↓ Skip to main content

Comparing circular and network buffers to examine the influence of land use on walking for leisure and errands

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Health Geographics, September 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
213 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
265 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.
Title
Comparing circular and network buffers to examine the influence of land use on walking for leisure and errands
Published in
International Journal of Health Geographics, September 2007
DOI 10.1186/1476-072x-6-41
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa N Oliver, Nadine Schuurman, Alexander W Hall

Abstract

There is increasing interest in examining the influence of the built environment on physical activity. High-resolution data in a geographic information system is increasingly being used to measure salient aspects of the built environment and studies often use circular or road network buffers to measure land use around an individual's home address. However, little research has examined the extent to which the selection of circular or road network buffers influences the results of analysis. The objective of this study is to examine the influence of land use type (residential, commercial, recreational and park land and institutional land) on 'walking for leisure' and 'walking for errands' using 1 km circular and line-based road network buffers. Data on individual walking patterns is obtained from a survey of 1311 respondents in greater Vancouver and respondent's postal code centroids were used to construct the individual buffers. Logistic regression was used for statistical analysis.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 265 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 2%
Canada 4 2%
United States 4 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Unknown 248 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 66 25%
Student > Master 44 17%
Researcher 41 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 7%
Student > Bachelor 17 6%
Other 39 15%
Unknown 40 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 64 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 34 13%
Environmental Science 31 12%
Sports and Recreations 12 5%
Engineering 10 4%
Other 56 21%
Unknown 58 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 March 2013.
All research outputs
#4,547,321
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Health Geographics
#141
of 654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,548
of 83,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Health Geographics
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 654 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 83,247 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 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