↓ Skip to main content

Explaining the resurgent popularity of the wild: motivations for wild plant gathering in the Biosphere Reserve Grosses Walsertal, Austria

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Explaining the resurgent popularity of the wild: motivations for wild plant gathering in the Biosphere Reserve Grosses Walsertal, Austria
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13002-015-0032-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christoph Schunko, Susanne Grasser, Christian R. Vogl

Abstract

Wild plant gathering becomes again a popular and fashionable activity in Europe after gathering practices have been increasingly abandoned over the last decades. Recent ethnobotanical research documented a diversity of gathering practices from people of diverse socio-economic and cultural backgrounds who gather in urban and rural areas. Few efforts were though made to study the motivations for gathering wild plants and to understand the resurgent popularity of wild plant gathering. This paper addresses the following research questions: (1) which motivations activate wild plant gatherers? (2) which motivation-types of gatherers exist in the Grosses Walsertal? (3) how do the motivations for gathering relate to the socio-demographic background of gatherers? Field research was conducted in the Grosses Walsertal, Austria in the years 2008 and 2009 in two field research periods. Thirty-six local farmers were first interviewed with semi-structured interviews. The motivations identified in these interviews were then included in a structured questionnaire, which was used to interview 353 residents of the valley. Pupils of local schools participated in the data collection as interviewers. Principal Component Analysis was used to categorize the motivations and to identify motivation-types of wild plant gatherers. Generalized Linear Models were calculated to identify relations between motivations and the socio-demographic background of gatherers. The respondents listed 13 different motivations for gathering wild plants and four motivations for not gathering. These 17 motivations were grouped in five motivation-types of wild plant gatherers, which are in decreasing importance: product quality, fun, tradition, not-gathering, income. Women, older respondents and homegardeners gather wild plants more often for fun; older respondents gather more often for maintaining traditions; non-homegardeners more frequently mention motivations for not gathering. The resurgent popularity of wild plant gathering comes along with an internalization of motivations: the main motivations for wild plant gathering changed from the external extrinsic motivation of gathering because of necessity towards the internalized extrinsic motivation of gathering for the highly esteemed product quality and the intrinsic motivation of gathering for the pleasure of the activity itself. This internalization of motivations supports the persistence of wild plant gathering, a positive self-perception of gatherers and good quality of engagement with wild plant gathering.

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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 106 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 16%
Researcher 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 26 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 31%
Environmental Science 10 9%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 38 35%
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 06 April 2017.
All research outputs
#15,340,005
of 22,817,213 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#512
of 735 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,683
of 262,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#13
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,817,213 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 735 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 262,898 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.