| Title |
Efficient and resilient governance of social–ecological systems
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-014-0607-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Adam Erickson |
| Abstract |
New institutions are critically needed to improve the resilience of social-ecological systems globally. Watershed management offers an important model due to its ability to govern mixed-ownership landscapes through common property regimes, translating national goals into local action. Here, I assess the efficacy of state watershed management institutions in the Pacific Northwest, based on their ability to support local watershed groups. I use document analysis to describe and compare state institutions in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California. Results indicate that state institutional efficiency and resilience are the key factors determining watershed group activity and stability. The primary drivers of institutional efficiency and resilience were institutional unification, robust funding portfolios, low agency conflict, and strong support for economic multiplier effects, creative partnerships, and scholarly research. My findings elucidate the critical role of institutional efficiency and resilience in governing dynamic and complex social-ecological systems, enabling the flexibility to address emergent transformations. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 1% |
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 84 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 11% |
| Researcher | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 20 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 19 | 21% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 11% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 28 | 31% |
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 22 August 2019.
All research outputs
#14,831,131
of 25,918,104 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,678
of 1,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,785
of 363,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#28
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,918,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 363,853 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.