↓ Skip to main content

Savanna burning methodology for fire management and emissions reduction: a critical review of influencing factors

Overview of attention for article published in Carbon Balance and Management, November 2016
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 (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Savanna burning methodology for fire management and emissions reduction: a critical review of influencing factors
Published in
Carbon Balance and Management, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13021-016-0067-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tek Narayan Maraseni, Kathryn Reardon-Smith, Greg Griffiths, Armando Apan

Abstract

Savanna fire is a major source of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In Australia, savanna fire contributes about 3% of annual GHG emissions reportable to the Kyoto Protocol. In order to reduce GHG emissions from savanna burning, the Australian government has developed and approved a Kyoto compliant savanna controlled burning methodology-the first legal instrument of this kind at a global level-under its Emission Reduction Fund. However, this approved methodology is currently only applicable to nine vegetation fuel types across northern parts of Australia in areas which receive on average over 600 mm rainfall annually, covering only 15.4% of the total land area in Australia. Savanna ecosystems extend across a large proportion of mainland Australia. This paper provides a critical review of ten key factors that need to be considered in developing a savanna burning methodology applicable to the other parts of Australia. It will also inform discussion in other countries intent on developing similar emissions reduction strategies.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 12 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 17 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 22%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 4 7%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Chemical Engineering 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 17 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 September 2022.
All research outputs
#4,151,279
of 23,390,392 outputs
Outputs from Carbon Balance and Management
#76
of 238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,357
of 271,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Carbon Balance and Management
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,390,392 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. 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 271,783 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.