↓ Skip to main content

Avoiding the pitfalls of adaptive management implementation in Swedish silviculture

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Avoiding the pitfalls of adaptive management implementation in Swedish silviculture
Published in
Ambio, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13280-015-0750-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucy Rist, Adam Felton, Erland Mårald, Lars Samuelsson, Tomas Lundmark, Ola Rosvall

Abstract

There is a growing demand for alternatives to Sweden's current dominant silvicultural system, driven by a desire to raise biomass production, meet environmental goals and mitigate climate change. However, moving towards diversified forest management that deviates from well established silvicultural practices carries many uncertainties and risks. Adaptive management is often suggested as an effective means of managing in the context of such complexities. Yet there has been scepticism over its appropriateness in cases characterised by large spatial extents, extended temporal scales and complex land ownership-characteristics typical of Swedish forestry. Drawing on published research, including a new paradigm for adaptive management, we indicate how common pitfalls can be avoided during implementation. We indicate the investment, infrastructure, and considerations necessary to benefit from adaptive management. In doing so, we show how this approach could offer a pragmatic operational model for managing the uncertainties, risks and obstacles associated with new silvicultural systems and the challenges facing Swedish forestry.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 63 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 18 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 23%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Unspecified 2 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 17 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,243,953
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#1,385
of 1,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,855
of 393,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#21
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 393,726 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.