↓ Skip to main content

Transdisciplinary synthesis for ecosystem science, policy and management: The Australian experience

Overview of attention for article published in Science of the Total Environment, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
Title
Transdisciplinary synthesis for ecosystem science, policy and management: The Australian experience
Published in
Science of the Total Environment, November 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.04.100
Pubmed ID
Authors

A.J.J. Lynch, R. Thackway, A. Specht, P.J. Beggs, S. Brisbane, E.L. Burns, M. Byrne, S.J. Capon, M.T. Casanova, P.A. Clarke, J.M. Davies, S. Dovers, R.G. Dwyer, E. Ens, D.O. Fisher, M. Flanigan, E. Garnier, S.M. Guru, K. Kilminster, J. Locke, R. Mac Nally, K.M. McMahon, P.J. Mitchell, J.C. Pierson, E.M. Rodgers, J. Russell-Smith, J. Udy, M. Waycott

Abstract

Mitigating the environmental effects of global population growth, climatic change and increasing socio-ecological complexity is a daunting challenge. To tackle this requires synthesis: the integration of disparate information to generate novel insights from heterogeneous, complex situations where there are diverse perspectives. Since 1995, a structured approach to inter-, multi- and trans-disciplinary(1) collaboration around big science questions has been supported through synthesis centres around the world. These centres are finding an expanding role due to ever-accumulating data and the need for more and better opportunities to develop transdisciplinary and holistic approaches to solve real-world problems. The Australian Centre for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (ACEAS <http://www.aceas.org.au>) has been the pioneering ecosystem science synthesis centre in the Southern Hemisphere. Such centres provide analysis and synthesis opportunities for time-pressed scientists, policy-makers and managers. They provide the scientific and organisational environs for virtual and face-to-face engagement, impetus for integration, data and methodological support, and innovative ways to deliver synthesis products. We detail the contribution, role and value of synthesis using ACEAS to exemplify the capacity for synthesis centres to facilitate trans-organisational, transdisciplinary synthesis. We compare ACEAS to other international synthesis centres, and describe how it facilitated project teams and its objective of linking natural resource science to policy to management. Scientists and managers were brought together to actively collaborate in multi-institutional, cross-sectoral and transdisciplinary research on contemporary ecological problems. The teams analysed, integrated and synthesised existing data to co-develop solution-oriented publications and management recommendations that might otherwise not have been produced. We identify key outcomes of some ACEAS working groups which used synthesis to tackle important ecosystem challenges. We also examine the barriers and enablers to synthesis, so that risks can be minimised and successful outcomes maximised. We argue that synthesis centres have a crucial role in developing, communicating and using synthetic transdisciplinary research.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
Brazil 2 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Australia 2 2%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Other 3 2%
Unknown 116 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 37 28%
Student > Master 22 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Professor 11 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 35 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 37 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 14%
Social Sciences 17 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 13 10%
Unspecified 11 8%
Other 35 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,517,543
of 12,269,384 outputs
Outputs from Science of the Total Environment
#2,644
of 8,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,365
of 345,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science of the Total Environment
#93
of 298 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,269,384 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 345,421 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 298 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 65% of its contemporaries.