↓ Skip to main content

Two‐step adaptive management for choosing between two management actions

Overview of attention for article published in Ecological Applications, April 2017
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 (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Two‐step adaptive management for choosing between two management actions
Published in
Ecological Applications, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/eap.1515
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alana L. Moore, Leila Walker, Michael C. Runge, Eve McDonald‐Madden, Michael A. McCarthy

Abstract

Adaptive management is widely advocated to improve environmental management. Derivations of optimal strategies for adaptive management, however, tend to be case specific and time consuming. In contrast, managers might seek relatively simple guidance, such as insight into when a new potential management action should be considered, and how much effort should be expended on trialing such an action. We constructed a two time-step scenario where a manager is choosing between two possible management actions. The manager has a total budget which can be split between a learning phase and an implementation phase. We use this scenario to investigate when and how much a manager should invest in learning about the management actions available. The optimal investment in learning can be understood intuitively by accounting for the expected value of sample information, the benefits that accrue during learning, the direct costs of learning, and the opportunity costs of learning. We find that the optimal proportion of the budget to spend on learning is characterized by several critical thresholds that mark a jump from spending a large proportion of the budget on learning to spending nothing. For example, as sampling variance increases it is optimal to spend a larger proportion of the budget on learning, up to a point - if the sampling variance passes a critical threshold, it is no longer beneficial to invest in learning. Similar thresholds are observed as a function of the total budget and the difference in the expected performance of the two actions. We illustrate how this model can be applied using a case study of choosing between alternative rearing diets for hihi, an endangered New Zealand passerine. Although the model presented is a simplified scenario, we believe it is relevant to many management situations. Managers often have relatively short time horizons for management, and might be reluctant to consider further investment in learning and monitoring beyond collecting data from a single time period. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 59 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 31%
Researcher 16 26%
Other 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Student > Bachelor 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 38%
Environmental Science 19 31%
Mathematics 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 10 16%
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 11 July 2017.
All research outputs
#1,745,322
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Ecological Applications
#468
of 3,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,130
of 311,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ecological Applications
#19
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 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 3,230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 311,583 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 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 69% of its contemporaries.