↓ Skip to main content

Greenspace, physical activity and well-being in Australian capital cities: how does population size moderate the relationship?

Overview of attention for article published in Public Health (Elsevier), December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
111 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
Greenspace, physical activity and well-being in Australian capital cities: how does population size moderate the relationship?
Published in
Public Health (Elsevier), December 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.puhe.2015.11.013
Pubmed ID
Authors

C.L. Ambrey

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the synergy between greenspace and physical activity and its implications for well-being. In particular, how this synergy may depend on population size in the neighborhood. Cross-sectional analysis of resident-level responses from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey for 2013 subset to Australia's major capital cities and linked to Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data. GIS data on greenspace and Australian Bureau of Statistics data on population size for the neighborhood are matched to the residents in the HILDA survey on the basis of the Census Collection District in which they reside. A cluster-specific fixed effects model is estimated for the outcomes of mental health and psychological distress. A battery of sociodemographic and location characteristics were also adjusted for. Interaction terms are used to discern the extent to which population size may moderate any synergistic well-being benefits associated with physical activity and greenspace. This question is ultimately operationalized as a three-way interaction effect (greenspace × physical activity × population size). The results indicate that physical activity is most strongly and positively associated with mental health (statistically significant at the 1% level), with an estimated coefficient of 0.6307. The results also reveal that physical activity is negatively associated with psychological distress (statistically significant at the 10% level), with an estimated coefficient of -0.2447. Unexpectedly, for both mental health and psychological distress the greenspace and population variables are not found to have separate statistically significant effects. Furthermore, while the results fail to find, on average, the hypothesized synergy between greenspace and physical activity, a closer inspection reveals that this link may depend on the population size of a neighborhood. The interaction term for greenspace, physical activity and population bears a coefficient estimate of 0.0033, statistically significant at the 5% level in the mental health regression and a coefficient of -0.0032, statistically significant at the 1% level in the psychological distress regression. The results indicate that physical activity is linked differently to mental health and psychological distress. The results initially provide no evidence of the hypothesized greenspace-physical activity synergy. The results provide evidence that this synergy is greater in more populated neighborhoods.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 111 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 4 4%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 30 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 16 14%
Social Sciences 12 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Other 24 22%
Unknown 36 32%
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 06 April 2016.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Public Health (Elsevier)
#2,352
of 3,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,953
of 395,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Public Health (Elsevier)
#16
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 3,584 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 395,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.