↓ Skip to main content

Exploring differences in stakeholders’ perceptions of illegal bird trapping in Cyprus

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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.
Title
Exploring differences in stakeholders’ perceptions of illegal bird trapping in Cyprus
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13002-017-0194-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heather M. Jenkins, Christos Mammides, Aidan Keane

Abstract

Cyprus is recognised as a hotspot for illegal bird trapping in the Mediterranean basin. A consumer demand for the Eurasian blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) is driving the use of non-selective trapping methods, resulting in the indiscriminate killing of millions of migratory birds. Efforts to tackle the issue have so far been characterised mostly by a top-down approach, focusing on legislation and enforcement. However, trapping levels are not decreasing and conflict between stakeholder groups is intensifying. To understand why efforts to stop illegal bird trapping have not been effective, we used semi-structured interviews to interview 18 local bird trappers and nine representatives from the pertinent environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the governmental agencies responsible for enforcing the legislation. We found distinct differences between the views of the local trapping community and the environmental NGOs, particularly on why trapping is occurring and its impact on the avifauna. This disparity has contributed to misrepresentations of both sides and a high degree of conflict, which is potentially proving counterproductive to conservation interventions. In addition, it appears that trappers are a heterogeneous group, likely driven by various motivations besides profit. We argue that stakeholders interested in reducing illegal bird trapping need to develop anti-poaching strategies that aim at minimising the disparity in the views, and subsequently the conflict, acknowledging also that trappers are not a homogenous group, as often treated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Researcher 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 10 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 26%
Environmental Science 7 23%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 10%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 November 2017.
All research outputs
#20,140,327
of 24,755,976 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#634
of 764 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#338,605
of 449,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#12
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,755,976 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 764 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 449,490 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.