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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Harnessing Carbon Payments to Protect Biodiversity
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science, December 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1126/science.1180289 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Oscar Venter, William F. Laurance, Takuya Iwamura, Kerrie A. Wilson, Richard A. Fuller, Hugh P. Possingham |
| Abstract |
Initiatives to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) are providing increasing incentives for forest protection. The collateral benefits for biodiversity depend on the extent to which emissions reductions and biodiversity conservation can be achieved in the same places. Globally, we demonstrate spatial trade-offs in allocating funds to protect forests for carbon and biodiversity and show that cost-effective spending for REDD would protect relatively few species of forest vertebrates. Because trade-offs are nonlinear, we discover that minor adjustments to the allocation of funds could double the biodiversity protected by REDD, while reducing carbon outcomes by only 4 to 8%. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 556 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 11 | 2% |
| Australia | 10 | 2% |
| Brazil | 5 | <1% |
| India | 5 | <1% |
| Italy | 3 | <1% |
| Canada | 3 | <1% |
| China | 2 | <1% |
| Japan | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 10 | 2% |
| Unknown | 493 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 137 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 106 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 93 | 17% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 32 | 6% |
| Other | 31 | 6% |
| Other | 100 | 18% |
| Unknown | 57 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 212 | 38% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 179 | 32% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 26 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 25 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 16 | 3% |
| Other | 23 | 4% |
| Unknown | 75 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 25 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,687,666
of 22,705,019 outputs
Outputs from Science
#31,368
of 77,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,952
of 164,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science
#158
of 331 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,705,019 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 77,846 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 61.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 164,921 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 331 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.