↓ Skip to main content

Structural and Psycho-Social Limits to Climate Change Adaptation in the Great Barrier Reef Region

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2016
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users

Readers on

mendeley
163 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
Structural and Psycho-Social Limits to Climate Change Adaptation in the Great Barrier Reef Region
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0150575
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Adaptation, as a strategy to respond to climate change, has limits: there are conditions under which adaptation strategies fail to alleviate impacts from climate change. Research has primarily focused on identifying absolute bio-physical limits. This paper contributes empirical insight to an emerging literature on the social limits to adaptation. Such limits arise from the ways in which societies perceive, experience and respond to climate change. Using qualitative data from multi-stakeholder workshops and key-informant interviews with representatives of the fisheries and tourism sectors of the Great Barrier Reef region, we identify psycho-social and structural limits associated with key adaptation strategies, and examine how these are perceived as more or less absolute across levels of organisation. We find that actors experience social limits to adaptation when: i) the effort of pursuing a strategy exceeds the benefits of desired adaptation outcomes; ii) the particular strategy does not address the actual source of vulnerability, and; iii) the benefits derived from adaptation are undermined by external factors. We also find that social limits are not necessarily more absolute at higher levels of organisation: respondents perceived considerable opportunities to address some psycho-social limits at the national-international interface, while they considered some social limits at the local and regional levels to be effectively absolute.

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 14 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 163 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 %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 162 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 18%
Researcher 26 16%
Student > Master 18 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 6%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 49 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 36 22%
Social Sciences 23 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 4%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 53 33%
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 01 January 2022.
All research outputs
#2,358,465
of 32,515,534 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#25,639
of 216,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,982
of 329,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#653
of 5,505 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,515,534 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 216,898 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 329,071 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,505 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.