↓ Skip to main content

Domestic well locations and populations served in the contiguous U.S.: 1990

Overview of attention for article published in Science of the Total Environment, July 2017
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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Domestic well locations and populations served in the contiguous U.S.: 1990
Published in
Science of the Total Environment, July 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.018
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tyler D. Johnson, Kenneth Belitz

Abstract

We estimate the location and population served by domestic wells in the contiguous United States in two ways: (1) the "Block Group Method" or BGM, uses data from the 1990 census, and (2) the "Road-Enhanced Method" or REM, refines the locations by using a buffer expansion and shrinkage technique along roadways to define areas where domestic wells exist. The fundamental assumption is that houses (and therefore domestic wells) are located near a named road. The results are presented as two nationally-consistent domestic-well population datasets. While both methods can be considered valid, the REM map is more precise in locating domestic wells; the REM map has a smaller amount of spatial bias (Type 1 and Type 2 errors nearly equal vs biased in Type 1), total error (10.9% vs 23.7%), and distance error (2.0km vs 2.7km), when comparing the REM and BGM maps to a calibration map in California. However, the BGM map is more inclusive of all potential locations for domestic wells. Independent domestic well datasets from the USGS, and the States of MN, NV, and TX show that the BGM captures about 5 to 10% more wells than the REM. One key difference between the BGM and the REM is the mapping of low density areas. The REM reduces areas mapped as low density by 57%, concentrating populations into denser regions. Therefore, if one is trying to capture all of the potential areas of domestic-well usage, then the BGM map may be more applicable. If location is more imperative, then the REM map is better at identifying areas of the landscape with the highest probability of finding a domestic well. Depending on the purpose of a study, a combination of both maps can be used.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 11 22%
Engineering 10 20%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Unspecified 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 27 March 2020.
All research outputs
#3,781,113
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Science of the Total Environment
#5,048
of 30,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,484
of 328,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science of the Total Environment
#87
of 400 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 328,207 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 400 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.