↓ Skip to main content

A conservation planning approach to mitigate the impacts of leakage from protected area networks

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 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
A conservation planning approach to mitigate the impacts of leakage from protected area networks
Published in
Conservation Biology, December 2014
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12434
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Bode, Ayesha I. T. Tulloch, Morena Mills, Oscar Venter, Amy W. Ando

Abstract

Protected area networks are designed to restrict anthropogenic pressures in areas of high biodiversity. Resource users respond by seeking to replace some or all of the lost resources from locations elsewhere in the landscape. Protected area networks thereby perturb the pattern of human pressures by displacing extractive effort from within protected areas into the broader landscape, a process known as leakage. The negative effects of leakage on conservation outcomes have been empirically documented and modeled using homogeneous descriptions of conservation landscapes. Human resource use and biodiversity vary greatly in space, however, and a theory of leakage must describe how this heterogeneity affects the magnitude, pattern, and biodiversity impacts of leakage. We combined models of household utility, adaptive human foraging, and biodiversity conservation to provide a bioeconomic model of leakage that accounts for spatial heterogeneity. Leakage had strong and divergent impacts on the performance of protected area networks, undermining biodiversity benefits but mitigating the negative impacts on local resource users. When leakage was present, our model showed that poorly designed protected area networks resulted in a substantial net loss of biodiversity. However, the effects of leakage can be mitigated if they are incorporated ex-ante into the conservation planning process. If protected areas are coupled with nonreserve policy instruments such as market subsidies, our model shows that the trade-offs between biodiversity and human well-being can be further and more directly reduced.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Italy 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Unknown 113 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 21%
Researcher 23 19%
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 22 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 44 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 24%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 3%
Unspecified 4 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 29 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 December 2014.
All research outputs
#14,277,392
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#3,493
of 4,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,556
of 368,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#48
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 368,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.