↓ Skip to main content

Conservation Planning with Multiple Organizations and Objectives

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, December 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 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
Conservation Planning with Multiple Organizations and Objectives
Published in
Conservation Biology, December 2010
DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01610.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

MICHAEL BODE, WILL PROBERT, WILL R. TURNER, KERRIE A. WILSON, OSCAR VENTER

Abstract

There has been a dramatic increase in the number of conservation organizations worldwide. It is now common for multiple organizations to operate in the same landscape in pursuit of different conservation goals. New objectives, such as maintenance of ecosystem services, will attract additional funding and new organizations to conservation. Systematic conservation planning helps in the design of spatially explicit management actions that optimally conserve multiple landscape features (e.g., species, ecosystems, or ecosystem services). But the methods used in its application implicitly assume that a single actor implements the optimal plan. We investigated how organizational behavior and conservation outcomes are affected by the presence of autonomous implementing organizations with different objectives. We used simulation models and game theory to explore how alternative behaviors (e.g., organizations acting independently or explicitly cooperating) affected an organization's ability to protect their feature of interest, and investigated how the distribution of features in the landscape influenced organizations' attitudes toward cooperation. Features with highly correlated spatial distributions, although typically considered an opportunity for mutually beneficial conservation planning, can lead to organizational interactions that result in lower levels of protection. These detrimental outcomes can be avoided by organizations that cooperate when acquiring land. Nevertheless, for cooperative purchases to benefit both organizations' objectives, each must forgo the protection of land parcels that they would consider to be of high conservation value. Transaction costs incurred during cooperation and the sources of conservation funding could facilitate or hinder cooperative behavior.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
New Zealand 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 76 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 6 8%
Student > Master 5 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 45 56%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 17 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 18%
Chemical Engineering 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 44 55%
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 23 March 2011.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#3,742
of 4,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,972
of 190,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#29
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,051 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.1. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 190,253 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.