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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Citizens' preferences for the conservation of agricultural genetic resources
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Genetics, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fgene.2014.00440 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eija Pouta, Annika Tienhaara, Heini Ahtiainen |
| Abstract |
Evaluation of conservation policies for agricultural genetic resources (AgGR) requires information on the use and non-use values of plant varieties and animal breeds, as well as on the preferences for in situ and ex situ conservation. We conducted a choice experiment to estimate citizens' willingness to pay (WTP) for AgGR conservation programmes in Finland, and used a latent class model to identify heterogeneity in preferences among respondent groups. The findings indicate that citizens have a high interest in the conservation of native breeds and varieties, but also reveal the presence of preference heterogeneity. Five respondent groups could be identified based on latent class modeling: one implying lexicographic preferences, two with reasoned choices, one indicating uncertain support and one with a preference for the current status of conservation. The results emphasize the importance of in situ conservation of native cattle breeds and plant varieties in developing conservation policies. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 22 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 48% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 22% |
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 18 December 2014.
All research outputs
#18,386,678
of 22,774,233 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#7,018
of 11,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,983
of 353,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#92
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,774,233 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,759 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 353,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.