| Title |
Presenting Triple-Wins? Assessing Projects That Deliver Adaptation, Mitigation and Development Co-benefits in Rural Sub-Saharan Africa
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-014-0520-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Natalie Suckall, Lindsay C. Stringer, Emma L. Tompkins |
| Abstract |
The concept of climate compatible development (CCD) is increasingly employed by donors and policy makers seeking 'triple-wins' for development, adaptation and mitigation. While CCD rhetoric is becoming more widespread, analyses drawing on empirical cases that present triple-wins are sorely lacking. We address this knowledge gap. Drawing on examples in rural sub-Saharan Africa, we provide the first glimpse into how projects that demonstrate triple-win potential are framed and presented within the scientific literature. We identify that development projects are still commonly evaluated in terms of adaptation or mitigation benefits. Few are framed according to their benefits across all three dimensions. Consequently, where triple-wins are occurring, they are likely to be under-reported. This has important implications, which underestimates the co-benefits that projects can deliver. A more robust academic evidence base for the delivery of triple-wins is necessary to encourage continued donor investment in activities offering the potential to deliver CCD. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ethiopia | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Ghana | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 174 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 30 | 17% |
| Researcher | 27 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 10% |
| Other | 12 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 37 | 21% |
| Unknown | 43 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 47 | 26% |
| Social Sciences | 23 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 7% |
| Engineering | 7 | 4% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 28 | 16% |
| Unknown | 53 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 24 May 2022.
All research outputs
#3,425,147
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#662
of 1,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,045
of 243,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#13
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,981 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 243,449 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.