CiteULike

Mendeley | Further Information

{"title"=>"Interacting social and environmental predictors for the spatial distribution of conservation lands", "type"=>"journal", "authors"=>[{"first_name"=>"Robert F.", "last_name"=>"Baldwin", "scopus_author_id"=>"16063490300"}, {"first_name"=>"Paul B.", "last_name"=>"Leonard", "scopus_author_id"=>"54781604100"}], "year"=>2015, "source"=>"PLoS ONE", "identifiers"=>{"sgr"=>"84949009676", "pmid"=>"26465155", "pui"=>"607111762", "issn"=>"19326203", "scopus"=>"2-s2.0-84949009676", "doi"=>"10.1371/journal.pone.0140540"}, "id"=>"80feede3-7cc8-3148-b235-23f39857c25e", "abstract"=>"Conservation decisions should be evaluated for how they meet\\nconservation goals at multiple spatial extents. Conservation easements\\nare land use decisions resulting from a combination of social and\\nenvironmental conditions. An emerging area of research is the evaluation\\nof spatial distribution of easements and their spatial correlates. We\\ntested the relative influence of interacting social and environmental\\nvariables on the spatial distribution of conservation easements by\\nownership category and conservation status. For the Appalachian region\\nof the United States, an area with a long history of human occupation\\nand complex land uses including public-private conservation, we found\\nthat settlement, economic, topographic, and environmental data\\nassociated with spatial distribution of easements (N = 4813). Compared\\nto random locations, easements were more likely to be found in lower\\nelevations, in areas of greater agricultural productivity, farther from\\npublic protected areas, and nearer other human features. Analysis of\\nownership and conservation status revealed sources of variation, with\\nimportant differences between local and state government ownerships\\nrelative to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and among U.S.\\nGeological Survey (USGS) GAP program status levels. NGOs were more\\nlikely to have easements nearer protected areas, and higher conservation\\nstatus, while local governments held easements closer to settlement, and\\non lands of greater agricultural potential. Logistic interactions\\nrevealed environmental variables having effects modified by social\\ncorrelates, and the strongest predictors overall were social (distance\\nto urban area, median household income, housing density, distance to\\nland trust office). Spatial distribution of conservation lands may be\\naffected by geographic area of influence of conservation groups,\\nsuggesting that multi-scale conservation planning strategies may be\\nnecessary to satisfy local and regional needs for reserve networks. Our\\nresults support previous findings and provide an ecoregion-scale view\\nthat conservation easements may provide, at local scales, conservation\\nfunctions on productive, more developable lands. Conservation easements\\nmay complement functions of public protected areas but more research\\nshould examine relative landscape-level ecological functions of both\\nforms of protection.", "link"=>"http://www.mendeley.com/research/interacting-social-environmental-predictors-spatial-distribution-conservation-lands-2", "reader_count"=>35, "reader_count_by_academic_status"=>{"Unspecified"=>1, "Researcher"=>5, "Student > Ph. D. Student"=>9, "Student > Postgraduate"=>3, "Student > Master"=>10, "Other"=>2, "Student > Bachelor"=>3, "Lecturer > Senior Lecturer"=>1, "Professor"=>1}, "reader_count_by_user_role"=>{"Unspecified"=>1, "Researcher"=>5, "Student > Ph. D. Student"=>9, "Student > Postgraduate"=>3, "Student > Master"=>10, "Other"=>2, "Student > Bachelor"=>3, "Lecturer > Senior Lecturer"=>1, "Professor"=>1}, "reader_count_by_subject_area"=>{"Unspecified"=>1, "Environmental Science"=>17, "Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology"=>1, "Agricultural and Biological Sciences"=>8, "Business, Management and Accounting"=>2, "Social Sciences"=>3, "Earth and Planetary Sciences"=>2, "Economics, Econometrics and Finance"=>1}, "reader_count_by_subdiscipline"=>{"Social Sciences"=>{"Social Sciences"=>3}, "Earth and Planetary Sciences"=>{"Earth and Planetary Sciences"=>2}, "Economics, Econometrics and Finance"=>{"Economics, Econometrics and Finance"=>1}, "Agricultural and Biological Sciences"=>{"Agricultural and Biological Sciences"=>8}, "Business, Management and Accounting"=>{"Business, Management and Accounting"=>2}, "Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology"=>{"Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology"=>1}, "Unspecified"=>{"Unspecified"=>1}, "Environmental Science"=>{"Environmental Science"=>17}}, "reader_count_by_country"=>{"United States"=>2, "Russia"=>1}, "group_count"=>3}

ORCID

CrossRef

• http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104221
• http://doi.org/10.3375/043.037.0411
• http://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.024
• http://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12629
• http://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15304-w
• http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.05.003
• http://doi.org/10.3390/land7040123
• http://doi.org/10.3390/land8030043

DataCite

Europe PMC Citations

Europe PMC Database Citations

PubMed Central

Scopus | Further Information

{"@_fa"=>"true", "link"=>[{"@_fa"=>"true", "@ref"=>"self", "@href"=>"https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/84949009676"}, {"@_fa"=>"true", "@ref"=>"author-affiliation", "@href"=>"https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/84949009676?field=author,affiliation"}, {"@_fa"=>"true", "@ref"=>"scopus", "@href"=>"https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84949009676&origin=inward"}, {"@_fa"=>"true", "@ref"=>"scopus-citedby", "@href"=>"https://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84949009676&origin=inward"}], "prism:url"=>"https://api.elsevier.com/content/abstract/scopus_id/84949009676", "dc:identifier"=>"SCOPUS_ID:84949009676", "eid"=>"2-s2.0-84949009676", "dc:title"=>"Interacting social and environmental predictors for the spatial distribution of conservation lands", "dc:creator"=>"Baldwin R.", "prism:publicationName"=>"PLoS ONE", "prism:eIssn"=>"19326203", "prism:volume"=>"10", "prism:issueIdentifier"=>"10", "prism:pageRange"=>nil, "prism:coverDate"=>"2015-10-14", "prism:coverDisplayDate"=>"14 October 2015", "prism:doi"=>"10.1371/journal.pone.0140540", "citedby-count"=>"13", "affiliation"=>[{"@_fa"=>"true", "affilname"=>"Clemson University", "affiliation-city"=>"Clemson", "affiliation-country"=>"United States"}], "pubmed-id"=>"26465155", "prism:aggregationType"=>"Journal", "subtype"=>"ar", "subtypeDescription"=>"Article", "article-number"=>"e0140540", "source-id"=>"10600153309", "openaccess"=>"1", "openaccessFlag"=>true}

Web of Science®

Article Coverage

Article Coverage Curated

Facebook

• {"url"=>"http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.plos.org%2Fplosone%2Farticle%3Fid%3D10.1371%252Fjournal.pone.0140540", "share_count"=>0, "like_count"=>0, "comment_count"=>0, "click_count"=>0, "total_count"=>0}

Journal Comments

Reddit

Twitter

• {"id"=>"654513900214288384", "text"=>"Interacting Social and Environmental Predictors for the Spatial Distribution of Conservation Lands http://t.co/ozALgfTMa4", "created_at"=>"2015-10-15T04:27:28Z", "user"=>"UOSPI", "user_name"=>"UO SPI", "user_profile_image"=>"http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/580818930995867648/62mbdJZC_normal.png"}
• {"id"=>"662219579075129344", "text"=>"Interacting Social and Environmental Predictors for the Spatial Dist of Conservation Lands https://t.co/i9LCZ0uGy6 https://t.co/g9NkNaEWzq", "created_at"=>"2015-11-05T10:47:05Z", "user"=>"JUrbanEcology", "user_name"=>"J Urban Ecology", "user_profile_image"=>"http://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/573515193461792768/KxQzNZ68_normal.png"}

Wikipedia

Counter

• {"month"=>"10", "year"=>"2015", "pdf_views"=>"35", "xml_views"=>"4", "html_views"=>"356"}
• {"month"=>"11", "year"=>"2015", "pdf_views"=>"19", "xml_views"=>"1", "html_views"=>"207"}
• {"month"=>"12", "year"=>"2015", "pdf_views"=>"9", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"60"}
• {"month"=>"1", "year"=>"2016", "pdf_views"=>"14", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"54"}
• {"month"=>"2", "year"=>"2016", "pdf_views"=>"4", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"48"}
• {"month"=>"3", "year"=>"2016", "pdf_views"=>"6", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"47"}
• {"month"=>"4", "year"=>"2016", "pdf_views"=>"14", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"55"}
• {"month"=>"5", "year"=>"2016", "pdf_views"=>"9", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"20"}
• {"month"=>"6", "year"=>"2016", "pdf_views"=>"6", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"33"}
• {"month"=>"7", "year"=>"2016", "pdf_views"=>"7", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"36"}
• {"month"=>"8", "year"=>"2016", "pdf_views"=>"4", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"23"}
• {"month"=>"9", "year"=>"2016", "pdf_views"=>"3", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"46"}
• {"month"=>"10", "year"=>"2016", "pdf_views"=>"9", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"48"}
• {"month"=>"11", "year"=>"2016", "pdf_views"=>"3", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"30"}
• {"month"=>"12", "year"=>"2016", "pdf_views"=>"8", "xml_views"=>"1", "html_views"=>"26"}
• {"month"=>"1", "year"=>"2017", "pdf_views"=>"4", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"32"}
• {"month"=>"2", "year"=>"2017", "pdf_views"=>"3", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"38"}
• {"month"=>"3", "year"=>"2017", "pdf_views"=>"11", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"36"}
• {"month"=>"4", "year"=>"2017", "pdf_views"=>"4", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"20"}
• {"month"=>"5", "year"=>"2017", "pdf_views"=>"3", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"33"}
• {"month"=>"6", "year"=>"2017", "pdf_views"=>"4", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"39"}
• {"month"=>"7", "year"=>"2017", "pdf_views"=>"8", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"28"}
• {"month"=>"8", "year"=>"2017", "pdf_views"=>"1", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"22"}
• {"month"=>"9", "year"=>"2017", "pdf_views"=>"6", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"41"}
• {"month"=>"10", "year"=>"2017", "pdf_views"=>"4", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"42"}
• {"month"=>"11", "year"=>"2017", "pdf_views"=>"2", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"59"}
• {"month"=>"12", "year"=>"2017", "pdf_views"=>"0", "xml_views"=>"1", "html_views"=>"22"}
• {"month"=>"1", "year"=>"2018", "pdf_views"=>"7", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"27"}
• {"month"=>"2", "year"=>"2018", "pdf_views"=>"12", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"32"}
• {"month"=>"3", "year"=>"2018", "pdf_views"=>"6", "xml_views"=>"1", "html_views"=>"20"}
• {"month"=>"4", "year"=>"2018", "pdf_views"=>"14", "xml_views"=>"1", "html_views"=>"9"}
• {"month"=>"5", "year"=>"2018", "pdf_views"=>"4", "xml_views"=>"1", "html_views"=>"19"}
• {"month"=>"6", "year"=>"2018", "pdf_views"=>"8", "xml_views"=>"3", "html_views"=>"10"}
• {"month"=>"7", "year"=>"2018", "pdf_views"=>"2", "xml_views"=>"3", "html_views"=>"5"}
• {"month"=>"8", "year"=>"2018", "pdf_views"=>"1", "xml_views"=>"1", "html_views"=>"11"}
• {"month"=>"9", "year"=>"2018", "pdf_views"=>"7", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"12"}
• {"month"=>"10", "year"=>"2018", "pdf_views"=>"6", "xml_views"=>"3", "html_views"=>"15"}
• {"month"=>"11", "year"=>"2018", "pdf_views"=>"3", "xml_views"=>"1", "html_views"=>"8"}
• {"month"=>"12", "year"=>"2018", "pdf_views"=>"8", "xml_views"=>"1", "html_views"=>"12"}
• {"month"=>"1", "year"=>"2019", "pdf_views"=>"4", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"9"}
• {"month"=>"2", "year"=>"2019", "pdf_views"=>"2", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"10"}
• {"month"=>"3", "year"=>"2019", "pdf_views"=>"7", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"6"}
• {"month"=>"4", "year"=>"2019", "pdf_views"=>"10", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"8"}
• {"month"=>"5", "year"=>"2019", "pdf_views"=>"10", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"15"}
• {"month"=>"6", "year"=>"2019", "pdf_views"=>"1", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"6"}
• {"month"=>"7", "year"=>"2019", "pdf_views"=>"6", "xml_views"=>"6", "html_views"=>"14"}
• {"month"=>"8", "year"=>"2019", "pdf_views"=>"7", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"8"}
• {"month"=>"9", "year"=>"2019", "pdf_views"=>"2", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"10"}
• {"month"=>"10", "year"=>"2019", "pdf_views"=>"5", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"10"}
• {"month"=>"11", "year"=>"2019", "pdf_views"=>"7", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"7"}
• {"month"=>"12", "year"=>"2019", "pdf_views"=>"16", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"1"}
• {"month"=>"1", "year"=>"2020", "pdf_views"=>"13", "xml_views"=>"2", "html_views"=>"11"}
• {"month"=>"2", "year"=>"2020", "pdf_views"=>"8", "xml_views"=>"1", "html_views"=>"8"}
• {"month"=>"3", "year"=>"2020", "pdf_views"=>"6", "xml_views"=>"0", "html_views"=>"7"}

Figshare

• {"files"=>["https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/2359808"], "description"=>"<p>P-values refer to t-tests and effect sizes (mean difference) and confidence intervals of the difference are given.</p><p>Comparison of mean predictor variable values within conservation easements versus random locations in unprotected areas within the Appalachian LCC.</p>", "links"=>[], "tags"=>["ngo", "Conservation Lands Conservation decisions", "land trust office", "conservation easements", "GAP program status levels", "usgs", "state government ownerships", "conservation status", "land use decisions", "U.S"], "article_id"=>1575469, "categories"=>["Biological Sciences", "Science Policy", "Ecology"], "users"=>["Robert F. Baldwin", "Paul B. Leonard"], "doi"=>"https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140540.t002", "stats"=>{"downloads"=>0, "page_views"=>24, "likes"=>0}, "figshare_url"=>"https://figshare.com/articles/_Comparison_of_mean_predictor_variable_values_within_conservation_easements_versus_random_locations_in_unprotected_areas_within_the_Appalachian_LCC_/1575469", "title"=>"Comparison of mean predictor variable values within conservation easements versus random locations in unprotected areas within the Appalachian LCC.", "pos_in_sequence"=>0, "defined_type"=>3, "published_date"=>"2015-10-14 04:41:21"}
• {"files"=>["https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/2359807"], "description"=>"<p>Predictor variables, aliases used, source of data, product name or derived product, spatial resolution, and year released to public.</p>", "links"=>[], "tags"=>["ngo", "Conservation Lands Conservation decisions", "land trust office", "conservation easements", "GAP program status levels", "usgs", "state government ownerships", "conservation status", "land use decisions", "U.S"], "article_id"=>1575468, "categories"=>["Biological Sciences", "Science Policy", "Ecology"], "users"=>["Robert F. Baldwin", "Paul B. Leonard"], "doi"=>"https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140540.t001", "stats"=>{"downloads"=>1, "page_views"=>22, "likes"=>0}, "figshare_url"=>"https://figshare.com/articles/_Predictor_variables_aliases_used_source_of_data_product_name_or_derived_product_spatial_resolution_and_year_released_to_public_/1575468", "title"=>"Predictor variables, aliases used, source of data, product name or derived product, spatial resolution, and year released to public.", "pos_in_sequence"=>0, "defined_type"=>3, "published_date"=>"2015-10-14 04:41:21"}
• {"files"=>["https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/2359804"], "description"=>"<p>There are 363,000 ha of easements in the region; 87% of the easements are in the multiple-use GAP categories 3–4. The relatively high mean area of Federally-held easements in GAP 4 is due to the existence of a few, large holdings.</p>", "links"=>[], "tags"=>["ngo", "Conservation Lands Conservation decisions", "land trust office", "conservation easements", "GAP program status levels", "usgs", "state government ownerships", "conservation status", "land use decisions", "U.S"], "article_id"=>1575465, "categories"=>["Biological Sciences", "Science Policy", "Ecology"], "users"=>["Robert F. Baldwin", "Paul B. Leonard"], "doi"=>"https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140540.g002", "stats"=>{"downloads"=>0, "page_views"=>25, "likes"=>0}, "figshare_url"=>"https://figshare.com/articles/_Mean_area_ha_and_numbers_N_of_conservation_easements_by_easement_holder_in_each_GAP_level_1_8211_4_within_the_Appalachian_LCC_/1575465", "title"=>"Mean area (ha) and numbers (N) of conservation easements by easement holder in each GAP level (1–4) within the Appalachian LCC.", "pos_in_sequence"=>0, "defined_type"=>1, "published_date"=>"2015-10-14 04:41:21"}
• {"files"=>["https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/2359803"], "description"=>"<p>Easement locations are categorized by 4 holder types.</p>", "links"=>[], "tags"=>["ngo", "Conservation Lands Conservation decisions", "land trust office", "conservation easements", "GAP program status levels", "usgs", "state government ownerships", "conservation status", "land use decisions", "U.S"], "article_id"=>1575464, "categories"=>["Biological Sciences", "Science Policy", "Ecology"], "users"=>["Robert F. Baldwin", "Paul B. Leonard"], "doi"=>"https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140540.g001", "stats"=>{"downloads"=>1, "page_views"=>18, "likes"=>0}, "figshare_url"=>"https://figshare.com/articles/_Spatial_distribution_of_conservation_easements_within_the_study_area_589_000_km_2_/1575464", "title"=>"Spatial distribution of conservation easements within the study area (589,000 km²).", "pos_in_sequence"=>0, "defined_type"=>1, "published_date"=>"2015-10-14 04:41:21"}
• {"files"=>["https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/2359810", "https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/2359811"], "description"=>"<div><p>Conservation decisions should be evaluated for how they meet conservation goals at multiple spatial extents. Conservation easements are land use decisions resulting from a combination of social and environmental conditions. An emerging area of research is the evaluation of spatial distribution of easements and their spatial correlates. We tested the relative influence of interacting social and environmental variables on the spatial distribution of conservation easements by ownership category and conservation status. For the Appalachian region of the United States, an area with a long history of human occupation and complex land uses including public-private conservation, we found that settlement, economic, topographic, and environmental data associated with spatial distribution of easements (N = 4813). Compared to random locations, easements were more likely to be found in lower elevations, in areas of greater agricultural productivity, farther from public protected areas, and nearer other human features. Analysis of ownership and conservation status revealed sources of variation, with important differences between local and state government ownerships relative to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and among U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) GAP program status levels. NGOs were more likely to have easements nearer protected areas, and higher conservation status, while local governments held easements closer to settlement, and on lands of greater agricultural potential. Logistic interactions revealed environmental variables having effects modified by social correlates, and the strongest predictors overall were social (distance to urban area, median household income, housing density, distance to land trust office). Spatial distribution of conservation lands may be affected by geographic area of influence of conservation groups, suggesting that multi-scale conservation planning strategies may be necessary to satisfy local and regional needs for reserve networks. Our results support previous findings and provide an ecoregion-scale view that conservation easements may provide, at local scales, conservation functions on productive, more developable lands. Conservation easements may complement functions of public protected areas but more research should examine relative landscape-level ecological functions of both forms of protection.</p></div>", "links"=>[], "tags"=>["ngo", "Conservation Lands Conservation decisions", "land trust office", "conservation easements", "GAP program status levels", "usgs", "state government ownerships", "conservation status", "land use decisions", "U.S"], "article_id"=>1575471, "categories"=>["Biological Sciences", "Science Policy", "Ecology"], "users"=>["Robert F. Baldwin", "Paul B. Leonard"], "doi"=>["https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140540.s001", "https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140540.s002"], "stats"=>{"downloads"=>0, "page_views"=>20, "likes"=>0}, "figshare_url"=>"https://figshare.com/articles/_Interacting_Social_and_Environmental_Predictors_for_the_Spatial_Distribution_of_Conservation_Lands_/1575471", "title"=>"Interacting Social and Environmental Predictors for the Spatial Distribution of Conservation Lands", "pos_in_sequence"=>0, "defined_type"=>4, "published_date"=>"2015-10-14 04:41:21"}
• {"files"=>["https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/2359809"], "description"=>"<p>Values are percent change in the odds of moving from the reference category to the test category (groups A or B) for a one-unit increase in each variable. The effect size and direction can be interpreted as a greater, negative % change in odds means as the value of the variable decreases (e.g., closer to feature, or lower in elevation), the odds of being in the reference category decrease relative to the odds of being in the test category, and the reference category would be farther from, or lower than, the test. Federal holders not included in analysis A due to their very small numbers. Only predictors that were significant in top models are shown (e.g., Diversity in Analysis B).</p><p>Relationships among easement holder categories (A), conservation status categories (B), and their associations with environmental and social spatial variables.</p>", "links"=>[], "tags"=>["ngo", "Conservation Lands Conservation decisions", "land trust office", "conservation easements", "GAP program status levels", "usgs", "state government ownerships", "conservation status", "land use decisions", "U.S"], "article_id"=>1575470, "categories"=>["Biological Sciences", "Science Policy", "Ecology"], "users"=>["Robert F. Baldwin", "Paul B. Leonard"], "doi"=>"https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140540.t003", "stats"=>{"downloads"=>1, "page_views"=>18, "likes"=>0}, "figshare_url"=>"https://figshare.com/articles/_Relationships_among_easement_holder_categories_A_conservation_status_categories_B_and_their_associations_with_environmental_and_social_spatial_variables_/1575470", "title"=>"Relationships among easement holder categories (A), conservation status categories (B), and their associations with environmental and social spatial variables.", "pos_in_sequence"=>0, "defined_type"=>3, "published_date"=>"2015-10-14 04:41:21"}
• {"files"=>["https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/2359806"], "description"=>"<p>The closer an easement was to a land trust, the greater the positive effect of income; easement locations farther from a land trust were associated with higher incomes, but the effect was less.</p>", "links"=>[], "tags"=>["ngo", "Conservation Lands Conservation decisions", "land trust office", "conservation easements", "GAP program status levels", "usgs", "state government ownerships", "conservation status", "land use decisions", "U.S"], "article_id"=>1575467, "categories"=>["Biological Sciences", "Science Policy", "Ecology"], "users"=>["Robert F. Baldwin", "Paul B. Leonard"], "doi"=>"https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140540.g004", "stats"=>{"downloads"=>0, "page_views"=>17, "likes"=>0}, "figshare_url"=>"https://figshare.com/articles/_The_interaction_effect_of_distance_to_nearest_land_trust_address_on_median_county_income_for_predicting_conservation_easement_location_/1575467", "title"=>"The interaction effect of distance to nearest land trust address on median county income for predicting conservation easement location.", "pos_in_sequence"=>0, "defined_type"=>1, "published_date"=>"2015-10-14 04:41:21"}
• {"files"=>["https://ndownloader.figshare.com/files/2359805"], "description"=>"<p>As elevation departs from its mean (± 1SD), the effects of distance to urban area on probability of easement location becomes stronger.</p>", "links"=>[], "tags"=>["ngo", "Conservation Lands Conservation decisions", "land trust office", "conservation easements", "GAP program status levels", "usgs", "state government ownerships", "conservation status", "land use decisions", "U.S"], "article_id"=>1575466, "categories"=>["Biological Sciences", "Science Policy", "Ecology"], "users"=>["Robert F. Baldwin", "Paul B. Leonard"], "doi"=>"https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0140540.g003", "stats"=>{"downloads"=>1, "page_views"=>17, "likes"=>0}, "figshare_url"=>"https://figshare.com/articles/_The_interaction_effect_of_elevation_on_distance_to_urban_for_predicting_conservation_easement_location_/1575466", "title"=>"The interaction effect of elevation on distance to urban for predicting conservation easement location.", "pos_in_sequence"=>0, "defined_type"=>1, "published_date"=>"2015-10-14 04:41:21"}

PMC Usage Stats | Further Information

• {"unique-ip"=>"2", "full-text"=>"4", "pdf"=>"2", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2015", "month"=>"10"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"1", "full-text"=>"1", "pdf"=>"0", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2016", "month"=>"2"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"16", "full-text"=>"13", "pdf"=>"12", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2015", "month"=>"11"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"5", "full-text"=>"4", "pdf"=>"1", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2015", "month"=>"12"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"3", "full-text"=>"3", "pdf"=>"0", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2016", "month"=>"1"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"3", "full-text"=>"2", "pdf"=>"0", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"2", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2016", "month"=>"3"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"1", "full-text"=>"1", "pdf"=>"1", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2016", "month"=>"4"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"2", "full-text"=>"2", "pdf"=>"0", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2016", "month"=>"5"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"7", "full-text"=>"5", "pdf"=>"2", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2016", "month"=>"6"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"7", "full-text"=>"8", "pdf"=>"1", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"1", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2016", "month"=>"7"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"5", "full-text"=>"7", "pdf"=>"1", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2016", "month"=>"8"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"2", "full-text"=>"2", "pdf"=>"0", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2016", "month"=>"9"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"2", "full-text"=>"3", "pdf"=>"0", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2016", "month"=>"10"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"2", "full-text"=>"2", "pdf"=>"1", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2016", "month"=>"11"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"9", "full-text"=>"8", "pdf"=>"2", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"3", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2016", "month"=>"12"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"7", "full-text"=>"4", "pdf"=>"0", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2017", "month"=>"1"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"2", "full-text"=>"2", "pdf"=>"0", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2017", "month"=>"2"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"2", "full-text"=>"2", "pdf"=>"0", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2017", "month"=>"3"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"5", "full-text"=>"4", "pdf"=>"2", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2017", "month"=>"4"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"5", "full-text"=>"8", "pdf"=>"1", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2017", "month"=>"5"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"5", "full-text"=>"5", "pdf"=>"1", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2017", "month"=>"6"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"5", "full-text"=>"6", "pdf"=>"0", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2017", "month"=>"7"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"7", "full-text"=>"7", "pdf"=>"1", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2017", "month"=>"8"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"4", "full-text"=>"3", "pdf"=>"1", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2017", "month"=>"9"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"6", "full-text"=>"6", "pdf"=>"2", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2017", "month"=>"10"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"6", "full-text"=>"7", "pdf"=>"0", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"8", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2017", "month"=>"11"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"3", "full-text"=>"2", "pdf"=>"1", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2017", "month"=>"12"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"1", "full-text"=>"1", "pdf"=>"0", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2018", "month"=>"1"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"5", "full-text"=>"4", "pdf"=>"2", "abstract"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2018", "month"=>"3"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"4", "full-text"=>"4", "pdf"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2019", "month"=>"1"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"3", "full-text"=>"2", "pdf"=>"1", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"2", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2018", "month"=>"11"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"7", "full-text"=>"6", "pdf"=>"2", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2018", "month"=>"9"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"8", "full-text"=>"10", "pdf"=>"1", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2018", "month"=>"4"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"5", "full-text"=>"4", "pdf"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"1", "year"=>"2018", "month"=>"6"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"5", "full-text"=>"3", "pdf"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"2", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2018", "month"=>"7"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"7", "full-text"=>"7", "pdf"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2018", "month"=>"10"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"2", "full-text"=>"2", "pdf"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2018", "month"=>"8"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"4", "full-text"=>"4", "pdf"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2018", "month"=>"12"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"3", "full-text"=>"4", "pdf"=>"1", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2019", "month"=>"2"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"2", "full-text"=>"1", "pdf"=>"1", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2019", "month"=>"3"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"3", "full-text"=>"2", "pdf"=>"1", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2019", "month"=>"4"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"7", "full-text"=>"7", "pdf"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2019", "month"=>"5"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"6", "full-text"=>"6", "pdf"=>"2", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2019", "month"=>"8"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"10", "full-text"=>"8", "pdf"=>"2", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2019", "month"=>"9"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"9", "full-text"=>"7", "pdf"=>"0", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"2", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2019", "month"=>"10"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"6", "full-text"=>"5", "pdf"=>"1", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2019", "month"=>"12"}
• {"unique-ip"=>"3", "full-text"=>"2", "pdf"=>"1", "scanned-summary"=>"0", "scanned-page-browse"=>"0", "figure"=>"0", "supp-data"=>"0", "cited-by"=>"0", "year"=>"2020", "month"=>"2"}

Relative Metric

{"start_date"=>"2015-01-01T00:00:00Z", "end_date"=>"2015-12-31T00:00:00Z", "subject_areas"=>[]}

F1000Prime