↓ 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 (97th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
126 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 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 126 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 28%
Researcher 23 19%
Student > Master 13 11%
Other 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 14 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 48 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 25%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 22 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 96. 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 29 November 2019.
All research outputs
#188,671
of 14,403,834 outputs
Outputs from Nature Ecology & Evolution
#413
of 1,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,889
of 276,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Ecology & Evolution
#42
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,403,834 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 1,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 149.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 276,850 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 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.