↓ Skip to main content

Impediments to the Success of Management Actions for Species Recovery

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, April 2014
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Impediments to the Success of Management Actions for Species Recovery
Published in
PLOS ONE, April 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0092430
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chooi Fei Ng, Hugh P. Possingham, Clive A. McAlpine, Deidré L. de Villiers, Harriet J. Preece, Jonathan R. Rhodes

Abstract

Finding cost-effective management strategies to recover species declining due to multiple threats is challenging, especially when there are limited resources. Recent studies offer insights into how costs and threats can influence the best choice of management actions. However, when implementing management actions in the real-world, a range of impediments to management success often exist that can be driven by social, technological and land-use factors. These impediments may limit the extent to which we can achieve recovery objectives and influence the optimal choice of management actions. Nonetheless, the implications of these impediments are not well understood, especially for recovery planning involving multiple actions. We used decision theory to assess the impact of these types of impediments for allocating resources among recovery actions to mitigate multiple threats. We applied this to a declining koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) population threatened by habitat loss, vehicle collisions, dog attacks and disease. We found that the unwillingness of dog owners to restrain their dogs at night (a social impediment), the effectiveness of wildlife crossings to reduce vehicle collisions (a technological impediment) and the unavailability of areas for restoration (a land-use impediment) significantly reduced the effectiveness of our actions. In the presence of these impediments, achieving successful recovery may be unlikely. Further, these impediments influenced the optimal choice of recovery actions, but the extent to which this was true depended on the target koala population growth rate. Given that species recovery is an important strategy for preserving biodiversity, it is critical that we consider how impediments to the success of recovery actions modify our choice of actions. In some cases, it may also be worth considering whether investing in reducing or removing impediments may be a cost-effective course of action.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 3%
Colombia 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 63 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Professor 5 7%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 25 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 27%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 14 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 05 July 2016.
All research outputs
#1,962,930
of 25,378,162 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#24,094
of 220,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,465
of 238,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#657
of 5,408 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,378,162 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 220,591 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 238,388 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 5,408 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.