↓ Skip to main content

Between-country collaboration and consideration of costs increase conservation planning efficiency in the Mediterranean Basin

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, September 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Citations

dimensions_citation
176 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
291 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
Between-country collaboration and consideration of costs increase conservation planning efficiency in the Mediterranean Basin
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, September 2009
DOI 10.1073/pnas.0901001106
Pubmed ID
Authors

Salit Kark, Noam Levin, Hedley S. Grantham, Hugh P. Possingham

Abstract

The importance of global and regional coordination in conservation is growing, although currently, the majority of conservation programs are applied at national and subnational scales. Nevertheless, multinational programs incur transaction costs and resources beyond what is required in national programs. Given the need to maximize returns on investment within limited conservation budgets, it is crucial to quantify how much more biodiversity can be protected by coordinating multinational conservation efforts when resources are fungible. Previous studies that compared different scales of conservation decision-making mostly ignored spatial variability in biodiversity threats and the cost of actions. Here, we developed a simple integrating metric, taking into account both the cost of conservation and threats to biodiversity. We examined the Mediterranean Basin biodiversity hotspot, which encompasses over 20 countries. We discovered that for vertebrates to achieve similar conservation benefits, one would need substantially more money and area if each country were to act independently as compared to fully coordinated action across the Basin. A fully coordinated conservation plan is expected to save approximately US$67 billion, 45% of total cost, compared with the uncoordinated plan; and if implemented over a 10-year period, the plan would cost approximately 0.1% of the gross national income of all European Union (EU) countries annually. The initiative declared in the recent Paris Summit for the Mediterranean provides a political basis for such complex coordination. Surprisingly, because many conservation priority areas selected are located in EU countries, a partly coordinated solution incorporating only EU-Mediterranean countries is almost as efficient as the fully coordinated scenario.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 291 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 2%
Australia 5 2%
Brazil 5 2%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Italy 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
India 2 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 258 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 89 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 20%
Student > Master 35 12%
Other 14 5%
Professor 14 5%
Other 50 17%
Unknown 31 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 105 36%
Environmental Science 95 33%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 16 5%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 2%
Other 14 5%
Unknown 48 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 20 May 2015.
All research outputs
#6,131,225
of 24,625,114 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#56,525
of 101,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,153
of 96,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#352
of 692 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,625,114 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 101,438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 96,353 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 692 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.