↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, April 2008
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
143 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
384 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Cost-effective global conservation spending is robust to taxonomic group
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, April 2008
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0710705105
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael Bode, Kerrie A. Wilson, Thomas M. Brooks, Will R. Turner, Russell A. Mittermeier, Marissa F. McBride, Emma C. Underwood, Hugh P. Possingham

Abstract

Priorities for conservation investment at a global scale that are based on a single taxon have been criticized because geographic richness patterns vary taxonomically. However, these concerns focused only on biodiversity patterns and did not consider the importance of socioeconomic factors, which must also be included if conservation funding is to be allocated efficiently. In this article, we create efficient global funding schedules that use information about conservation costs, predicted habitat loss rates, and the endemicity of seven different taxonomic groups. We discover that these funding allocation schedules are less sensitive to variation in taxon assessed than to variation in cost and threat. Two-thirds of funding is allocated to the same regions regardless of the taxon, compared with only one-fifth if threat and cost are not included in allocation decisions. Hence, if socioeconomic factors are considered, we can be more confident about global-scale decisions guided by single taxonomic groups.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 13 3%
Australia 10 3%
United States 8 2%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Italy 3 <1%
Finland 3 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Other 8 2%
Unknown 329 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 99 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 71 18%
Student > Master 53 14%
Professor 31 8%
Student > Bachelor 26 7%
Other 78 20%
Unknown 26 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 163 42%
Environmental Science 139 36%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 12 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 2%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 1%
Other 14 4%
Unknown 46 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 08 May 2014.
All research outputs
#2,172,844
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#26,034
of 104,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,543
of 92,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#82
of 508 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 104,451 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 92,891 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 508 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.