| Title |
Introducing and evaluating a knowledge transfer approach to support problem solving in and around protected areas
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-018-1048-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brady J. Mattsson, Marie Fischborn, Mark Brunson, Harald Vacik |
| Abstract |
Protected areas (PAs) can generate many benefits inside and outside their borders, and achieving objectives for diverse stakeholders raises many challenges. There are many examples of successful PA management around the globe, although a systematic and comprehensive approach to developing and sharing these solutions has been lacking. We present "solutioning" as a structured process of peer-learning, which can inform management strategies in and around protected areas. We explain how the PANORAMA-Solutions for a Healthy Planet initiative has put solutioning into practice through an interactive community and web portal to learn about protected area solutions around the globe. Unlike other web platforms and initiatives reviewed, PANORAMA facilitates adaptation of solution elements (i.e., building blocks) for novel implementation. Supported by theories of resilience and peer-learning, PANORAMA appears to have potential to promote efficiency and equitable benefits for PAs and associated stakeholders focused on nature conservation and sustainable development, although further research is needed to assess whether this learning leads to better solutions or more effective PA management. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Austria | 1 | 33% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 17% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 11 | 18% |
| Unknown | 17 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 13 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 20 | 33% |
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 16 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,070,764
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,311
of 1,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,725
of 329,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#19
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 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 1,635 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 329,466 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 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.