Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services
- Journal
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w33807466 →Countries where authors are citing Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services
This map shows the geographic impact of Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services
This network shows the impact of Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services.
About Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services
This paper, published in 2011, received 563 indexed citations . Written by Peter Kareiva, Heather Tallis, Taylor Ricketts, Gretchen C. Daily and Stephen Polasky covering the research area of Economics and Econometrics and Global and Planetary Change. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Global and Planetary Change (445 citations), Economics and Econometrics (164 citations) and Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law (128 citations). Published in RePEc: Research Papers in Economics.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/w33807466.