↓ Skip to main content

Influence of a Threatened‐Species Focus on Conservation Planning

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, March 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Influence of a Threatened‐Species Focus on Conservation Planning
Published in
Conservation Biology, March 2010
DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01346.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

SIMON P. DRUMMOND, KERRIE A. WILSON, ERIK MEIJAARD, MATTHEW WATTS, RONA DENNIS, LENNY CHRISTY, HUGH P. POSSINGHAM

Abstract

Conservation efforts at local, regional, and global scales often focus on threatened species despite recent calls to adopt more equitable and potentially more economically rational approaches. Critics contend that conservation planning centered only on threatened species fails to deliver cost-efficient conservation outcomes. We explored how planning to preserve threatened mammal species would influence the efficiency and effectiveness of conservation investments in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. We found that the explicit protection of threatened species delivered cost-efficient outcomes in this situation, afforded adequate protection to over 90% of those species not yet considered endangered, and contributed to the partial protection of the remainder. We used Marxan, a conservation planning tool, to determine the frequency that planning units are selected in efficient reserve systems and assessed the relative risk of deforestation of each planning unit. Our methods allowed us to identify areas of the region that require the most urgent conservation action.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 116 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 14%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Unspecified 4 3%
Student > Bachelor 3 3%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 68 58%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 27 23%
Environmental Science 16 14%
Unspecified 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 <1%
Social Sciences 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 69 58%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 October 2009.
All research outputs
#6,309,401
of 24,717,821 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#2,296
of 3,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,355
of 98,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#32
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,821 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 98,992 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.