↓ Skip to main content

The global flood protection savings provided by coral reefs

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, June 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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
37 news outlets
blogs
7 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
159 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
194 Mendeley
Title
The global flood protection savings provided by coral reefs
Published in
Nature Communications, June 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41467-018-04568-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael W. Beck, Iñigo J. Losada, Pelayo Menéndez, Borja G. Reguero, Pedro Díaz-Simal, Felipe Fernández

Abstract

Coral reefs can provide significant coastal protection benefits to people and property. Here we show that the annual expected damages from flooding would double, and costs from frequent storms would triple without reefs. For 100-year storm events, flood damages would increase by 91% to $US 272 billion without reefs. The countries with the most to gain from reef management are Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Mexico, and Cuba; annual expected flood savings exceed $400 M for each of these nations. Sea-level rise will increase flood risk, but substantial impacts could happen from reef loss alone without better near-term management. We provide a global, process-based valuation of an ecosystem service across an entire marine biome at (sub)national levels. These spatially explicit benefits inform critical risk and environmental management decisions, and the expected benefits can be directly considered by governments (e.g., national accounts, recovery plans) and businesses (e.g., insurance).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 159 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 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 194 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 50 26%
Student > Master 37 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Student > Bachelor 9 5%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 29 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 57 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 21%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 16 8%
Engineering 13 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 43 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 464. 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 11 December 2019.
All research outputs
#20,878
of 14,148,292 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#324
of 26,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,027
of 275,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,148,292 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 26,233 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 48.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 275,863 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them