↓ 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 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 (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
26 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
279 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 279 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 278 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 56 20%
Researcher 46 16%
Student > Master 34 12%
Other 18 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Other 47 17%
Unknown 62 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 82 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 25 9%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 16 6%
Engineering 11 4%
Other 34 12%
Unknown 81 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 24 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,699,375
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#20,830
of 225,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,692
of 323,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#368
of 4,035 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,486 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 323,658 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 4,035 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 90% of its contemporaries.