↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating Perceived Benefits of Ecoregional Assessments

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 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
Evaluating Perceived Benefits of Ecoregional Assessments
Published in
Conservation Biology, July 2012
DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01898.x
Pubmed ID
Authors

MADELEINE C. BOTTRILL, MORENA MILLS, ROBERT L. PRESSEY, EDWARD T. GAME, CRAIG GROVES

Abstract

The outcomes of systematic conservation planning (process of assessing, implementing, and managing conservation areas) are rarely reported or measured formally. A lack of consistent or rigorous evaluation in conservation planning has fueled debate about the extent to which conservation assessment (identification, design, and prioritization of potential conservation areas) ultimately influences actions on the ground. We interviewed staff members of a nongovernmental organization, who were involved in 5 ecoregional assessments across North and South America and the Asia-Pacific region. We conducted 17 semistructured interviews with open and closed questions about the perceived purpose, outputs, and outcomes of the ecoregional assessments in which respondents were involved. Using qualitative data collected from those interviews, we investigated the types and frequency of benefits perceived to have emerged from the ecoregional assessments and explored factors that might facilitate or constrain the flow of benefits. Some benefits reflected the intended purpose of ecoregional assessments. Other benefits included improvements in social interactions, attitudes, and institutional knowledge. Our results suggest the latter types of benefits enable ultimate benefits of assessments, such as guiding investments by institutional partners. Our results also showed a clear divergence between the respondents' expectations and perceived outcomes of implementation of conservation actions arising from ecoregional assessments. Our findings suggest the need for both a broader perspective on the contribution of assessments to planning goals and further evaluation of conservation assessments.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 4 4%
Brazil 2 2%
Italy 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 96 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 19%
Student > Master 20 19%
Other 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 4%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 6 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 46 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 33%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 10 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 August 2012.
All research outputs
#20,107,308
of 24,717,821 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#3,825
of 3,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,569
of 168,450 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#31
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,821 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 168,450 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.