↓ 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 (83rd 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
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 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 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 185 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 49 26%
Student > Master 36 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 16%
Unspecified 26 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 5%
Other 35 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 57 31%
Unspecified 39 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 38 21%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 17 9%
Engineering 12 6%
Other 22 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 463. 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 14 May 2019.
All research outputs
#19,941
of 13,757,863 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#316
of 25,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,025
of 270,567 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,757,863 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 25,198 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 47.6. 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 270,567 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 6 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