↓ Skip to main content

Facilitating Access to Biodiversity Information: A Survey of Users’ Needs and Practices

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Facilitating Access to Biodiversity Information: A Survey of Users’ Needs and Practices
Published in
Environmental Management, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00267-014-0229-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miriam L. E. Steiner Davis, Carol Tenopir, Suzie Allard, Michael T. Frame

Abstract

Biodiversity information is essential for understanding and managing the environment. However, identifying and providing the forms and types of biodiversity information most needed for research and decision-making is a significant challenge. While research needs and data gaps within particular topics or regions have received substantial attention, other information aspects such as data formats, sources, metadata, and information tools have received little. Focusing on the US southeast, a region of global biodiversity importance, this paper assesses the biodiversity information needs of environmental researchers, managers, and decision makers. Survey results of biodiversity information users' information needs, information-seeking behaviors and preferred information source attributes support previous conclusions that useful biodiversity information must be easily and quickly accessible, available in forms that allow integration and visualization and appropriately matched to users' needs. Survey results concerning additional information aspects suggest successful participation in both the creation and provision of biodiversity information include an increased focus on information search and other tools for data management, discovery, and description.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Indonesia 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Finland 1 2%
Unknown 51 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Student > Master 10 18%
Researcher 9 16%
Librarian 7 13%
Other 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 6 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 11 20%
Computer Science 10 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 16%
Environmental Science 6 11%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 8 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 January 2014.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#1,653
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,762
of 320,064 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#26
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 320,064 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.