↓ Skip to main content

Does more mean less? The value of information for conservation planning under sea level rise

Overview of attention for article published in Global Change Biology, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 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
Does more mean less? The value of information for conservation planning under sea level rise
Published in
Global Change Biology, November 2012
DOI 10.1111/gcb.12064
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca K. Runting, Kerrie A. Wilson, Jonathan R. Rhodes

Abstract

Many studies have explored the benefits of adopting more sophisticated modelling techniques or spatial data in terms of our ability to accurately predict ecosystem responses to global change. However, we currently know little about whether the improved predictions will actually lead to better conservation outcomes once the costs of gaining improved models or data are accounted for. This severely limits our ability to make strategic decisions for adaptation to global pressures, particularly in landscapes subject to dynamic change such as the coastal zone. In such landscapes, the global phenomenon of sea level rise is a critical consideration for preserving biodiversity. Here, we address this issue in the context of making decisions about where to locate a reserve system to preserve coastal biodiversity with a limited budget. Specifically, we determined the cost-effectiveness of investing in high-resolution elevation data and process-based models for predicting wetland shifts in a coastal region of South East Queensland, Australia. We evaluated the resulting priority areas for reserve selection to quantify the cost-effectiveness of investment in better quantifying biological and physical processes. We show that, in this case, it is considerably more cost effective to use a process-based model and high-resolution elevation data, even if this requires a substantial proportion of the project budget to be expended (up to 99% in one instance). The less accurate model and data set failed to identify areas of high conservation value, reducing the cost-effectiveness of the resultant conservation plan. This suggests that when developing conservation plans in areas where sea level rise threatens biodiversity, investing in high-resolution elevation data and process-based models to predict shifts in coastal ecosystems may be highly cost effective. A future research priority is to determine how this cost-effectiveness varies among different regions across the globe.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 4 3%
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 141 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 41 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 19%
Student > Master 24 16%
Other 9 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 5%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 18 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 61 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 25%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 8 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 4%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 26 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 January 2013.
All research outputs
#14,484,789
of 24,712,008 outputs
Outputs from Global Change Biology
#5,280
of 6,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,608
of 287,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Change Biology
#43
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,712,008 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,135 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.1. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 287,263 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.