↓ Skip to main content

On the Effects of Scale for Ecosystem Services Mapping

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
348 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.
Article details
Title
On the Effects of Scale for Ecosystem Services Mapping
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0112601
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Ecosystems provide life-sustaining services upon which human civilization depends, but their degradation largely continues unabated. Spatially explicit information on ecosystem services (ES) provision is required to better guide decision making, particularly for mountain systems, which are characterized by vertical gradients and isolation with high topographic complexity, making them particularly sensitive to global change. But while spatially explicit ES quantification and valuation allows the identification of areas of abundant or limited supply of and demand for ES, the accuracy and usefulness of the information varies considerably depending on the scale and methods used. Using four case studies from mountainous regions in Europe and the U.S., we quantify information gains and losses when mapping five ES - carbon sequestration, flood regulation, agricultural production, timber harvest, and scenic beauty - at coarse and fine resolution (250 m vs. 25 m in Europe and 300 m vs. 30 m in the U.S.). We analyze the effects of scale on ES estimates and their spatial pattern and show how these effects are related to different ES, terrain structure and model properties. ES estimates differ substantially between the fine and coarse resolution analyses in all case studies and across all services. This scale effect is not equally strong for all ES. We show that spatially explicit information about non-clustered, isolated ES tends to be lost at coarse resolution and against expectation, mainly in less rugged terrain, which calls for finer resolution assessments in such contexts. The effect of terrain ruggedness is also related to model properties such as dependency on land use-land cover data. We close with recommendations for mapping ES to make the resulting maps more comparable, and suggest a four-step approach to address the issue of scale when mapping ES that can deliver information to support ES-based decision making with greater accuracy and reliability.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 348 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Colombia 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Mozambique 1 <1%
Malta 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 327 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 75 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 73 21%
Student > Master 51 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 5%
Other 60 17%
Unknown 52 15%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 148 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 62 18%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 19 5%
Engineering 10 3%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Other 26 7%
Unknown 77 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 March 2016.
All research outputs
#21,656,352
of 34,404,538 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#128,683
of 224,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#246,226
of 409,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,794
of 3,423 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,404,538 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,631 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 409,945 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,423 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.