↓ Skip to main content

Managing climate change in conservation practice: an exploration of the science–management interface in beech forest management

Overview of attention for article published in Biodiversity and Conservation, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
Managing climate change in conservation practice: an exploration of the science–management interface in beech forest management
Published in
Biodiversity and Conservation, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10531-014-0781-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica de Koning, Esther Turnhout, Georg Winkel, Marieke Blondet, Lars Borras, Francesca Ferranti, Maria Geitzenauer, Metodi Sotirov, Alistair Jump

Abstract

Scientific studies reveal significant consequences of climate change for nature, from ecosystems to individual species. Such studies are important factors in policy decisions on forest conservation and management in Europe. However, while research has shown that climate change research start to impact on European conservation policies like Natura 2000, climate change information has yet to translate into management practices. This article contributes to the on-going debates about science-society relations and knowledge utilization by exploring and analysing the interface between scientific knowledge and forest management practice. We focus specifically on climate change debates in conservation policy and on how managers of forest areas in Europe perceive and use climate change ecology. Our findings show that forest managers do not necessarily deny the potential importance of climate change for their management practices, at least in the future, but have reservations about the current usefulness of available knowledge for their own areas and circumstances. This suggests that the science-management interface is not as politicized as current policy debates about climate change and that the use of climate change ecology is situated in practice. We conclude the article by discussing what forms of knowledge may enable responsible and future oriented management in practice focusing specifically on the role of reflexive experimentation and monitoring.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Indonesia 1 1%
France 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Unknown 68 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 19 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 25%
Social Sciences 10 14%
Computer Science 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 12 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 September 2014.
All research outputs
#15,630,207
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Biodiversity and Conservation
#1,849
of 2,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,093
of 239,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biodiversity and Conservation
#26
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 239,667 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.