↓ Skip to main content

A biodiversity-crisis hierarchy to evaluate and refine conservation indicators

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Ecology & Evolution, March 2018
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 (96th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
124 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
A biodiversity-crisis hierarchy to evaluate and refine conservation indicators
Published in
Nature Ecology & Evolution, March 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41559-018-0504-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Don A. Driscoll, Lucie M. Bland, Brett A. Bryan, Thomas M. Newsome, Emily Nicholson, Euan G. Ritchie, Tim S. Doherty

Abstract

The Convention on Biological Diversity and its Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 form the central pillar of the world's conservation commitment, with 196 signatory nations; yet its capacity to reign in catastrophic biodiversity loss has proved inadequate. Indicators suggest that few of the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi targets that aim to reduce biodiversity loss will be met by 2020. While the indicators have been criticized for only partially representing the targets, a bigger problem is that the indicators do not adequately draw attention to and measure all of the drivers of the biodiversity crisis. Here, we show that many key drivers of biodiversity loss are either poorly evaluated or entirely lacking indicators. We use a biodiversity-crisis hierarchy as a conceptual model linking drivers of change to biodiversity loss to evaluate the scope of current indicators. We find major gaps related to monitoring governments, human population size, corruption and threat-industries. We recommend the hierarchy is used to develop an expanded set of indicators that comprehensively monitor the human behaviour and institutions that drive biodiversity loss and that, so far, have impeded progress towards achieving global biodiversity targets.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 124 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 29%
Researcher 13 17%
Unspecified 11 14%
Other 9 12%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 16 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 27 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 28%
Unspecified 17 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Materials Science 2 3%
Other 6 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 89. 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 17 October 2018.
All research outputs
#154,992
of 12,369,000 outputs
Outputs from Nature Ecology & Evolution
#308
of 725 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,284
of 274,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Ecology & Evolution
#36
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,369,000 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 725 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 148.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 274,305 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 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 52% of its contemporaries.