↓ Skip to main content

Decolonizing the Boundaries between the ‘Planner’ and the ‘Planned’: Implications of Indigenous Property Development

Overview of attention for article published in Planning Theory & Practice, June 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 478)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
58 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.
Article details
Title
Decolonizing the Boundaries between the ‘Planner’ and the ‘Planned’: Implications of Indigenous Property Development
Published in
Planning Theory & Practice, June 2020
DOI 10.1080/14649357.2020.1775874
Authors

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Master 5 9%
Researcher 3 5%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 29 50%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 12 21%
Environmental Science 4 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 34 59%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 21 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,871,000
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from Planning Theory & Practice
#34
of 478 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,525
of 462,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Planning Theory & Practice
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 478 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 462,266 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 91% 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 has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.