↓ Skip to main content

A Quantitative Review of Urban Ecosystem Service Assessments: Concepts, Models, and Implementation

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, 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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
5 policy sources
twitter
10 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
769 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1438 Mendeley
Title
A Quantitative Review of Urban Ecosystem Service Assessments: Concepts, Models, and Implementation
Published in
Ambio, April 2014
DOI 10.1007/s13280-014-0504-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dagmar Haase, Neele Larondelle, Erik Andersson, Martina Artmann, Sara Borgström, Jürgen Breuste, Erik Gomez-Baggethun, Åsa Gren, Zoé Hamstead, Rieke Hansen, Nadja Kabisch, Peleg Kremer, Johannes Langemeyer, Emily Lorance Rall, Timon McPhearson, Stephan Pauleit, Salman Qureshi, Nina Schwarz, Annette Voigt, Daniel Wurster, Thomas Elmqvist

Abstract

Although a number of comprehensive reviews have examined global ecosystem services (ES), few have focused on studies that assess urban ecosystem services (UES). Given that more than half of the world's population lives in cities, understanding the dualism of the provision of and need for UES is of critical importance. Which UES are the focus of research, and what types of urban land use are examined? Are models or decision support systems used to assess the provision of UES? Are trade-offs considered? Do studies of UES engage stakeholders? To address these questions, we analyzed 217 papers derived from an ISI Web of Knowledge search using a set of standardized criteria. The results indicate that most UES studies have been undertaken in Europe, North America, and China, at city scale. Assessment methods involve bio-physical models, Geographical Information Systems, and valuation, but few study findings have been implemented as land use policy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 1,438 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 7 <1%
United States 5 <1%
Germany 4 <1%
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
Other 9 <1%
Unknown 1399 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 272 19%
Student > Master 245 17%
Researcher 219 15%
Student > Bachelor 109 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 76 5%
Other 226 16%
Unknown 291 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 530 37%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 144 10%
Social Sciences 76 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 64 4%
Engineering 63 4%
Other 160 11%
Unknown 401 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,553,971
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#263
of 1,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,965
of 240,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#5
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,954 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 240,598 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 93% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.