| Title |
Environmental Performance Information Use by Conservation Agency Staff
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Environmental Management, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00267-017-0990-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chloe Bradley Wardropper |
| Abstract |
Performance-based conservation has long been recognized as crucial to improving program effectiveness, particularly when environmental conditions are dynamic. Yet few studies have investigated the use of environmental performance information by staff of conservation organizations. This article identifies attitudinal, policy and organizational factors influencing the use of a type of performance information-water quality information-by Soil and Water Conservation District staff in the Upper Mississippi River Basin region. An online survey (n = 277) revealed a number of important variables associated with greater information use. Variables included employees' prosocial motivation, or the belief that they helped people and natural resources through their job, the perceived trustworthiness of data, the presence of a U.S. Clean Water Act Total Maximum Daily Load standard designation, and staff discretion to prioritize programs locally. Conservation programs that retain motivated staff and provide them the resources and flexibility to plan and evaluate their work with environmental data may increase conservation effectiveness under changing conditions. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 23% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 17% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 13% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 27% |
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 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,523,434
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#1,373
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,026
of 450,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#15
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 450,934 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.