↓ Skip to main content

Incorporating threat in hotspots and coldspots of biodiversity and ecosystem services

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Incorporating threat in hotspots and coldspots of biodiversity and ecosystem services
Published in
Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s13280-017-0922-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias Schröter, Roland Kraemer, Silvia Ceauşu, Graciela M. Rusch

Abstract

Spatial prioritization could help target conservation actions directed to maintain both biodiversity and ecosystem services. We delineate hotspots and coldspots of two biodiversity conservation features and five regulating and cultural services by incorporating an indicator of 'threat', i.e. timber harvest profitability for forest areas in Telemark (Norway). We found hotspots, where high values of biodiversity, ecosystem services and threat coincide, ranging from 0.1 to 7.1% of the area, depending on varying threshold levels. Targeting of these areas for conservation follows reactive conservation approaches. In coldspots, high biodiversity and ecosystem service values coincide with low levels of threat, and cover 0.1-3.4% of the forest area. These areas might serve proactive conservation approaches at lower opportunity cost (foregone timber harvest profits). We conclude that a combination of indicators of biodiversity, ecosystem services and potential threat is an appropriate approach for spatial prioritization of proactive and reactive conservation strategies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 26%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Unspecified 4 9%
Other 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 15 33%
Environmental Science 14 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 24%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 3 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 16 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,649,342
of 10,263,476 outputs
Outputs from Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment
#213
of 714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,591
of 264,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment
#5
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 10,263,476 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 264,266 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 64% of its contemporaries.