↓ Skip to main content

Deriving Multiple Benefits from Carbon Market-Based Savanna Fire Management: An Australian Example

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 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
Deriving Multiple Benefits from Carbon Market-Based Savanna Fire Management: An Australian Example
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2015
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0143426
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy Russell-Smith, Cameron P. Yates, Andrew C. Edwards, Peter J. Whitehead, Brett P. Murphy, Michael J. Lawes

Abstract

Carbon markets afford potentially useful opportunities for supporting socially and environmentally sustainable land management programs but, to date, have been little applied in globally significant fire-prone savanna settings. While fire is intrinsic to regulating the composition, structure and dynamics of savanna systems, in north Australian savannas frequent and extensive late dry season wildfires incur significant environmental, production and social impacts. Here we assess the potential of market-based savanna burning greenhouse gas emissions abatement and allied carbon biosequestration projects to deliver compatible environmental and broader socio-economic benefits in a highly biodiverse north Australian setting. Drawing on extensive regional ecological knowledge of fire regime effects on fire-vulnerable taxa and communities, we compare three fire regime metrics (seasonal fire frequency, proportion of long-unburnt vegetation, fire patch-size distribution) over a 15-year period for three national parks with an indigenously (Aboriginal) owned and managed market-based emissions abatement enterprise. Our assessment indicates improved fire management outcomes under the emissions abatement program, and mostly little change or declining outcomes on the parks. We attribute improved outcomes and putative biodiversity benefits under the abatement program to enhanced strategic management made possible by the market-based mitigation arrangement. For these same sites we estimate quanta of carbon credits that could be delivered under realistic enhanced fire management practice, using currently available and developing accredited Australian savanna burning accounting methods. We conclude that, in appropriate situations, market-based savanna burning activities can provide transformative climate change mitigation, ecosystem health, and community benefits in northern Australia, and, despite significant challenges, potentially in other fire-prone savanna settings.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 140 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 14%
Researcher 18 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 44 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 34 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 18%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 3%
Arts and Humanities 4 3%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 47 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 July 2022.
All research outputs
#2,973,129
of 24,394,820 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#37,451
of 210,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,765
of 396,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#761
of 4,902 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,394,820 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 210,420 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. 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 396,936 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,902 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.