↓ Skip to main content

Setting Priorities for Regional Conservation Planning in the Mediterranean Sea

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2013
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
122 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
261 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
Setting Priorities for Regional Conservation Planning in the Mediterranean Sea
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0059038
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiorenza Micheli, Noam Levin, Sylvaine Giakoumi, Stelios Katsanevakis, Ameer Abdulla, Marta Coll, Simonetta Fraschetti, Salit Kark, Drosos Koutsoubas, Peter Mackelworth, Luigi Maiorano, Hugh P. Possingham

Abstract

Spatial prioritization in conservation is required to direct limited resources to where actions are most urgently needed and most likely to produce effective conservation outcomes. In an effort to advance the protection of a highly threatened hotspot of marine biodiversity, the Mediterranean Sea, multiple spatial conservation plans have been developed in recent years. Here, we review and integrate these different plans with the goal of identifying priority conservation areas that represent the current consensus among the different initiatives. A review of six existing and twelve proposed conservation initiatives highlights gaps in conservation and management planning, particularly within the southern and eastern regions of the Mediterranean and for offshore and deep sea habitats. The eighteen initiatives vary substantially in their extent (covering 0.1-58.5% of the Mediterranean Sea) and in the location of additional proposed conservation and management areas. Differences in the criteria, approaches and data used explain such variation. Despite the diversity among proposals, our analyses identified ten areas, encompassing 10% of the Mediterranean Sea, that are consistently identified among the existing proposals, with an additional 10% selected by at least five proposals. These areas represent top priorities for immediate conservation action. Despite the plethora of initiatives, major challenges face Mediterranean biodiversity and conservation. These include the need for spatial prioritization within a comprehensive framework for regional conservation planning, the acquisition of additional information from data-poor areas, species or habitats, and addressing the challenges of establishing transboundary governance and collaboration in socially, culturally and politically complex conditions. Collective prioritised action, not new conservation plans, is needed for the north, western, and high seas of the Mediterranean, while developing initial information-based plans for the south and eastern Mediterranean is an urgent requirement for true regional conservation planning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 261 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Greece 3 1%
Italy 2 <1%
Turkey 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
American Samoa 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Other 4 2%
Unknown 243 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 78 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 17%
Student > Master 33 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 4%
Other 46 18%
Unknown 38 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 97 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 81 31%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 13 5%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 1%
Other 9 3%
Unknown 53 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 09 September 2020.
All research outputs
#3,219,792
of 24,311,255 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#42,910
of 209,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,584
of 203,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#930
of 5,282 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,311,255 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 209,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 203,489 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,282 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.