↓ Skip to main content

Attending to scalar ethical issues in emerging approaches to environmental health research and practice

Overview of attention for article published in Monash Bioethics Review, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Attending to scalar ethical issues in emerging approaches to environmental health research and practice
Published in
Monash Bioethics Review, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s40592-018-0080-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris G. Buse, Maxwell Smith, Diego S. Silva

Abstract

Accelerated changes to the planet have created novel spaces to re-imagine the boundaries and foci of environmental health research. Climate change, mass species extinction, ocean acidification, biogeochemical disturbance, and other emergent environmental issues have precipitated new population health perspectives, including, but not limited to, one health, ecohealth, and planetary health. These perspectives, while nuanced, all attempt to reconcile broad global challenges with localized health impacts by attending to the reciprocal relationships between the health of ecosystems, animals, and humans. While such innovation is to be encouraged, we argue that a more comprehensive engagement with the ethics of these emerging fields of inquiry will add value in terms of the significance and impact of associated interventions. In this contribution, we highlight how the concept of spatial and temporal scale can be usefully deployed to shed light on a variety of ethical issues common to emerging environmental health perspectives, and that the potential of scalar analysis implicit to van Potter's conceptualization of bioethics has yet to be fully appreciated. Specifically, we identify how scale interacts with key ethical issues that require consideration and clarification by one health, ecohealth, and planetary health researchers and practitioners to enhance the effectiveness of research and practice, including justice and governance.

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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Researcher 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 21 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 10%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Environmental Science 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Linguistics 2 3%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 24 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 August 2019.
All research outputs
#15,318,700
of 24,288,533 outputs
Outputs from Monash Bioethics Review
#85
of 154 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,878
of 333,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Monash Bioethics Review
#4
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,288,533 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 154 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 333,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.