↓ Skip to main content

Integrating Biological and Social Values When Prioritizing Places for Biodiversity Conservation

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, March 2014
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
46 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
320 Mendeley
Title
Integrating Biological and Social Values When Prioritizing Places for Biodiversity Conservation
Published in
Conservation Biology, March 2014
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12257
Pubmed ID
Authors

AMY L. WHITEHEAD, HEINI KUJALA, CHRISTOPHER D. IVES, ASCELIN GORDON, PIA E. LENTINI, BRENDAN A. WINTLE, EMILY NICHOLSON, CHRISTOPHER M. RAYMOND

Abstract

The consideration of information on social values in conjunction with biological data is critical for achieving both socially acceptable and scientifically defensible conservation planning outcomes. However, the influence of social values on spatial conservation priorities has received limited attention and is poorly understood. We present an approach that incorporates quantitative data on social values for conservation and social preferences for development into spatial conservation planning. We undertook a public participation GIS survey to spatially represent social values and development preferences and used species distribution models for 7 threatened fauna species to represent biological values. These spatially explicit data were simultaneously included in the conservation planning software Zonation to examine how conservation priorities changed with the inclusion of social data. Integrating spatially explicit information about social values and development preferences with biological data produced prioritizations that differed spatially from the solution based on only biological data. However, the integrated solutions protected a similar proportion of the species' distributions, indicating that Zonation effectively combined the biological and social data to produce socially feasible conservation solutions of approximately equivalent biological value. We were able to identify areas of the landscape where synergies and conflicts between different value sets are likely to occur. Identification of these synergies and conflicts will allow decision makers to target communication strategies to specific areas and ensure effective community engagement and positive conservation outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 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 320 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 5 2%
United Kingdom 5 2%
United States 4 1%
South Africa 3 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Other 6 2%
Unknown 290 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 75 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 74 23%
Student > Master 39 12%
Student > Bachelor 29 9%
Other 23 7%
Other 58 18%
Unknown 22 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 134 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 97 30%
Social Sciences 18 6%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 9 3%
Arts and Humanities 6 2%
Other 18 6%
Unknown 38 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 20 October 2017.
All research outputs
#665,701
of 16,427,352 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#454
of 3,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,823
of 191,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#9
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,427,352 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 3,193 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 191,380 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.