↓ Skip to main content

Making Robust Policy Decisions Using Global Biodiversity Indicators

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 2012
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 (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
323 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
Making Robust Policy Decisions Using Global Biodiversity Indicators
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0041128
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily Nicholson, Ben Collen, Alberto Barausse, Julia L. Blanchard, Brendan T. Costelloe, Kathryn M. E. Sullivan, Fiona M. Underwood, Robert W. Burn, Steffen Fritz, Julia P. G. Jones, Louise McRae, Hugh P. Possingham, E. J. Milner-Gulland

Abstract

In order to influence global policy effectively, conservation scientists need to be able to provide robust predictions of the impact of alternative policies on biodiversity and measure progress towards goals using reliable indicators. We present a framework for using biodiversity indicators predictively to inform policy choices at a global level. The approach is illustrated with two case studies in which we project forwards the impacts of feasible policies on trends in biodiversity and in relevant indicators. The policies are based on targets agreed at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting in Nagoya in October 2010. The first case study compares protected area policies for African mammals, assessed using the Red List Index; the second example uses the Living Planet Index to assess the impact of a complete halt, versus a reduction, in bottom trawling. In the protected areas example, we find that the indicator can aid in decision-making because it is able to differentiate between the impacts of the different policies. In the bottom trawling example, the indicator exhibits some counter-intuitive behaviour, due to over-representation of some taxonomic and functional groups in the indicator, and contrasting impacts of the policies on different groups caused by trophic interactions. Our results support the need for further research on how to use predictive models and indicators to credibly track trends and inform policy. To be useful and relevant, scientists must make testable predictions about the impact of global policy on biodiversity to ensure that targets such as those set at Nagoya catalyse effective and measurable change.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 323 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 9 3%
United States 5 2%
Brazil 3 <1%
Italy 3 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Finland 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Other 7 2%
Unknown 287 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 94 29%
Student > Ph. D. Student 63 20%
Student > Master 37 11%
Other 26 8%
Student > Bachelor 16 5%
Other 50 15%
Unknown 37 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 123 38%
Environmental Science 100 31%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 2%
Other 28 9%
Unknown 55 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 26 January 2016.
All research outputs
#1,705,617
of 23,340,595 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#21,805
of 199,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,594
of 165,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#354
of 4,025 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,340,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 199,597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 165,106 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 4,025 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.