↓ Skip to main content

Living on Climate-Changed Country: Indigenous Health, Well-Being and Climate Change in Remote Australian Communities

Overview of attention for article published in EcoHealth, January 2014
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Living on Climate-Changed Country: Indigenous Health, Well-Being and Climate Change in Remote Australian Communities
Published in
EcoHealth, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10393-013-0892-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donna Green, Liz Minchin

Abstract

Closing the gap between the health and well-being status of Indigenous people living in remote areas of northern Australia and non-Indigenous Australians has long been a major target of federal health policy. With climate projections suggesting large increases in hot spells in desert regions and more extremes in rainfall in other areas of the north, direct and indirect impacts resulting from these changes are likely to further entrench this health and well-being disparity. This paper argues that it is time to explicitly draw on Indigenous definitions of health, which directly address the need to connect individual and community health to the health of their country, in order to develop effective climate adaptation and health strategies. We detail how current health policies overlook this 'missing' dimension of Indigenous connection to country, and why that is likely to be detrimental to the health and well-being of people living in remote communities in a climate-changed future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 181 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 17%
Student > Bachelor 28 15%
Researcher 27 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 23 12%
Unknown 53 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 28 15%
Environmental Science 26 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 23 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 6%
Other 34 18%
Unknown 51 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 01 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,636,420
of 23,885,338 outputs
Outputs from EcoHealth
#157
of 723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,420
of 314,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EcoHealth
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,885,338 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. 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 314,085 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 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.