↓ Skip to main content

How Much Does it Cost to Expand a Protected Area System? Some Critical Determining Factors and Ranges of Costs for Queensland

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How Much Does it Cost to Expand a Protected Area System? Some Critical Determining Factors and Ranges of Costs for Queensland
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0025447
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vanessa M. Adams, Daniel B. Segan, Robert L. Pressey

Abstract

Many governments have recently gone on record promising large-scale expansions of protected areas to meet global commitments such as the Convention on Biological Diversity. As systems of protected areas are expanded to be more comprehensive, they are more likely to be implemented if planners have realistic budget estimates so that appropriate funding can be requested. Estimating financial budgets a priori must acknowledge the inherent uncertainties and assumptions associated with key parameters, so planners should recognize these uncertainties by estimating ranges of potential costs. We explore the challenge of budgeting a priori for protected area expansion in the face of uncertainty, specifically considering the future expansion of protected areas in Queensland, Australia. The government has committed to adding ∼12 million ha to the reserve system, bringing the total area protected to 20 million ha by 2020. We used Marxan to estimate the costs of potential reserve designs with data on actual land value, market value, transaction costs, and land tenure. With scenarios, we explored three sources of budget variability: size of biodiversity objectives; subdivision of properties; and legal acquisition routes varying with tenure. Depending on the assumptions made, our budget estimates ranged from $214 million to $2.9 billion. Estimates were most sensitive to assumptions made about legal acquisition routes for leasehold land. Unexpected costs (costs encountered by planners when real-world costs deviate from assumed costs) responded non-linearly to inability to subdivide and percentage purchase of private land. A financially conservative approach--one that safeguards against large cost increases while allowing for potential financial windfalls--would involve less optimistic assumptions about acquisition and subdivision to allow Marxan to avoid expensive properties where possible while meeting conservation objectives. We demonstrate how a rigorous analysis can inform discussions about the expansion of systems of protected areas, including the identification of factors that influence budget variability.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
South Africa 2 2%
United States 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
France 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 102 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Student > Master 16 14%
Other 11 10%
Professor 8 7%
Other 18 16%
Unknown 15 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 41 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 33%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Linguistics 2 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 21 19%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 September 2011.
All research outputs
#14,137,641
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#115,452
of 193,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,309
of 131,733 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,478
of 2,559 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 131,733 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,559 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.