↓ Skip to main content

Screening regional management options for their impact on climate resilience: an approach and case study in the Venen-Vechtstreek wetlands in the Netherlands

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
Title
Screening regional management options for their impact on climate resilience: an approach and case study in the Venen-Vechtstreek wetlands in the Netherlands
Published in
SpringerPlus, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2408-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. A. Wardekker, D. Wildschut, S. Stemberger, J. P. Sluijs

Abstract

Freshwater systems provide various resources and services. These are often vulnerable to climate change and other pressures. Therefore, enhancing resilience to climate change is important for their long term viability. This paper explores how management options can be evaluated on their resilience implications. The approach included five steps: (1) characterizing the system, (2) characterizing the impacts of climate change and other disturbances, (3) inventorying management options, (4) assessing the impacts of these on climate resilience, and (5) follow-up analysis. For the resilience assessment, we used a set of 'resilience principles': homeostasis, omnivory, high flux, flatness, buffering, and redundancy. We applied the approach in a case study in a Dutch wetlands region. Many options in the region's management plan contribute to resilience, however, the plan underutilised several principles, particularly flatness, but also redundancy and omnivory for agriculture, and high flux for nature. Co-benefits was identified as an important additional criterion to obtain support for adaptation from local stakeholders, such as farmers. The approach provided a relatively quick and participatory way to screen options. It allowed us to consider multiple impacts and sectors, multiple dimensions of resilience, and stakeholder perspectives. The results can be used to identify gaps or pitfalls, and set priorities for follow-up analyses.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 2%
Unknown 51 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 19%
Researcher 6 12%
Professor 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 13 25%
Unknown 10 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 15 29%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 10%
Engineering 4 8%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 11 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#13,983,915
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#740
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,599
of 352,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#95
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 352,647 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 212 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 53% of its contemporaries.