↓ Skip to main content

Minimizing the Cost of Keeping Options Open for Conservation in a Changing Climate

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Minimizing the Cost of Keeping Options Open for Conservation in a Changing Climate
Published in
Conservation Biology, January 2014
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12238
Pubmed ID
Authors

MORENA MILLS, SAM NICOL, JESSIE A. WELLS, JOSÉ J. LAHOZ‐MONFORT, BRENDAN WINTLE, MICHAEL BODE, MARTIN WARDROP, TERRY WALSHE, WILLIAM J. M. PROBERT, MICHAEL C. RUNGE, HUGH P. POSSINGHAM, EVE MCDONALD MADDEN

Abstract

Policy documents advocate that managers should keep their options open while planning to protect coastal ecosystems from climate-change impacts. However, the actual costs and benefits of maintaining flexibility remain largely unexplored, and alternative approaches for decision making under uncertainty may lead to better joint outcomes for conservation and other societal goals. For example, keeping options open for coastal ecosystems incurs opportunity costs for developers. We devised a decision framework that integrates these costs and benefits with probabilistic forecasts for the extent of sea-level rise to find a balance between coastal ecosystem protection and moderate coastal development. Here, we suggest that instead of keeping their options open managers should incorporate uncertain sea-level rise predictions into a decision-making framework that evaluates the benefits and costs of conservation and development. In our example, based on plausible scenarios for sea-level rise and assuming a risk-neutral decision maker, we found that substantial development could be accommodated with negligible loss of environmental assets. Characterization of the Pareto efficiency of conservation and development outcomes provides valuable insight into the intensity of trade-offs between development and conservation. However, additional work is required to improve understanding of the consequences of alternative spatial plans and the value judgments and risk preferences of decision makers and stakeholders. Minimizando el Costo de Mantener Opciones Abiertas para la Conservación en un Clima Cambiante.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 5%
Brazil 3 4%
Australia 2 2%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Greece 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 70 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 18%
Student > Master 11 13%
Professor 4 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 31 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 25%
Decision Sciences 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 9 11%
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 06 March 2014.
All research outputs
#16,699,002
of 24,558,777 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#3,658
of 3,965 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,767
of 319,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#66
of 69 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,558,777 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,965 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 319,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 69 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.