↓ Skip to main content

Delaying conservation actions for improved knowledge: how long should we wait?

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology Letters, March 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
1 X user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
149 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
361 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Delaying conservation actions for improved knowledge: how long should we wait?
Published in
Ecology Letters, March 2009
DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01287.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hedley S. Grantham, Kerrie A. Wilson, Atte Moilanen, Tony Rebelo, Hugh P. Possingham

Abstract

Decisions about where conservation actions are implemented are based on incomplete knowledge about biodiversity. The Protea Atlas is a comprehensive database, containing information collated over a decade. Using this data set in a series of retrospective simulations, we compared the outcome from different scenarios of information gain, and habitat protection and loss, over a 20-year period. We assumed that there was no information on proteas at the beginning of the simulation but knowledge improved each year. Our aim was to find out how much time we should spend collecting data before protecting habitat when there is ongoing loss of habitat. We found that, in this case, surveying for more than 2 years rarely increased the effectiveness of conservation decisions in terms of representation of proteas in protected areas and retention within the landscape. If the delay is too long, it can sometimes be more effective just using a readily available habitat map. These results reveal the opportunity costs of delaying conservation action to improve knowledge.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 361 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 11 3%
United States 7 2%
Australia 5 1%
United Kingdom 5 1%
Finland 4 1%
Germany 3 <1%
South Africa 3 <1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
India 2 <1%
Other 16 4%
Unknown 303 84%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 138 38%
Student > Ph. D. Student 68 19%
Student > Master 35 10%
Other 23 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 19 5%
Other 56 16%
Unknown 22 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 164 45%
Environmental Science 126 35%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 8 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 7 2%
Mathematics 2 <1%
Other 13 4%
Unknown 41 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 26 August 2015.
All research outputs
#1,953,068
of 24,862,067 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#1,130
of 3,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,713
of 104,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#5
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,862,067 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,063 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 104,108 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.