↓ Skip to main content

Bolder science needed now for protected areas

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
88 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
150 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
458 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
Bolder science needed now for protected areas
Published in
Conservation Biology, January 2016
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12645
Pubmed ID
Authors

James E M Watson, Emily S Darling, Oscar Venter, Martine Maron, Joe Walston, Hugh P Possingham, Nigel Dudley, Marc Hockings, Megan Barnes, Thomas M Brooks

Abstract

Recognising that protected areas (PAs) are essential for effective biodiversity conservation action, the Convention on Biological Diversity established ambitious PA targets as part of the 2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. Under the strategic goal to "improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity", Target 11 aims to put 17% of terrestrial and 10% of marine regions under PA status by 2020. Additionally and crucially, these areas are required to be of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected, and to include "other effective area-based conservation measures" (OECMs). While the area-based targets are explicit and measurable, the lack of guidance for what (i) "important" and "representative"; (ii) "effective"; and (iii) OECMs means is affecting how nations are implementing the target. There is a real risk that Target 11 may be achieved in terms of area while failing the overall strategic goal for which it is established, because the areas are poorly located, inadequately managed, or based on unjustifiable inclusion of OECMs. We argue that the conservation science community can help: (i) establish ecologically-sensible PA targets to help prioritize important biodiversity areas and achieve ecological representation; (ii) identify clear, comparable performance metrics of ecological effectiveness so we can assess progress toward these targets; and (iii) identify metrics and report on the contribution OECMs make towards the target. By providing ecologically-sensible targets and new performance metrics for measuring the effectiveness of both PAs and OECMs, the science community can actively ensure that the achievement of the required area in Target 11 is not simply an end in itself, but generates genuine benefits for biodiversity. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 88 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 458 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 <1%
Italy 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 436 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 93 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 85 19%
Student > Master 83 18%
Student > Bachelor 38 8%
Other 26 6%
Other 68 15%
Unknown 65 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 172 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 146 32%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 14 3%
Social Sciences 13 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 <1%
Other 17 4%
Unknown 92 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 105. 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 28 September 2016.
All research outputs
#408,954
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#198
of 4,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,045
of 405,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#7
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,153 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 405,963 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.