↓ Skip to main content

Info-Gap Decision Theory for Assessing the Management of Catchments for Timber Production and Urban Water Supply

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, February 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Info-Gap Decision Theory for Assessing the Management of Catchments for Timber Production and Urban Water Supply
Published in
Environmental Management, February 2007
DOI 10.1007/s00267-006-0022-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael A. McCarthy, David B. Lindenmayer

Abstract

While previous studies have examined how forest management is influenced by the risk of fire, they rely on probabilistic estimates of the occurrence and impacts of fire. However, nonprobabilistic approaches are required for assessing the importance of fire risk when data are poor but risks are appreciable. We explore impacts of fire risk on forest management using as a case study a water catchment in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) (southeastern Australia). In this forested area, urban water supply and timber yields from exotic plantations are potential joint but also competing land uses. Our analyses were stimulated by extensive wildfires in early 2003 that burned much of the existing exotic pine plantation estate in the water catchment and the resulting need to explore the relative economic benefits of revegetating the catchment with exotic plantations or native vegetation. The current mean fire interval in the ACT is approximately 40 years, making the establishment of a pine plantation economically marginal at a 4% discount rate. However, the relative impact on water yield of revegetation with native species and pines is very uncertain, as is the risk of fire under climate change. We use info-gap decision theory to account for these nonprobabilistic sources of uncertainty, demonstrating that the decision that is most robust to uncertainty is highly sensitive to the cost of native revegetation. If costs of native revegetation are sufficiently small, this option is more robust to uncertainty than revegetation with a commercial pine plantation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 4 5%
Unknown 74 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 12%
Student > Master 8 10%
Other 4 5%
Other 13 17%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 22 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 18%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 6%
Engineering 5 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 5%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 16 21%
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 03 October 2010.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#737
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,880
of 92,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#4
of 10 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 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 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 92,232 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.