↓ Skip to main content

Accounting for uncertainty in marine reserve design

Overview of attention for article published in Ecology Letters, October 2005
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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
368 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
Accounting for uncertainty in marine reserve design
Published in
Ecology Letters, October 2005
DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00827.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin S. Halpern, Helen M. Regan, Hugh P. Possingham, Michael A. McCarthy

Abstract

Ecosystems and the species and communities within them are highly complex systems that defy predictions with any degree of certainty. Managing and conserving these systems in the face of uncertainty remains a daunting challenge, particularly with respect to developing networks of marine reserves. Here we review several modelling frameworks that explicitly acknowledge and incorporate uncertainty, and then use these methods to evaluate reserve spacing rules given increasing levels of uncertainty about larval dispersal distances. Our approach finds similar spacing rules as have been proposed elsewhere - roughly 20-200 km - but highlights several advantages provided by uncertainty modelling over more traditional approaches to developing these estimates. In particular, we argue that uncertainty modelling can allow for (1) an evaluation of the risk associated with any decision based on the assumed uncertainty; (2) a method for quantifying the costs and benefits of reducing uncertainty; and (3) a useful tool for communicating to stakeholders the challenges in managing highly uncertain systems. We also argue that incorporating rather than avoiding uncertainty will increase the chances of successfully achieving conservation and management goals.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 368 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 12 3%
United States 9 2%
Canada 4 1%
Australia 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Argentina 2 <1%
India 2 <1%
Cuba 1 <1%
Other 13 4%
Unknown 317 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 127 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 80 22%
Student > Master 35 10%
Other 22 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 22 6%
Other 58 16%
Unknown 24 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 180 49%
Environmental Science 103 28%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 15 4%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 <1%
Other 19 5%
Unknown 41 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 30 May 2012.
All research outputs
#4,122,145
of 24,590,593 outputs
Outputs from Ecology Letters
#1,800
of 3,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,439
of 61,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecology Letters
#10
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,590,593 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.3. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 61,365 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 66% of its contemporaries.