↓ Skip to main content

Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge-Action Boundary

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, April 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 (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
1 policy source
35 tweeters
2 Facebook pages


157 Dimensions

Readers on

474 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.
Achieving Conservation Science that Bridges the Knowledge-Action Boundary
Published in
Conservation Biology, April 2013
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12050
Pubmed ID



There are many barriers to using science to inform conservation policy and practice. Conservation scientists wishing to produce management-relevant science must balance this goal with the imperative of demonstrating novelty and rigor in their science. Decision makers seeking to make evidence-based decisions must balance a desire for knowledge with the need to act despite uncertainty. Generating science that will effectively inform management decisions requires that the production of information (the components of knowledge) be salient (relevant and timely), credible (authoritative, believable, and trusted), and legitimate (developed via a process that considers the values and perspectives of all relevant actors) in the eyes of both researchers and decision makers. We perceive 3 key challenges for those hoping to generate conservation science that achieves all 3 of these information characteristics. First, scientific and management audiences can have contrasting perceptions about the salience of research. Second, the pursuit of scientific credibility can come at the cost of salience and legitimacy in the eyes of decision makers, and, third, different actors can have conflicting views about what constitutes legitimate information. We highlight 4 institutional frameworks that can facilitate science that will inform management: boundary organizations (environmental organizations that span the boundary between science and management), research scientists embedded in resource management agencies, formal links between decision makers and scientists at research-focused institutions, and training programs for conservation professionals. Although these are not the only approaches to generating boundary-spanning science, nor are they mutually exclusive, they provide mechanisms for promoting communication, translation, and mediation across the knowledge-action boundary. We believe that despite the challenges, conservation science should strive to be a boundary science, which both advances scientific understanding and contributes to decision making.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 474 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 14 3%
United Kingdom 9 2%
Australia 9 2%
Brazil 7 1%
South Africa 3 <1%
Finland 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Botswana 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 421 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 120 25%
Researcher 111 23%
Student > Master 89 19%
Other 28 6%
Student > Bachelor 26 5%
Other 100 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 190 40%
Environmental Science 169 36%
Unspecified 38 8%
Social Sciences 36 8%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 9 2%
Other 32 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 28 May 2018.
All research outputs
of 12,348,877 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
of 2,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 142,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,348,877 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 142,930 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.