| Title |
A framework to observe and evaluate the sustainability of human–natural systems in a complex dynamic context
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2193-1801-3-618 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Niranji Satanarachchi, Takashi Mino |
| Abstract |
This paper aims to explore the prominent implications of the process of observing complex dynamics linked to sustainability in human-natural systems and to propose a framework for sustainability evaluation by introducing the concept of sustainability boundaries. Arguing that both observing and evaluating sustainability should engage awareness of complex dynamics from the outset, we try to embody this idea in the framework by two complementary methods, namely, the layer view- and dimensional view-based methods, which support the understanding of a reflexive and iterative sustainability process. The framework enables the observation of complex dynamic sustainability contexts, which we call observation metastructures, and enable us to map the contexts to sustainability boundaries. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 29% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 12% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 7 | 21% |
| Environmental Science | 6 | 18% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 12% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 02 October 2017.
All research outputs
#3,708,545
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#221
of 1,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,000
of 259,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#15
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 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 1,855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 259,252 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.