↓ Skip to main content

The association between green space and cause-specific mortality in urban New Zealand: an ecological analysis of green space utility

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, May 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
151 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
338 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
The association between green space and cause-specific mortality in urban New Zealand: an ecological analysis of green space utility
Published in
BMC Public Health, May 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2458-10-240
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elizabeth Richardson, Jamie Pearce, Richard Mitchell, Peter Day, Simon Kingham

Abstract

There is mounting international evidence that exposure to green environments is associated with health benefits, including lower mortality rates. Consequently, it has been suggested that the uneven distribution of such environments may contribute to health inequalities. Possible causative mechanisms behind the green space and health relationship include the provision of physical activity opportunities, facilitation of social contact and the restorative effects of nature. In the New Zealand context we investigated whether there was a socioeconomic gradient in green space exposure and whether green space exposure was associated with cause-specific mortality (cardiovascular disease and lung cancer). We subsequently asked what is the mechanism(s) by which green space availability may influence mortality outcomes, by contrasting health associations for different types of green space.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 338 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Unknown 325 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 68 20%
Researcher 62 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 15%
Student > Bachelor 26 8%
Student > Postgraduate 20 6%
Other 53 16%
Unknown 58 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 63 19%
Social Sciences 56 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 4%
Psychology 13 4%
Other 65 19%
Unknown 89 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 2014.
All research outputs
#14,325,921
of 21,326,395 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,576
of 13,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,832
of 252,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#853
of 1,086 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,326,395 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,832 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 252,210 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,086 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.