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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Living with flood risk/The more we know, the more we know we don't know: Reflections on a decade of planning, flood risk management and false precision/Searching for resilience or building social capacities for flood risks?/Participatory floodplain management: Lessons from Bangladesh/Planning and retrofitting for floods: Insights from Australia/Neighbourhood design considerations in flood risk management/Flood risk management – Challenges to the effective implementation of a paradigm shift
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Planning Theory & Practice, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1080/14649357.2012.761904 |
| Authors |
Mark Scott, Iain White, Christian Kuhlicke, Annett Steinführer, Parvin Sultana, Paul Thompson, John Minnery, Eoin O'Neill, Jonathan Cooper, Mark Adamson, Elizabeth Russell |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | 38% |
| Ireland | 5 | 24% |
| Australia | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 81% |
| Scientists | 2 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 8 | 24% |
| Engineering | 4 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 9% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 27 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,756,049
of 25,604,262 outputs
Outputs from Planning Theory & Practice
#45
of 376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,402
of 206,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Planning Theory & Practice
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,604,262 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 206,694 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them