↓ Skip to main content

Critical research needs for managing coral reef marine protected areas: Perspectives of academics and managers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Environmental Management, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
262 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
Critical research needs for managing coral reef marine protected areas: Perspectives of academics and managers
Published in
Journal of Environmental Management, December 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.051
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Cvitanovic, S.K. Wilson, C.J. Fulton, G.R. Almany, P. Anderson, R.C. Babcock, N.C. Ban, R.J. Beeden, M. Beger, J. Cinner, K. Dobbs, L.S. Evans, A. Farnham, K.J. Friedman, K. Gale, W. Gladstone, Q. Grafton, N.A.J. Graham, S. Gudge, P.L. Harrison, T.H. Holmes, N. Johnstone, G.P. Jones, A. Jordan, A.J. Kendrick, C.J. Klein, L.R. Little, H.A. Malcolm, D. Morris, H.P. Possingham, J. Prescott, R.L. Pressey, G.A. Skilleter, C. Simpson, K. Waples, D. Wilson, D.H. Williamson

Abstract

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a primary policy instrument for managing and protecting coral reefs. Successful MPAs ultimately depend on knowledge-based decision making, where scientific research is integrated into management actions. Fourteen coral reef MPA managers and sixteen academics from eleven research, state and federal government institutions each outlined at least five pertinent research needs for improving the management of MPAs situated in Australian coral reefs. From this list of 173 key questions, we asked members of each group to rank questions in order of urgency, redundancy and importance, which allowed us to explore the extent of perceptional mismatch and overlap among the two groups. Our results suggest the mismatch among MPA managers and academics is small, with no significant difference among the groups in terms of their respective research interests, or the type of questions they pose. However, managers prioritised spatial management and monitoring as research themes, whilst academics identified climate change, resilience, spatial management, fishing and connectivity as the most important topics. Ranking of the posed questions by the two groups was also similar, although managers were less confident about the achievability of the posed research questions and whether questions represented a knowledge gap. We conclude that improved collaboration and knowledge transfer among management and academic groups can be used to achieve similar objectives and enhance the knowledge-based management of MPAs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Brazil 2 <1%
Singapore 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
American Samoa 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 247 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 55 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 20%
Student > Master 39 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 6%
Other 15 6%
Other 44 17%
Unknown 40 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 81 31%
Environmental Science 68 26%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 15 6%
Social Sciences 14 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 3%
Other 24 9%
Unknown 53 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 20 September 2019.
All research outputs
#2,863,296
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Environmental Management
#599
of 6,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,730
of 286,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Environmental Management
#5
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 286,043 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.