↓ Skip to main content

Addressing transboundary conservation challenges through marine spatial prioritization

Overview of attention for article published in Conservation Biology, August 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 (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
45 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Addressing transboundary conservation challenges through marine spatial prioritization
Published in
Conservation Biology, August 2018
DOI 10.1111/cobi.13134
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elena Gissi, Jennifer McGowan, Chiara Venier, Davide Di Carlo, Francesco Musco, Stefano Menegon, Peter Mackelworth, Tundi Agardy, Hugh Possingham

Abstract

The Adriatic and Ionian Region (AIR) is an important area for both strategic maritime development and biodiversity conservation in the European Union (EU). However, given that both EU and non-EU countries border the sea, multiple legal and regulatory frameworks operate at different scales which can hinder the coordinated long-term sustainable development of the region. Transboundary marine (or maritime) spatial planning can help overcome these challenges by building consensus on planning objectives and making the trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and its influence on economically important sectors more explicit. We approach this challenge by developing and testing four spatial prioritization strategies, using the decision-support tool Marxan, which meets targets for biodiversity conservation whilst minimizing impacts to users. We evaluate these strategies in terms of how priority areas shift under different scales of target-setting (e.g. regional versus country-level). We also examine the trade-off between cost-efficiency and how equally solutions represent countries and maritime industries (N = 14) operating in the region using the Protection Equality metric. We show that there are negligible differences in where priority conservation areas are located when we set targets for biodiversity at the regional versus country scale. Conversely, the prospective impacts on industries, when considered as costs to be minimized, are highly divergent across scenarios and bias the placement of protection towards industries located in isolation or with few other industries. We conclude by making several recommendations to underpin future MSP efforts in the region, including the identification of: 1) areas of national significance, 2) transboundary areas requiring cooperation between countries, and 3) areas where impacts on maritime industries require careful consideration of the trade-off between biodiversity conservation and socio-economic objectives. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 7 16%
Other 7 16%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Other 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 22 51%
Unspecified 11 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Physics and Astronomy 2 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 3 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 24 August 2018.
All research outputs
#521,879
of 12,348,877 outputs
Outputs from Conservation Biology
#396
of 2,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,402
of 269,135 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conservation Biology
#22
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,348,877 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 2,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 269,135 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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 55% of its contemporaries.