↓ Skip to main content

Influence of adaptive capacity on the outcome of climate change vulnerability assessment

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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
Influence of adaptive capacity on the outcome of climate change vulnerability assessment
Published in
Scientific Reports, October 2017
DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-13245-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin Y. Ofori, Adam J. Stow, John B. Baumgartner, Linda J. Beaumont

Abstract

Climate change vulnerability assessment (CCVA) has become a mainstay conservation decision support tool. CCVAs are recommended to incorporate three elements of vulnerability - exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity - yet, lack of data frequently leads to the latter being excluded. Further, weighted or unweighted scoring schemes, based on expert opinion, may be applied. Comparisons of these approaches are rare. In a CCVA for 17 Australian lizard species, we show that membership within three vulnerability categories (low, medium and high) generally remained similar regardless of the framework or scoring scheme. There was one exception however, where, under the warm/dry scenario for 2070, including adaptive capacity lead to five fewer species being classified as highly vulnerable. Two species, Eulamprus leuraensis and E. kosciuskoi, were consistently ranked the most vulnerable, primarily due to projected losses in climatically suitable habitat, narrow thermal tolerance and specialist habitat requirements. Our findings provide relevant information for prioritizing target species for conservation and choosing appropriate conservation actions. We conclude that for the species included in this study, the framework and scoring scheme used had little impact on the identification of the most vulnerable species. We caution, however, that this outcome may not apply to other taxa or regions.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 139 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 14%
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 3%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 37 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 41 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 6%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 6 4%
Unknown 42 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 18 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,221,301
of 23,007,053 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#33,214
of 124,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,733
of 324,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1,247
of 5,026 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 124,255 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 324,707 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,026 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.