World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
68
Citations
25069
World Ranking
1842
National Ranking
148

Biology and Biochemistry

D-Index
67
Citations
24645
World Ranking
8063
National Ranking
618

Andrew S. Pullin publication distribution in Environmental Sciences in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Environmental Sciences in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Andrew S. Pullin sits on this spectrum.

41–50 publications: 21 scientists 51–60 publications: 62 scientists 61–70 publications: 133 scientists 71–80 publications: 257 scientists 81–90 publications: 361 scientists 91–100 publications: 440 scientists 101–110 publications: 492 scientists 111–120 publications: 541 scientists 121–130 publications: 617 scientists 131–140 publications: 544 scientists 141–150 publications: 541 scientists 151–160 publications: 539 scientists 161–170 publications: 444 scientists 171–180 publications: 444 scientists 181–190 publications: 400 scientists 191–200 publications: 377 scientists 201–210 publications: 318 scientists 211–220 publications: 282 scientists 221–230 publications: 263 scientists 231–240 publications: 220 scientists 241–250 publications: 217 scientists 251–260 publications: 180 scientists 261–270 publications: 181 scientists 271–280 publications: 155 scientists 281–290 publications: 130 scientists 291–300 publications: 127 scientists 301–310 publications: 130 scientists 311–320 publications: 85 scientists 321–330 publications: 106 scientists 331–340 publications: 80 scientists 341–350 publications: 83 scientists 351–360 publications: 75 scientists 361–370 publications: 69 scientists 371–380 publications: 52 scientists 381–390 publications: 54 scientists 391–400 publications: 56 scientists 401–410 publications: 44 scientists 411–420 publications: 40 scientists 421–430 publications: 36 scientists 431–440 publications: 25 scientists 441–450 publications: 25 scientists 451–460 publications: 32 scientists 461–470 publications: 29 scientists 471–480 publications: 21 scientists 481–490 publications: 26 scientists 491–500 publications: 26 scientists 501–510 publications: 17 scientists 511–520 publications: 19 scientists 521–530 publications: 15 scientists 531–540 publications: 22 scientists 541–550 publications: 12 scientists 551–560 publications: 15 scientists 561–570 publications: 11 scientists 571–580 publications: 19 scientists 581–590 publications: 9 scientists 591–600 publications: 9 scientists 601–610 publications: 7 scientists 611–620 publications: 11 scientists 621–630 publications: 5 scientists 631–640 publications: 5 scientists 641–650 publications: 6 scientists 651–660 publications: 3 scientists 661–670 publications: 3 scientists 671–680 publications: 4 scientists 681–689 publications: 4 scientists 690+ publications: 100 scientists
41 publications 690+

This scientist: 199 publications — 64th percentile

64% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 690 publications or more.

Andrew S. Pullin D-index placement in Environmental Sciences in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Environmental Sciences scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Andrew S. Pullin sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 12 scientists 31 D-Index: 26 scientists 32 D-Index: 51 scientists 33 D-Index: 88 scientists 34 D-Index: 123 scientists 35 D-Index: 163 scientists 36 D-Index: 206 scientists 37 D-Index: 267 scientists 38 D-Index: 265 scientists 39 D-Index: 275 scientists 40 D-Index: 321 scientists 41 D-Index: 343 scientists 42 D-Index: 305 scientists 43 D-Index: 336 scientists 44 D-Index: 330 scientists 45 D-Index: 348 scientists 46 D-Index: 291 scientists 47 D-Index: 275 scientists 48 D-Index: 272 scientists 49 D-Index: 273 scientists 50 D-Index: 263 scientists 51 D-Index: 232 scientists 52 D-Index: 266 scientists 53 D-Index: 217 scientists 54 D-Index: 198 scientists 55 D-Index: 177 scientists 56 D-Index: 202 scientists 57 D-Index: 204 scientists 58 D-Index: 166 scientists 59 D-Index: 177 scientists 60 D-Index: 166 scientists 61 D-Index: 152 scientists 62 D-Index: 143 scientists 63 D-Index: 150 scientists 64 D-Index: 124 scientists 65 D-Index: 119 scientists 66 D-Index: 120 scientists 67 D-Index: 118 scientists 68 D-Index: 82 scientists 69 D-Index: 98 scientists 70 D-Index: 94 scientists 71 D-Index: 105 scientists 72 D-Index: 74 scientists 73 D-Index: 84 scientists 74 D-Index: 70 scientists 75 D-Index: 67 scientists 76 D-Index: 78 scientists 77 D-Index: 60 scientists 78 D-Index: 59 scientists 79 D-Index: 52 scientists 80 D-Index: 47 scientists 81 D-Index: 38 scientists 82 D-Index: 48 scientists 83 D-Index: 42 scientists 84 D-Index: 42 scientists 85 D-Index: 43 scientists 86 D-Index: 29 scientists 87 D-Index: 37 scientists 88 D-Index: 29 scientists 89 D-Index: 30 scientists 90 D-Index: 34 scientists 91 D-Index: 20 scientists 92 D-Index: 22 scientists 93 D-Index: 17 scientists 94 D-Index: 19 scientists 95 D-Index: 24 scientists 96 D-Index: 21 scientists 97 D-Index: 20 scientists 98 D-Index: 24 scientists 99 D-Index: 17 scientists 100 D-Index: 17 scientists 101 D-Index: 21 scientists 102 D-Index: 25 scientists 103 D-Index: 18 scientists 104 D-Index: 26 scientists 105 D-Index: 20 scientists 106 D-Index: 15 scientists 107 D-Index: 10 scientists 108 D-Index: 13 scientists 109 D-Index: 15 scientists 110 D-Index: 12 scientists 111 D-Index: 8 scientists 112 D-Index: 7 scientists 113 D-Index: 9 scientists 114 D-Index: 6 scientists 115 D-Index: 12 scientists 116 D-Index: 7 scientists 117 D-Index: 8 scientists 118 D-Index: 3 scientists 119 D-Index: 5 scientists 120 D-Index: 7 scientists 121 D-Index: 2 scientists 122 D-Index: 4 scientists 123 D-Index: 8 scientists 124 D-Index: 7 scientists 125 D-Index: 9 scientists 126+ D-Index: 92 scientists
30 D-Index 126+

This scientist: 68 D-Index — 81st percentile

81% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 126 D-Index or more.

Overview

Andrew S. Pullin is affiliated with Bangor University in the United Kingdom and has contributed extensively to environmental science and decision sciences. Their research spans several subfields, including statistics, probability and uncertainty, global and planetary change, general health professions, economics and econometrics, and management science and operations research.

The main focus of Andrew S. Pullin's work includes meta-analysis and systematic reviews, health policy implementation science, evaluation and performance assessment, species distribution and climate change, environmental and social impact assessments, economic and environmental valuation, and flood risk assessment and management.

Recent publications authored or co-authored by Andrew S. Pullin demonstrate an emphasis on evidence synthesis and its applications in environmental policy and management. Notable papers include:

  • Standards of conduct and reporting in evidence syntheses that could inform environmental policy and management decisions, 2022, Environmental Evidence
  • Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them, 2020, Nature Ecology & Evolution
  • Evidence Synthesis International (ESI): Position Statement, 2020, Systematic Reviews
  • Strengthen causal models for better conservation outcomes for human well-being, 2020, PLoS ONE
  • Environmental evidence in action: on the science and practice of evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making, 2023, Environmental Evidence

Andrew S. Pullin collaborates frequently with fellow researchers. Some frequent co-authors include Biljana Macura, Ko Konno, Nicola Randall, Neal Haddaway, and Samantha Cheng.

Their work has been published predominantly in the following venues:

  • Environmental Evidence
  • Nature Ecology & Evolution
  • Systematic Reviews
  • PLoS ONE
  • Research Synthesis Methods

Best Publications

  • Urban greening to cool towns and cities: a systematic review of the empirical evidence.

    Diana E. Bowler;Lisette Buyung-Ali;Teri M. Knight;Andrew S. Pullin

  • A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments

    Diana E Bowler;Lisette M Buyung-Ali;Teri M Knight;Andrew S Pullin

  • The need for evidence-based conservation

    William J. Sutherland;Andrew S. Pullin;Paul M. Dolman;Teri M. Knight

  • Guidelines for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environmental Management

    Andrew S. Pullin;Gavin B. Stewart

  • ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps

    Neal R. Haddaway;Biljana Macura;Paul Whaley;Andrew S. Pullin

  • Do conservation managers use scientific evidence to support their decision-making?

    Andrew S Pullin;Teri M Knight;David A Stone;Kevin Charman

  • Application of Systematic Review Methodology to Food and Feed Safety Assessments to Support Decision Making

    Jonathan J. Deeks;Geoff K. Frampton;Julie M. Glanville;Mattias Greiner

  • Biodiversity in urban habitat patches

    P.G. Angold;J.P. Sadler;M.O. Hill;A. Pullin

  • One Hundred Questions of Importance to the Conservation of Global Biological Diversity

    W.J. Sutherland;W.M. Adams;R.B. Aronson;R. Aveling

  • The identification of 100 ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK

    William J. Sutherland;Susan Armstrong-Brown;Paul R. Armsworth;Brereton Tom

  • Effectiveness in Conservation Practice: Pointers from Medicine and Public Health

    Andrew S. Pullin;Teri M. Knight

  • Doing more good than harm: building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management.

    Andrew S. Pullin;Teri M. Knight

  • Support for decision making in conservation practice: an evidence-based approach

    Andrew S. Pullin;Teri M. Knight

  • Does community forest management provide global environmental benefits and improve local welfare

    Diana E Bowler;Lisette M Buyung-Ali;John R Healey;Julia Pg Jones

  • Poor evidence-base for assessment of windfarm impacts on birds

    Gavin B. Stewart;Andrew S. Pullin;Christopher F. Coles

  • Effectiveness of Predator Removal for Enhancing Bird Populations

    Rebecca K. Smith;Andrew S. Pullin;Gavin B. Stewart;William J. Sutherland

  • Are hedgerows effective corridors between fragments of woodland habitat? An evidence-based approach

    Zoe G. Davies;Andrew S. Pullin

  • Decision support frameworks and tools for conservation

    Mark W. Schwartz;Carly N. Cook;Robert L. Pressey;Andrew S. Pullin

  • Human well-being impacts of terrestrial protected areas

    Andrew S Pullin;Mukdarut Bangpan;Sarah Dalrymple;Kelly Dickson

  • Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them

    Neal R. Haddaway;Neal R. Haddaway;Alison Bethel;Lynn V. Dicks;Lynn V. Dicks;Julia Koricheva

  • A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda

    William J. Sutherland;Laura Bellingan;Jim R. Bellingham;Jason J. Blackstock;Jason J. Blackstock

Frequent Co-Authors

William J. Sutherland
William J. Sutherland University of Cambridge
Stefan Schindler
Stefan Schindler Umweltbundesamt, Austria
John R. Healey
John R. Healey Bangor University
Diana E. Bowler
Diana E. Bowler UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology
Chris D. Thomas
Chris D. Thomas University of York
Jeffrey S. Bale
Jeffrey S. Bale University of Birmingham
Michel J. Kaiser
Michel J. Kaiser Heriot-Watt University
Zoe G. Davies
Zoe G. Davies University of Kent
Franz Essl
Franz Essl University of Vienna
Lynn V. Dicks
Lynn V. Dicks University of Cambridge

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

Pursuing a career in Environmental Sciences often leads students to explore advanced educational opportunities that complement their field. Many professionals consider online programs that offer flexibility and specialization. For those seeking rapid advancement, 1 year phd programs online no dissertation provide an accelerated path without the extensive research demands of traditional doctorates.

Educators and environmental policy advocates might be interested in transitioning to leadership roles through eds to edd programs online. These programs support career growth by enhancing expertise in administration and curriculum development while balancing professional responsibilities.

For those aiming to integrate social work and environmental justice, a dsw program offers advanced training in social services with a focus on sustainable communities and public welfare.

Additionally, students seeking a broad interdisciplinary foundation may find an affordable online general studies degree an accessible option that can be tailored to include environmental topics alongside other key areas. These diverse pathways reflect the evolving nature of careers in Environmental Sciences.

Best Scientists Citing Andrew S. Pullin

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles