↓ Skip to main content

Ecosystem Service Valuations of Mangrove Ecosystems to Inform Decision Making and Future Valuation Exercises

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2014
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
138 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
514 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
Ecosystem Service Valuations of Mangrove Ecosystems to Inform Decision Making and Future Valuation Exercises
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2014
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0107706
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nibedita Mukherjee, William J. Sutherland, Lynn Dicks, Jean Hugé, Nico Koedam, Farid Dahdouh-Guebas

Abstract

The valuation of ecosystem services is a complex process as it includes several dimensions (ecological, socio-cultural and economic) and not all of these can be quantified in monetary units. The aim of this paper is to conduct an ecosystem services valuation study for mangroves ecosystems, the results of which can be used to inform governance and management of mangroves. We used an expert-based participatory approach (the Delphi technique) to identify, categorize and rank the various ecosystem services provided by mangrove ecosystems at a global scale. Subsequently we looked for evidence in the existing ecosystem services literature for monetary valuations of these ecosystem service categories throughout the biogeographic distribution of mangroves. We then compared the relative ranking of ecosystem service categories between the monetary valuations and the expert based analysis. The experts identified 16 ecosystem service categories, six of which are not adequately represented in the literature. There was no significant correlation between the expert based valuation (the Delphi technique) and the economic valuation, indicating that the scope of valuation of ecosystem services needs to be broadened. Acknowledging this diversity in different valuation approaches, and developing methodological frameworks that foster the pluralism of values in ecosystem services research, are crucial for maintaining the credibility of ecosystem services valuation. To conclude, we use the findings of our dual approach to valuation to make recommendations on how to assess and manage the ecosystem services provided by mangrove ecosystems.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 514 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 504 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 113 22%
Student > Bachelor 59 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 52 10%
Researcher 45 9%
Other 27 5%
Other 97 19%
Unknown 121 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 168 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 101 20%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 23 4%
Social Sciences 17 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 16 3%
Other 45 9%
Unknown 144 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 February 2019.
All research outputs
#3,211,427
of 24,378,498 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#42,823
of 210,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,914
of 256,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#900
of 5,222 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,378,498 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 210,250 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 256,356 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,222 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.