↓ Skip to main content

Understanding Human–Landscape Interactions in the “Anthropocene”

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
238 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Understanding Human–Landscape Interactions in the “Anthropocene”
Published in
Environmental Management, June 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00267-013-0082-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carol P. Harden, Anne Chin, Mary R. English, Rong Fu, Kathleen A. Galvin, Andrea K. Gerlak, Patricia F. McDowell, Dylan E. McNamara, Jeffrey M. Peterson, N. LeRoy Poff, Eugene A. Rosa, William D. Solecki, Ellen E. Wohl

Abstract

This article summarizes the primary outcomes of an interdisciplinary workshop in 2010, sponsored by the U.S. National Science Foundation, focused on developing key questions and integrative themes for advancing the science of human-landscape systems. The workshop was a response to a grand challenge identified recently by the U.S. National Research Council (2010a)--"How will Earth's surface evolve in the "Anthropocene?"--suggesting that new theories and methodological approaches are needed to tackle increasingly complex human-landscape interactions in the new era. A new science of human-landscape systems recognizes the interdependence of hydro-geomorphological, ecological, and human processes and functions. Advances within a range of disciplines spanning the physical, biological, and social sciences are therefore needed to contribute toward interdisciplinary research that lies at the heart of the science. Four integrative research themes were identified--thresholds/tipping points, time scales and time lags, spatial scales and boundaries, and feedback loops--serving as potential focal points around which theory can be built for human-landscape systems. Implementing the integrative themes requires that the research communities: (1) establish common metrics to describe and quantify human, biological, and geomorphological systems; (2) develop new ways to integrate diverse data and methods; and (3) focus on synthesis, generalization, and meta-analyses, as individual case studies continue to accumulate. Challenges to meeting these needs center on effective communication and collaboration across diverse disciplines spanning the natural and social scientific divide. Creating venues and mechanisms for sustained focused interdisciplinary collaborations, such as synthesis centers, becomes extraordinarily important for advancing the science.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 2%
Brazil 3 1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 223 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 59 25%
Researcher 40 17%
Student > Master 30 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 6%
Student > Bachelor 12 5%
Other 43 18%
Unknown 39 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 63 26%
Social Sciences 34 14%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 23 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 9%
Engineering 15 6%
Other 35 15%
Unknown 46 19%
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 07 April 2014.
All research outputs
#20,657,128
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#1,653
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,372
of 209,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#23
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 209,401 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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.