↓ Skip to main content

It's not just about the park, it's about integration too: why people choose to use or not use urban greenspaces

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, October 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 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
It's not just about the park, it's about integration too: why people choose to use or not use urban greenspaces
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, October 2010
DOI 10.1186/1479-5868-7-78
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter J Seaman, Russell Jones, Anne Ellaway, Seaman PJ, Jones R, Ellaway A

Abstract

Greenspace has the potential to be a vital resource for promoting healthy living for people in urban areas, offering both opportunities for physical activity and wellbeing. Much research has explored the objectively measurable factors within areas to the end of explaining the role of greenspace access in continuing health inequalities. This paper explores the subjective reasons why people in urban areas choose to use, or not use, local public greenspace.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
United States 3 2%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Unknown 185 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 24%
Student > Master 43 22%
Researcher 29 15%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 5%
Other 35 18%
Unknown 18 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 47 24%
Environmental Science 32 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 9%
Sports and Recreations 13 7%
Psychology 11 6%
Other 43 22%
Unknown 35 18%

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 27 November 2015.
All research outputs
#5,934,084
of 11,157,557 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#987
of 1,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,940
of 192,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#37
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,157,557 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.9. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 192,193 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.