↓ Skip to main content

Use of structured decision-making to explicitly incorporate environmental process understanding in management of coastal restoration projects: Case study on barrier islands of the northern Gulf of…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Environmental Management, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Use of structured decision-making to explicitly incorporate environmental process understanding in management of coastal restoration projects: Case study on barrier islands of the northern Gulf of Mexico
Published in
Journal of Environmental Management, December 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.078
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. Soupy Dalyander, Michelle Meyers, Brady Mattsson, Gregory Steyer, Elizabeth Godsey, Justin McDonald, Mark Byrnes, Mark Ford

Abstract

Coastal ecosystem management typically relies on subjective interpretation of scientific understanding, with limited methods for explicitly incorporating process knowledge into decisions that must meet multiple, potentially competing stakeholder objectives. Conversely, the scientific community lacks methods for identifying which advancements in system understanding would have the highest value to decision-makers. A case in point is barrier island restoration, where decision-makers lack tools to objectively use system understanding to determine how to optimally use limited contingency funds when project construction in this dynamic environment does not proceed as expected. In this study, collaborative structured decision-making (SDM) was evaluated as an approach to incorporate process understanding into mid-construction decisions and to identify priority gaps in knowledge from a management perspective. The focus was a barrier island restoration project at Ship Island, Mississippi, where sand will be used to close an extensive breach that currently divides the island. SDM was used to estimate damage that may occur during construction, and guide repair decisions within the confines of limited availability of sand and funding to minimize adverse impacts to project objectives. Sand was identified as more limiting than funds, and unrepaired major breaching would negatively impact objectives. Repairing minor damage immediately was determined to be generally more cost effective (depending on the longshore extent) than risking more damage to a weakened project. Key gaps in process-understanding relative to project management were identified as the relationship of island width to breach formation; the amounts of sand lost during breaching, lowering, or narrowing of the berm; the potential for minor breaches to self-heal versus developing into a major breach; and the relationship between upstream nourishment and resiliency of the berm to storms. This application is a prototype for using structured decision-making in support of engineering projects in dynamic environments where mid-construction decisions may arise; highlights uncertainty about barrier island physical processes that limit the ability to make robust decisions; and demonstrates the potential for direct incorporation of process-based models in a formal adaptive management decision framework.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 25 38%
Engineering 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 6%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 15 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 October 2019.
All research outputs
#10,216,349
of 16,024,112 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Environmental Management
#2,032
of 3,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,796
of 391,264 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Environmental Management
#63
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,024,112 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 391,264 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.