↓ Skip to main content

Public and Stakeholder Engagement and the Built Environment: a Review

Overview of attention for article published in Current Environmental Health Reports, August 2017
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 (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Public and Stakeholder Engagement and the Built Environment: a Review
Published in
Current Environmental Health Reports, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40572-017-0159-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin M. Leyden, Amanda Slevin, Thomas Grey, Mike Hynes, Fanney Frisbaek, Richard Silke

Abstract

We review 50 articles from 2015 and 2016 that focus upon public and stakeholder engagement as it pertains to the built environment. Our purpose is to understand the current state of the literature and approaches being used to better enable public and stakeholder engagement. As part of this review, we consider whether recent digital and mobile technologies have enabled advances for stakeholder and public participation. The literature suggests some positive and some challenging developments. Researchers clearly suggest that most policy-makers and planners understand, and to some extent, aspire toward enabling more inclusive participatory planning processes. That said, there is far less consensus as to how to make meaningful inclusive participatory processes possible even with digital, as well as more traditional, tools. This lack of consensus is true across all academic disciplines reviewed. We discuss these issues as well as current solutions offered by many scholars. We find that no single solution can be applied to different situations, as contextual factors create different problems in different situations, and that the participation process itself can create biases that can-intentionally or unintentionally-benefit some participants over others. We conclude with a series of questions for practitioners and researchers to consider when evaluating inclusive engagement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 92 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Student > Master 14 15%
Researcher 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Lecturer 4 4%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 32 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 14 15%
Engineering 11 12%
Environmental Science 5 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 22 24%
Unknown 32 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 December 2019.
All research outputs
#5,650,205
of 23,189,371 outputs
Outputs from Current Environmental Health Reports
#160
of 326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,242
of 317,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Environmental Health Reports
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,189,371 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 326 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 317,801 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.