↓ Skip to main content

Priority Questions and Horizon Scanning for Conservation: A Comparative Study

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
Priority Questions and Horizon Scanning for Conservation: A Comparative Study
Published in
PLOS ONE, January 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0145978
Pubmed ID
Authors

Salit Kark, William J. Sutherland, Uri Shanas, Keren Klass, Hila Achisar, Tamar Dayan, Yael Gavrieli, Ronit Justo-Hanani, Yael Mandelik, Nir Orion, David Pargament, Michelle Portman, Orna Reisman-Berman, Uriel N. Safriel, Gad Schaffer, Noa Steiner, Israel Tauber, Noam Levin

Abstract

Several projects aimed at identifying priority issues for conservation with high relevance to policy have recently been completed in several countries. Two major types of projects have been undertaken, aimed at identifying (i) policy-relevant questions most imperative to conservation and (ii) horizon scanning topics, defined as emerging issues that are expected to have substantial implications for biodiversity conservation and policy in the future. Here, we provide the first overview of the outcomes of biodiversity and conservation-oriented projects recently completed around the world using this framework. We also include the results of the first questions and horizon scanning project completed for a Mediterranean country. Overall, the outcomes of the different projects undertaken (at the global scale, in the UK, US, Canada, Switzerland and in Israel) were strongly correlated in terms of the proportion of questions and/or horizon scanning topics selected when comparing different topic areas. However, some major differences were found across regions. There was large variation among regions in the percentage of proactive (i.e. action and response oriented) versus descriptive (non-response oriented) priority questions and in the emphasis given to socio-political issues. Substantial differences were also found when comparing outcomes of priority questions versus horizon scanning projects undertaken for the same region. For example, issues related to climate change, human demography and marine ecosystems received higher priority as horizon scanning topics, while ecosystem services were more emphasized as current priority questions. We suggest that future initiatives aimed at identifying priority conservation questions and horizon scanning topics should allow simultaneous identification of both current and future priority issues, as presented here for the first time. We propose that further emphasis on social-political issues should be explicitly integrated into future related projects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Portugal 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Botswana 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Benin 1 <1%
Unknown 102 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 20%
Other 10 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 7%
Student > Master 8 7%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 16 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 37 34%
Environmental Science 27 25%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 23 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 February 2016.
All research outputs
#12,942,432
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#101,218
of 194,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,725
of 396,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,354
of 5,132 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,886 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 396,850 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,132 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 52% of its contemporaries.