| Title |
Digital technology and the conservation of nature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Ambio, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13280-015-0705-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Koen Arts, René van der Wal, William M. Adams |
| Abstract |
Digital technology is changing nature conservation in increasingly profound ways. We describe this impact and its significance through the concept of 'digital conservation', which we found to comprise five pivotal dimensions: data on nature, data on people, data integration and analysis, communication and experience, and participatory governance. Examining digital innovation in nature conservation and addressing how its development, implementation and diffusion may be steered, we warn against hypes, techno-fix thinking, good news narratives and unverified assumptions. We identify a need for rigorous evaluation, more comprehensive consideration of social exclusion, frameworks for regulation and increased multi-sector as well as multi-discipline awareness and cooperation. Along the way, digital technology may best be reconceptualised by conservationists from something that is either good or bad, to a dual-faced force in need of guidance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 40% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 13% |
| Philippines | 1 | 7% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Finland | 1 | 7% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 73% |
| Scientists | 3 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 712 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 699 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 140 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 110 | 15% |
| Researcher | 79 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 64 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 30 | 4% |
| Other | 133 | 19% |
| Unknown | 156 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 142 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 102 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 81 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 45 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 30 | 4% |
| Other | 123 | 17% |
| Unknown | 189 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 03 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,110,363
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#169
of 1,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,456
of 298,592 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#4
of 28 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 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,954 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 298,592 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 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.