↓ Skip to main content

A discursive review of the textual use of ‘trapped’ in environmental migration studies: The conceptual birth and troubled teenage years of trapped populations

Overview of attention for article published in Ambio, February 2018
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 (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
31 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
Title
A discursive review of the textual use of ‘trapped’ in environmental migration studies: The conceptual birth and troubled teenage years of trapped populations
Published in
Ambio, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s13280-017-1007-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sonja Ayeb-Karlsson, Christopher D. Smith, Dominic Kniveton

Abstract

First mooted in 2011, the concept of Trapped Populations referring to people unable to move from environmentally high-risk areas broadened the study of human responses to environmental change. While a seemingly straightforward concept, the underlying discourses around the reasons for being 'trapped', and the language describing the concept have profound influences on the way in which policy and practice approaches the needs of populations at risk from environmental stresses and shocks. In this article, we apply a Critical Discourse Analysis to the academic literature on the subject to reveal some of the assumptions implicit within discussing 'trapped' populations. The analysis reveals a dominant school of thought that assisted migration, relocation, and resettlement in the face of climate change are potentially effective adaptation strategies along a gradient of migrant agency and governance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 133 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 14%
Student > Master 19 14%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 39 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 29 22%
Environmental Science 20 15%
Engineering 7 5%
Arts and Humanities 5 4%
Unspecified 4 3%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 49 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 76. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#572,525
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from Ambio
#67
of 1,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,987
of 457,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Ambio
#2
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 457,011 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 32 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 93% of its contemporaries.