↓ Skip to main content

Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
31 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
404 Mendeley
Title
Achieving the triple bottom line in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, March 2013
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1217689110
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. S. Halpern, C. J. Klein, C. J. Brown, M. Beger, H. S. Grantham, S. Mangubhai, M. Ruckelshaus, V. J. Tulloch, M. Watts, C. White, H. P. Possingham

Abstract

Triple-bottom-line outcomes from resource management and conservation, where conservation goals and equity in social outcomes are maximized while overall costs are minimized, remain a highly sought-after ideal. However, despite widespread recognition of the importance that equitable distribution of benefits or costs across society can play in conservation success, little formal theory exists for how to explicitly incorporate equity into conservation planning and prioritization. Here, we develop that theory and implement it for three very different case studies in California (United States), Raja Ampat (Indonesia), and the wider Coral Triangle region (Southeast Asia). We show that equity tends to trade off nonlinearly with the potential to achieve conservation objectives, such that similar conservation outcomes can be possible with greater equity, to a point. However, these case studies also produce a range of trade-off typologies between equity and conservation, depending on how one defines and measures social equity, including direct (linear) and no trade-off. Important gaps remain in our understanding, most notably how equity influences probability of conservation success, in turn affecting the actual ability to achieve conservation objectives. Results here provide an important foundation for moving the science and practice of conservation planning-and broader spatial planning in general-toward more consistently achieving efficient, equitable, and effective outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 404 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 20 5%
United Kingdom 7 2%
Brazil 3 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Chile 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Other 13 3%
Unknown 348 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 97 24%
Researcher 88 22%
Student > Master 70 17%
Student > Postgraduate 27 7%
Student > Bachelor 23 6%
Other 99 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 163 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 111 27%
Unspecified 39 10%
Social Sciences 30 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 17 4%
Other 44 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 16 October 2013.
All research outputs
#247,357
of 12,365,166 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#5,716
of 77,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,683
of 145,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#94
of 1,088 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,365,166 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 77,340 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 145,086 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,088 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.