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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Conserving Critical Sites for Biodiversity Provides Disproportionate Benefits to People
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0036971 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Frank W. Larsen, Will R. Turner, Thomas M. Brooks |
| Abstract |
Protecting natural habitats in priority areas is essential to halt the loss of biodiversity. Yet whether these benefits for biodiversity also yield benefits for human well-being remains controversial. Here we assess the potential human well-being benefits of safeguarding a global network of sites identified as top priorities for the conservation of threatened species. Conserving these sites would yield benefits--in terms of a) climate change mitigation through avoidance of CO(2) emissions from deforestation; b) freshwater services to downstream human populations; c) retention of option value; and d) benefits to maintenance of human cultural diversity--significantly exceeding those anticipated from randomly selected sites within the same countries and ecoregions. Results suggest that safeguarding sites important for biodiversity conservation provides substantial benefits to human well-being. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 23% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 8% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| India | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 7 | 54% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 54% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 23% |
| Scientists | 3 | 23% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 4 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Botswana | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 7 | 3% |
| Unknown | 239 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 68 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 41 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 35 | 13% |
| Other | 22 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 48 | 18% |
| Unknown | 34 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 100 | 38% |
| Environmental Science | 85 | 32% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 9 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | <1% |
| Other | 14 | 5% |
| Unknown | 45 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,031,616
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#13,765
of 202,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,803
of 166,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#201
of 3,750 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 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 202,084 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 166,571 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,750 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.