↓ Skip to main content

Protected Areas in South Asia Have Not Prevented Habitat Loss: A Study Using Historical Models of Land-Use Change

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 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
Protected Areas in South Asia Have Not Prevented Habitat Loss: A Study Using Historical Models of Land-Use Change
Published in
PLOS ONE, May 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0065298
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natalie E. Clark, Elizabeth H. Boakes, Philip J. K. McGowan, Georgina M. Mace, Richard A. Fuller

Abstract

Habitat loss imperils species both locally and globally, so protection of intact habitat is critical for slowing the rate of biodiversity decline. Globally, more than 150,000 protected areas have been designated with a goal of protecting species and ecosystems, but whether they can continue to achieve this goal as human impacts escalate is unknown. Here we show that in South Asia, one of the world's major growth epicentres, the trajectory of habitat conversion rates inside protected areas is indistinguishable from that on unprotected lands, and habitat conversion rates do not decline following gazettement of a protected area. Moreover, a quarter of the land inside South Asia's protected areas is now classified as human modified. If the global community is to make significant progress towards the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi Target on protected areas, there is an urgent need both to substantially enhance management of these protected areas and to develop systematic conservation outside the formal protected area system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
United States 3 1%
Nepal 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Unknown 200 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 19%
Researcher 41 19%
Student > Master 39 18%
Student > Bachelor 20 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 5%
Other 30 14%
Unknown 34 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 75 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 67 31%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 12 6%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 1%
Other 8 4%
Unknown 45 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 18 September 2013.
All research outputs
#6,392,477
of 22,711,645 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#76,686
of 193,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,176
of 194,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,611
of 4,744 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,711,645 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,916 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. 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 194,691 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,744 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 64% of its contemporaries.