↓ Skip to main content

Leveraging Big Data Towards Functionally-Based, Catchment Scale Restoration Prioritization

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
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
Leveraging Big Data Towards Functionally-Based, Catchment Scale Restoration Prioritization
Published in
Environmental Management, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00267-018-1100-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

John P. Lovette, Jonathan M. Duncan, Lindsey S. Smart, John P. Fay, Lydia P. Olander, Dean L. Urban, Nancy Daly, Jamie Blackwell, Anne B. Hoos, Ana María García, Lawrence E. Band

Abstract

The persistence of freshwater degradation has necessitated the growth of an expansive stream and wetland restoration industry, yet restoration prioritization at broad spatial extents is still limited and ad-hoc restoration prevails. The River Basin Restoration Prioritization tool has been developed to incorporate vetted, distributed data models into a catchment scale restoration prioritization framework. Catchment baseline condition and potential improvement with restoration activity is calculated for all National Hydrography Dataset stream reaches and catchments in North Carolina and compared to other catchments within the river subbasin to assess where restoration efforts may best be focused. Hydrologic, water quality, and aquatic habitat quality conditions are assessed with peak flood flow, nitrogen and phosphorus loading, and aquatic species distribution models. The modular nature of the tool leaves ample opportunity for future incorporation of novel and improved datasets to better represent the holistic health of a watershed, and the nature of the datasets used herein allow this framework to be applied at much broader scales than North Carolina.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 14 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 6 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 13%
Environmental Science 4 10%
Computer Science 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 14 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 November 2018.
All research outputs
#7,305,383
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#619
of 1,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,881
of 345,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#5
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 345,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 66% of its contemporaries.