↓ Skip to main content

Digital innovation through partnership between nature conservation organisations and academia: A qualitative impact assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
Title
Digital innovation through partnership between nature conservation organisations and academia: A qualitative impact assessment
Published in
Ambio, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13280-015-0704-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos Galán-Díaz, Peter Edwards, John D. Nelson, René van der Wal

Abstract

Nature conservation organisations increasingly turn to new digital technologies to help deliver conservation objectives. This has led to collaborative forms of working with academia to spearhead digital innovation. Through in-depth interviews with three UK research-council-funded case studies, we show that by working with academics conservation organisations can receive positive and negative impacts, some of which cut across their operations. Positive impacts include new ways of engaging with audiences, improved data workflows, financial benefits, capacity building and the necessary digital infrastructure to help them influence policy. Negative impacts include the time and resources required to learn new skills and sustain new technologies, managing different organisational objectives and shifts in working practices as a result of the new technologies. Most importantly, collaboration with academics was shown to bring the opportunity of a profound change in perspectives on technologies with benefits to the partner organisations and individuals therein.

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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 113 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 17%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Lecturer 7 6%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 18 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 27 23%
Business, Management and Accounting 14 12%
Social Sciences 14 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 11%
Engineering 7 6%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 21 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 November 2015.
All research outputs
#15,349,419
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,434
of 1,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,821
of 284,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#26
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 284,522 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.