| Title |
Spatial Disparities in the Distribution of Parks and Green Spaces in the USA
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12160-012-9426-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ming Wen, Xingyou Zhang, Carmen D. Harris, James B. Holt, Janet B. Croft |
| Abstract |
Little national evidence is available on spatial disparities in distributions of parks and green spaces in the USA. This study examines ecological associations of spatial access to parks and green spaces with percentages of black, Hispanic, and low-income residents across the urban-rural continuum in the conterminous USA. Census tract-level park and green space data were linked with data from the 2010 U.S. Census and 2006-2010 American Community Surveys. Linear mixed regression models were performed to examine these associations. Poverty levels were negatively associated with distances to parks and percentages of green spaces in urban/suburban areas while positively associated in rural areas. Percentages of blacks and Hispanics were in general negatively linked to distances to parks and green space coverage along the urban-rural spectrum. Place-based race-ethnicity and poverty are important correlates of spatial access to parks and green spaces, but the associations vary across the urbanization levels. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 33% |
| Mexico | 2 | 22% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 371 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 368 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 71 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 67 | 18% |
| Researcher | 44 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 27 | 7% |
| Other | 54 | 15% |
| Unknown | 72 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 69 | 19% |
| Environmental Science | 65 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 23 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 4% |
| Other | 73 | 20% |
| Unknown | 110 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 292. 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 14 November 2023.
All research outputs
#118,130
of 25,151,710 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Behavioral Medicine
#18
of 1,480 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#715
of 298,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Behavioral Medicine
#2
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,151,710 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,480 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 298,455 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 96% of its contemporaries.