↓ Skip to main content

Incorporating Conservation Zone Effectiveness for Protecting Biodiversity in Marine Planning

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 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
Incorporating Conservation Zone Effectiveness for Protecting Biodiversity in Marine Planning
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0078986
Pubmed ID
Authors

Azusa Makino, Carissa J. Klein, Maria Beger, Stacy D. Jupiter, Hugh P. Possingham

Abstract

Establishing different types of conservation zones is becoming commonplace. However, spatial prioritization methods that can accommodate multiple zones are poorly understood in theory and application. It is typically assumed that management regulations across zones have differential levels of effectiveness ("zone effectiveness") for biodiversity protection, but the influence of zone effectiveness on achieving conservation targets has not yet been explored. Here, we consider the zone effectiveness of three zones: permanent closure, partial protection, and open, for planning for the protection of five different marine habitats in the Vatu-i-Ra Seascape, Fiji. We explore the impact of differential zone effectiveness on the location and costs of conservation priorities. We assume that permanent closure zones are fully effective at protecting all habitats, open zones do not contribute towards the conservation targets and partial protection zones lie between these two extremes. We use four different estimates for zone effectiveness and three different estimates for zone cost of the partial protection zone. To enhance the practical utility of the approach, we also explore how much of each traditional fishing ground can remain open for fishing while still achieving conservation targets. Our results show that all of the high priority areas for permanent closure zones would not be a high priority when the zone effectiveness of the partial protection zone is equal to that of permanent closure zones. When differential zone effectiveness and costs are considered, the resulting marine protected area network consequently increases in size, with more area allocated to permanent closure zones to meet conservation targets. By distributing the loss of fishing opportunity equitably among local communities, we find that 84-88% of each traditional fishing ground can be left open while still meeting conservation targets. Finally, we summarize the steps for developing marine zoning that accounts for zone effectiveness.

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 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 4 3%
United States 3 2%
Indonesia 2 1%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
American Samoa 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 119 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 36 26%
Student > Master 30 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 13%
Other 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 11 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 66 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 29%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 10 7%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 1%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 14 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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
#4,023,060
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#57,173
of 194,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,139
of 214,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,182
of 5,158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 214,638 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,158 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.