↓ Skip to main content

Defining Ecosystem Assets for Natural Capital Accounting

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, November 2016
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Defining Ecosystem Assets for Natural Capital Accounting
Published in
PLoS ONE, November 2016
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0164460
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lars Hein, Ken Bagstad, Bram Edens, Carl Obst, Rixt de Jong, Jan Peter Lesschen

Abstract

In natural capital accounting, ecosystems are assets that provide ecosystem services to people. Assets can be measured using both physical and monetary units. In the international System of Environmental-Economic Accounting, ecosystem assets are generally valued on the basis of the net present value of the expected flow of ecosystem services. In this paper we argue that several additional conceptualisations of ecosystem assets are needed to understand ecosystems as assets, in support of ecosystem assessments, ecosystem accounting and ecosystem management. In particular, we define ecosystems' capacity and capability to supply ecosystem services, as well as the potential supply of ecosystem services. Capacity relates to sustainable use levels of multiple ecosystem services, capability involves prioritising the use of one ecosystem service over a basket of services, and potential supply considers the ability of ecosystems to generate services regardless of demand for these services. We ground our definitions in the ecosystem services and accounting literature, and illustrate and compare the concepts of flow, capacity, capability, and potential supply with a range of conceptual and real-world examples drawn from case studies in Europe and North America. Our paper contributes to the development of measurement frameworks for natural capital to support environmental accounting and other assessment frameworks.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 101 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 26%
Researcher 20 20%
Student > Master 19 19%
Other 10 10%
Unspecified 7 7%
Other 19 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 41 40%
Unspecified 17 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 16%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 12 12%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 6 6%
Other 10 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 08 December 2016.
All research outputs
#554,202
of 11,482,738 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#10,786
of 127,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,000
of 246,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#303
of 3,817 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,482,738 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 127,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 246,695 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 3,817 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 92% of its contemporaries.