↓ Skip to main content

Urban trees and the risk of poor birth outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Health & Place, November 2010
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 (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
3 policy sources
reddit
2 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
232 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.
Article details
Title
Urban trees and the risk of poor birth outcomes
Published in
Health & Place, November 2010
DOI 10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.11.004
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This paper investigated whether greater tree-canopy cover is associated with reduced risk of poor birth outcomes in Portland, Oregon. Residential addresses were geocoded and linked to classified-aerial imagery to calculate tree-canopy cover in 50, 100, and 200 m buffers around each home in our sample (n=5696). Detailed data on maternal characteristics and additional neighborhood variables were obtained from birth certificates and tax records. We found that a 10% increase in tree-canopy cover within 50 m of a house reduced the number of small for gestational age births by 1.42 per 1000 births (95% CI-0.11-2.72). Results suggest that the natural environment may affect pregnancy outcomes and should be evaluated in future research.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
Sweden 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 217 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 21%
Researcher 40 17%
Student > Master 39 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Lecturer 11 5%
Other 42 18%
Unknown 37 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 52 22%
Environmental Science 49 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 8%
Design 7 3%
Other 25 11%
Unknown 55 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 28 February 2023.
All research outputs
#2,248,212
of 32,227,547 outputs
Outputs from Health & Place
#341
of 2,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,035
of 237,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health & Place
#7
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,227,547 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,065 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.7. 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 237,186 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.