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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A New Way to Measure the World's Protected Area Coverage
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, September 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0024707 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lissa M. Barr, Robert L. Pressey, Richard A. Fuller, Daniel B. Segan, Eve McDonald-Madden, Hugh P. Possingham |
| Abstract |
Protected areas are effective at stopping biodiversity loss, but their placement is constrained by the needs of people. Consequently protected areas are often biased toward areas that are unattractive for other human uses. Current reporting metrics that emphasise the total area protected do not account for this bias. To address this problem we propose that the distribution of protected areas be evaluated with an economic metric used to quantify inequality in income--the Gini coefficient. Using a modified version of this measure we discover that 73% of countries have inequitably protected their biodiversity and that common measures of protected area coverage do not adequately reveal this bias. Used in combination with total percentage protection, the Gini coefficient will improve the effectiveness of reporting on the growth of protected area coverage, paving the way for better representation of the world's biodiversity. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 4 | 15% |
| Spain | 2 | 8% |
| United States | 2 | 8% |
| Curaçao | 2 | 8% |
| Canada | 2 | 8% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| Botswana | 1 | 4% |
| Sweden | 1 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 9 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 77% |
| Scientists | 6 | 23% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 6 | 3% |
| Finland | 3 | 1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Colombia | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 6 | 3% |
| Unknown | 205 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 54 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 45 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 40 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 36 | 16% |
| Unknown | 26 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Environmental Science | 84 | 36% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 84 | 36% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | <1% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 14 | 6% |
| Unknown | 37 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 17 December 2014.
All research outputs
#2,443,463
of 25,378,162 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#29,869
of 220,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,138
of 141,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#305
of 2,558 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,378,162 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 220,591 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 141,550 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 2,558 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.