↓ Skip to main content

Local perceptions and factors determining ecosystem services identification around two forest reserves in Northern Benin

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, December 2019
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 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
Local perceptions and factors determining ecosystem services identification around two forest reserves in Northern Benin
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, December 2019
DOI 10.1186/s13002-019-0343-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerard N. Gouwakinnou, Séverin Biaou, Fifanou G. Vodouhe, Marc S. Tovihessi, Beranger K. Awessou, Honoré S. S. Biaou

Abstract

Ecosystems provide humanity with goods and services known as ecosystem services. The value of these services represents a basis for political decision-making. To be sure that these decisions are made on a valid basis, policymakers require an understanding of the biophysical processes involved. This study was carried out around two forest reserves (Alibori-Supérieur and Ouénou-Bénou) in Northern Benin. It aimed to highlight the knowledge of the surrounding communities and their perceptions about the importance of the ecosystem services provided by these forest reserves as well as the factors that influence their knowledge and perceptions. Primary data were collected from 25 group discussions in 25 villages surrounding the forest reserves based on predefined ecosystems services of the Millennium Ecosystems Assessment (MA). Multiple linear regression models were used to examine how socio-economic characteristics of the communities influenced the ecosystem services identification rate. Perceptions of importance, levels of satisfaction, and trends of services provided were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Our results showed that education level, poverty index, household size, and proximity to forests played an important role in the variation in knowledge of ecosystem services (P < 0.05). Provisioning services (such as crops supply, fuelwood, lumber, wild food, and medicinal plants) were mostly identified by the poorest villages located very close to the forests (P < 0.05). The importance of the provided services for well-being has been unanimously recognized. The most recognized cultural services were education and knowledge facilitation (84%) and spiritual value (76%). Climate regulation (84%) and pollination (84%) were the best-known regulating services. However, supporting services (soil formation and pest regulation) that are important for improving production systems were unknown to the communities. Education level, poverty index, and village proximity to the forest were important predictors of regulating and supporting services identification. But use of non-tangible services by local rural communities will require more emphasis on targeted environmental education specifically designed according to the needs of each group.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 150 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 14%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 57 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 29 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 14%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 3%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 61 41%
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 December 2019.
All research outputs
#20,594,080
of 23,179,757 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#668
of 740 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#384,384
of 459,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#13
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,179,757 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 740 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 459,136 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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.