↓ Skip to main content

Prioritising Mangrove Ecosystem Services Results in Spatially Variable Management Priorities

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2016
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
31 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
259 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
Prioritising Mangrove Ecosystem Services Results in Spatially Variable Management Priorities
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0151992
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott C. Atkinson, Stacy D. Jupiter, Vanessa M. Adams, J. Carter Ingram, Siddharth Narayan, Carissa J. Klein, Hugh P. Possingham

Abstract

Incorporating the values of the services that ecosystems provide into decision making is becoming increasingly common in nature conservation and resource management policies, both locally and globally. Yet with limited funds for conservation of threatened species and ecosystems there is a desire to identify priority areas where investment efficiently conserves multiple ecosystem services. We mapped four mangrove ecosystems services (coastal protection, fisheries, biodiversity, and carbon storage) across Fiji. Using a cost-effectiveness analysis, we prioritised mangrove areas for each service, where the effectiveness was a function of the benefits provided to the local communities, and the costs were associated with restricting specific uses of mangroves. We demonstrate that, although priority mangrove areas (top 20%) for each service can be managed at relatively low opportunity costs (ranging from 4.5 to 11.3% of overall opportunity costs), prioritising for a single service yields relatively low co-benefits due to limited geographical overlap with priority areas for other services. None-the-less, prioritisation of mangrove areas provides greater overlap of benefits than if sites were selected randomly for most ecosystem services. We discuss deficiencies in the mapping of ecosystems services in data poor regions and how this may impact upon the equity of managing mangroves for particular services across the urban-rural divide in developing countries. Finally we discuss how our maps may aid decision-makers to direct funding for mangrove management from various sources to localities that best meet funding objectives, as well as how this knowledge can aid in creating a national mangrove zoning scheme.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 259 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Fiji 1 <1%
Saudi Arabia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 253 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 48 19%
Student > Master 42 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 6%
Lecturer 14 5%
Other 49 19%
Unknown 60 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 82 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 41 16%
Social Sciences 11 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 10 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 3%
Other 31 12%
Unknown 75 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 31 May 2018.
All research outputs
#1,611,398
of 24,612,602 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#20,187
of 212,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,965
of 305,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#558
of 5,298 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,612,602 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 212,821 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 305,708 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,298 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.