↓ Skip to main content

Measuring impact of protected area management interventions: current and future use of the Global Database of Protected Area Management Effectiveness

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, November 2015
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
172 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
519 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
Measuring impact of protected area management interventions: current and future use of the Global Database of Protected Area Management Effectiveness
Published in
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, November 2015
DOI 10.1098/rstb.2014.0281
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren Coad, Fiona Leverington, Kathryn Knights, Jonas Geldmann, April Eassom, Valerie Kapos, Naomi Kingston, Marcelo de Lima, Camilo Zamora, Ivon Cuardros, Christoph Nolte, Neil D. Burgess, Marc Hockings

Abstract

Protected areas (PAs) are at the forefront of conservation efforts, and yet despite considerable progress towards the global target of having 17% of the world's land area within protected areas by 2020, biodiversity continues to decline. The discrepancy between increasing PA coverage and negative biodiversity trends has resulted in renewed efforts to enhance PA effectiveness. The global conservation community has conducted thousands of assessments of protected area management effectiveness (PAME), and interest in the use of these data to help measure the conservation impact of PA management interventions is high. Here, we summarize the status of PAME assessment, review the published evidence for a link between PAME assessment results and the conservation impacts of PAs, and discuss the limitations and future use of PAME data in measuring the impact of PA management interventions on conservation outcomes. We conclude that PAME data, while designed as a tool for local adaptive management, may also help to provide insights into the impact of PA management interventions from the local-to-global scale. However, the subjective and ordinal characteristics of the data present significant limitations for their application in rigorous scientific impact evaluations, a problem that should be recognized and mitigated where possible.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 519 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Unknown 507 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 102 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 96 18%
Researcher 84 16%
Student > Bachelor 34 7%
Other 26 5%
Other 78 15%
Unknown 99 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 199 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 117 23%
Social Sciences 22 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 22 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 <1%
Other 30 6%
Unknown 124 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 01 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,471,339
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#1,297
of 7,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,781
of 296,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
#27
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,096 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 296,925 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.