Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36662711›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Benefit sharing in international rivers: A Q-methodology study of regional understanding and perception in Asia.

Lei Xie, Lu Xu, Qi Yu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Lei XieInternational Hydropower Association, London, United Kingdom.
Lu XuLaw School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7181-9844
Qi YuPhD candidate, Shandong University, Jinan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to identify and examine the different perception of benefit sharing in the sharing of international rivers in China, South Asia and Southeast Asia. Using the Q-Method, this study undertakes an in-depth analysis of the views of 35 experts of the field on hydrodiplomacy, international water law, benefit sharing and ecological benefits compensation. The results of the quantitative and qualitative analysis help to innovatively identify three streams of views among the participants, respectively described as supporters, idealists and pragmatists, each displaying strong geographical association to the three Asian regions. Supporters from Southeast Asia and pragmatists from China share much common ground on issues such as the types of benefits to share in international rivers, potentially providing the conceptual foundation for international cooperation. Idealists from South Asia prioritize and emphasise the role and importance of environmental benefits and ecological protection, yet differ greatly from the others on practical issues such as the inclusion of direct economic benefits and ecological compensation for using resources. This study contributes to the understanding of the theory and practice of benefit sharing in international rivers, as well as providing new perspectives to the interpretation and practice of hydrodiplomacy in Asian regions.

Indexed as

International CooperationPerceptionAsiaAsia, SoutheasternChinaHumans

Identifiers

PMID36662711
PMCPMC9857988

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.