↓ Skip to main content

A New Way to Measure the World's Protected Area Coverage

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS ONE, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
30 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
A New Way to Measure the World's Protected Area Coverage
Published in
PLoS ONE, September 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0024707
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lissa M. Barr, Robert L. Pressey, Richard A. Fuller, Daniel B. Segan, Eve McDonald-Madden, Hugh P. Possingham

Abstract

Protected areas are effective at stopping biodiversity loss, but their placement is constrained by the needs of people. Consequently protected areas are often biased toward areas that are unattractive for other human uses. Current reporting metrics that emphasise the total area protected do not account for this bias. To address this problem we propose that the distribution of protected areas be evaluated with an economic metric used to quantify inequality in income--the Gini coefficient. Using a modified version of this measure we discover that 73% of countries have inequitably protected their biodiversity and that common measures of protected area coverage do not adequately reveal this bias. Used in combination with total percentage protection, the Gini coefficient will improve the effectiveness of reporting on the growth of protected area coverage, paving the way for better representation of the world's biodiversity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 6 3%
United Kingdom 3 2%
Australia 2 1%
Colombia 2 1%
Italy 2 1%
Norway 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 6 3%
Unknown 148 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 44 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 24%
Student > Master 31 18%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Other 11 6%
Other 34 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 76 44%
Environmental Science 68 39%
Unspecified 13 8%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 5 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 1%
Other 9 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 December 2014.
All research outputs
#728,378
of 12,130,261 outputs
Outputs from PLoS ONE
#13,392
of 133,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,850
of 117,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS ONE
#314
of 3,696 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,130,261 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 133,419 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 117,851 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,696 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 91% of its contemporaries.