 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 6%
Other 33 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 58 40%
Environmental Science 51 35%
Unspecified 10 7%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 16 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 10 November 2018.
All research outputs
#382,103
of 12,145,197 outputs
Outputs from AMBIO - A Journal of the Human Environment
#34
of 790 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,929
of 328,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from AMBIO - A Journal of the Human Environment
#1
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,145,197 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 790 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 328,321 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.