↓ Skip to main content

Communal visual histories to detect environmental change in northern areas: Examples of emerging North American and Eurasian practices

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Communal visual histories to detect environmental change in northern areas: Examples of emerging North American and Eurasian practices
Published in
Ambio, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13280-015-0671-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tero Mustonen

Abstract

This article explores the pioneering potential of communal visual-optic histories which are recorded, painted, documented, or otherwise expressed. These materials provide collective meanings of an image or visual material within a specific cultural group. They potentially provide a new method for monitoring and documenting changes to ecosystem health and species distribution, which can effectively inform society and decision makers of Arctic change. These visual histories can be positioned in a continuum that extends from rock art to digital photography. They find their expressions in forms ranging from images to the oral recording of knowledge and operate on a given cultural context. For monitoring efforts in the changing boreal zone and Arctic, a respectful engagement with visual histories can reveal emerging aspects of change. The examples from North America and case studies from Eurasia in this article include Inuit sea ice observations, Yu'pik visual traditions of masks, fish die-offs in a sub-boreal catchment area, permafrost melt in the Siberian tundra and early, first detection of a scarabaeid beetle outbreak, a Southern species in the Skolt Sámi area. The pros and cons of using these histories and their reliability are reviewed.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 66 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Student > Master 12 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 4 6%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 26 39%
Social Sciences 9 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Arts and Humanities 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 17 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 08 May 2017.
All research outputs
#752,738
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#105
of 1,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,802
of 267,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#2
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,631 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 267,166 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.