↓ Skip to main content
What is this page? Embed badge

Interaction between forest biodiversity and people’s use of forest resources in Roviana, Solomon Islands: implications for biocultural conservation under socioeconomic changes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 Mendeley
Summary Twitter Wikipedia Dimensions citations
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
Interaction between forest biodiversity and people’s use of forest resources in Roviana, Solomon Islands: implications for biocultural conservation under socioeconomic changes
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1746-4269-10-10
Pubmed ID
24468329
Authors

Takuro Furusawa, Myknee Qusa Sirikolo, Masatoshi Sasaoka, Ryutaro Ohtsuka

Abstract

In Solomon Islands, forests have provided people with ecological services while being affected by human use and protection. This study used a quantitative ethnobotanical analysis to explore the society-forest interaction and its transformation in Roviana, Solomon Islands. We compared local plant and land uses between a rural village and urbanized village. Special attention was paid to how local people depend on biodiversity and how traditional human modifications of forest contribute to biodiversity conservation.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
Montenegro 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 142 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 20%
Researcher 25 17%
Student > Master 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Lecturer 9 6%
Other 32 22%
Unknown 27 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 37 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 22%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 36 24%

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 20 April 2021.
All research outputs
#5,979,035
of 22,743,667 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#209
of 732 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,772
of 307,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#3
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,743,667 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 732 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 307,318 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.

This page is provided by Altmetric.