World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
38
Citations
6821
World Ranking
8563
National Ranking
3063

Eugene Kim 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 Eugene Kim 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: 283 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: 25 scientists 501–510 publications: 17 scientists 511–520 publications: 18 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 681–686 publications: 3 scientists 687+ publications: 100 scientists
41 publications 687+

This scientist: 55 publications — 1st percentile

1% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 687 publications or more.

Eugene Kim 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 Eugene Kim 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: 199 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: 19 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: 99 scientists
30 D-Index 125+

This scientist: 38 D-Index — 12th percentile

12% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 125 D-Index or more.

Overview

Eugene Kim is affiliated with Clarkson University in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on environmental science with a specialization in nature and landscape conservation. A key area of investigation for Kim is urban and spatial planning, reflecting an interdisciplinary approach to managing and preserving natural and built environments.

Kim has contributed to academic literature through publications that integrate photogrammetry, remote sensing, and spatial information sciences. Their recent work includes the paper titled "3D RISK MAPPING OF HAZARD TREE IN CHANGDEOKGUNG PALACE", published in 2023 in The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences/International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. This paper explores methodologies for assessing risk in urban heritage sites using 3D mapping technologies.

Throughout their research career, Kim has collaborated with several co-authors, including:

  • C. W. Kim
  • Jaimin Lee
  • C. S. Kim

Their work has been published in:

  • The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences/International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences

Kim's research intersects several key topics, including:

  • Urban and spatial planning

The intersection of environmental science techniques with urban planning marks Kim's contribution to developing tools and approaches that address nature conservation within complex urban contexts. Their work on hazard tree risk mapping is particularly relevant for managing risks in heritage and landscape conservation areas.

Best Publications

  • Source identification of atlanta aerosol by positive matrix factorization.

    Eugene Kim;Philip K Hopke;Eric S Edgerton

  • Investigation of sources of atmospheric aerosol at urban and semi-urban areas in Bangladesh

    Bilkis A. Begum;Eugene Kim;Swapan K. Biswas;Philip K. Hopke

  • Fine particle sources and cardiorespiratory morbidity: an application of chemical mass balance and factor analytical source-apportionment methods.

    Jeremy A. Sarnat;Amit Marmur;Mitchel Klein;Eugene Kim

  • Source apportionment of PM2.5 at an urban IMPROVE site in Seattle, Washington.

    Naydene N. Maykut;Joellen Lewtas;Eugene Kim;Timothy V. Larson

  • Improving source identification of Atlanta aerosol using temperature resolved carbon fractions in positive matrix factorization

    Eugene Kim;Philip K. Hopke;Eric S. Edgerton

  • PM source apportionment and health effects: 1. Intercomparison of source apportionment results.

    Philip K Hopke;Kazuhiko Ito;Therese Mar;William F Christensen

  • The comparison between thermal-optical transmittance elemental carbon and Aethalometer black carbon measured at multiple monitoring sites

    Cheol-Heon Jeong;Philip K. Hopke;Eugene Kim;Doh-Won Lee

  • Source Apportionment of Fine Particles in Washington, DC, Utilizing Temperature-Resolved Carbon Fractions

    Eugene Kim;Philip K. Hopke

  • Evaluation of the potential source contribution function using the 2002 Quebec forest fire episode

    Bilkis Ara Begum;Eugene Kim;Cheol-Heon Jeong;Doh-Won Lee

  • Source identification of PM2.5 in an arid Northwest U.S. City by positive matrix factorization

    Eugene Kim;Timothy V Larson;Philip K Hopke;Chris Slaughter

  • Comparison between Conditional Probability Function and Nonparametric Regression for Fine Particle Source Directions

    Eugene Kim;Philip K Hopke

  • Workgroup report: workshop on source apportionment of particulate matter health effects--intercomparison of results and implications.

    George D. Thurston;Kazuhiko Ito;Therese Mar;William F. Christensen

  • PM source apportionment and health effects: 2. An investigation of intermethod variability in associations between source-apportioned fine particle mass and daily mortality in Washington, DC

    Kazuhiko Ito;William F Christensen;Delbert J Eatough;Ronald C Henry

  • The concentrations and sources of PM2.5 in metropolitan New York City

    Youjun Qin;Eugene Kim;Philip K. Hopke

  • Improving source identification of fine particles in a rural northeastern U.S. area utilizing temperature‐resolved carbon fractions

    Eugene Kim;Philip K. Hopke

  • PM source apportionment and health effects. 3. Investigation of inter-method variations in associations between estimated source contributions of PM2.5 and daily mortality in Phoenix, AZ.

    Therese F Mar;Kazuhiko Ito;Jane Q Koenig;Timothy V Larson

  • Association between particulate matter and emergency room visits, hospital admissions and mortality in Spokane, Washington

    James C Slaughter;Eugene Kim;Lianne Sheppard;Jeffrey H Sullivan

  • Source characterization of ambient fine particles at multiple sites in the Seattle area

    Eugene Kim;Philip K. Hopke

  • Advanced Factor Analysis on Pittsburgh Particle Size-Distribution Data Special Issue ofAerosol Science and Technologyon Findings from the Fine Particulate Matter Supersites Program

    Liming Zhou;Eugene Kim;Philip K. Hopke;Charles O. Stanier

  • Analysis of ambient particle size distributions using Unmix and positive matrix factorization.

    Eugene Kim;Philip K. Hopke;Timothy V. Larson;David S. Covert

Frequent Co-Authors

Philip K. Hopke
Philip K. Hopke Clarkson University
Timothy V. Larson
Timothy V. Larson University of Washington
Francine Laden
Francine Laden Harvard University
Delbert J. Eatough
Delbert J. Eatough Brigham Young University
George D. Thurston
George D. Thurston New York University
Joseph P. Pinto
Joseph P. Pinto University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Charles O. Stanier
Charles O. Stanier University of Iowa
Kazuhiko Ito
Kazuhiko Ito New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Helen H. Suh
Helen H. Suh Tufts University
James A. Mulholland
James A. Mulholland Georgia Institute of Technology

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 degree in Environmental Sciences opens the door to a variety of career paths and complementary fields. For learners looking to expand their expertise, exploring cheapest online dsw programs can be a strategic option, especially for those interested in the social impact aspects of environmental work.

If you prefer a broader approach, an affordable online general studies degree offers flexibility to combine environmental sciences with other subjects, helping you customize your education to match diverse career goals.

For those seeking a smoother academic journey, some students might consider the easiest bachelor's degree to get options, balancing manageable coursework with gaining valuable knowledge in relevant areas.

Additionally, related scientific disciplines, such as geology, significantly overlap with environmental sciences. Exploring online geology programs can offer specialized training that enhances understanding of earth systems, a critical component in environmental careers.

Best Scientists Citing Eugene Kim

Recently Published Articles