↓ Skip to main content

Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge–Action Boundary

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, April 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
35 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
413 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
753 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
Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge–Action Boundary
Published in
Conservation Biology, April 2013
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12050
Pubmed ID
Authors

CARLY N. COOK, MICHAEL B. MASCIA, MARK W. SCHWARTZ, HUGH P. POSSINGHAM, RICHARD A. FULLER

Abstract

There are many barriers to using science to inform conservation policy and practice. Conservation scientists wishing to produce management-relevant science must balance this goal with the imperative of demonstrating novelty and rigor in their science. Decision makers seeking to make evidence-based decisions must balance a desire for knowledge with the need to act despite uncertainty. Generating science that will effectively inform management decisions requires that the production of information (the components of knowledge) be salient (relevant and timely), credible (authoritative, believable, and trusted), and legitimate (developed via a process that considers the values and perspectives of all relevant actors) in the eyes of both researchers and decision makers. We perceive 3 key challenges for those hoping to generate conservation science that achieves all 3 of these information characteristics. First, scientific and management audiences can have contrasting perceptions about the salience of research. Second, the pursuit of scientific credibility can come at the cost of salience and legitimacy in the eyes of decision makers, and, third, different actors can have conflicting views about what constitutes legitimate information. We highlight 4 institutional frameworks that can facilitate science that will inform management: boundary organizations (environmental organizations that span the boundary between science and management), research scientists embedded in resource management agencies, formal links between decision makers and scientists at research-focused institutions, and training programs for conservation professionals. Although these are not the only approaches to generating boundary-spanning science, nor are they mutually exclusive, they provide mechanisms for promoting communication, translation, and mediation across the knowledge-action boundary. We believe that despite the challenges, conservation science should strive to be a boundary science, which both advances scientific understanding and contributes to decision making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 753 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 1%
United Kingdom 9 1%
Australia 8 1%
Brazil 7 <1%
South Africa 3 <1%
Finland 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 4 <1%
Unknown 705 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 171 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 161 21%
Student > Master 125 17%
Student > Bachelor 47 6%
Other 39 5%
Other 116 15%
Unknown 94 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 259 34%
Environmental Science 243 32%
Social Sciences 52 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 10 1%
Other 47 6%
Unknown 129 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 28 January 2024.
All research outputs
#937,978
of 24,827,122 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#536
of 4,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,711
of 204,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#3
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,827,122 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 204,210 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.