Green Space Quality and Health: A Systematic Review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

(1) Background: As cities densify, researcher and policy focus is intensifying on which green space types and qualities are important for health. We conducted a systematic review to examine whether particular green space types and qualities have been shown to provide health benefits and if so, which specific types and qualities, and which health outcomes. (2) Methods: We searched five databases from inception up to June 30, 2021. We included all studies examining a wide range of green space characteristics on various health outcomes. (3) Results: 68 articles from 59 studies were found, with a high degree of heterogeneity in study designs, definitions of quality and outcomes. Most studies were cross-sectional, ecological or cohort studies. Environment types, vegetation types, and the size and connectivity of green spaces were associated with improved health outcomes, though with contingencies by age and gender. Health benefits were more consistently observed in areas with greater tree canopy, but not grassland. The main outcomes with evidence of health benefits included allergic respiratory conditions, cardiovascular conditions and psychological wellbeing. Both objectively and subjectively measured qualities demonstrated associations with health outcomes. (4) Conclusion: Experimental studies and longitudinal cohort studies will strengthen current evidence. Evidence was lacking for needs-specific or culturally-appropriate amenities and soundscape characteristics. Qualities that need more in-depth investigation include indices that account for forms, patterns, and networks of objectively and subjectively measured green space qualities.

Related collections

Most cited references 106

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2024)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 12951 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Exploring pathways linking greenspace to health: Theoretical and methodological guidance.

Donka Dimitrova Dimitrova, Thomas Astell-Burt, Elizabeth A Richardson … (2018)

In a rapidly urbanizing world, many people have little contact with natural environments, which may affect health and well-being. Existing reviews generally conclude that residential greenspace is beneficial to health. However, the processes generating these benefits and how they can be best promoted remain unclear.

0 comments Cited 537 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The health benefits of the great outdoors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of greenspace exposure and health outcomes

Caoimhe Twohig-Bennett, Andy Jones (2018)

Background The health benefits of greenspaces have demanded the attention of policymakers since the 1800s. Although much evidence suggests greenspace exposure is beneficial for health, there exists no systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesise and quantify the impact of greenspace on a wide range of health outcomes. Objective To quantify evidence of the impact of greenspace on a wide range of health outcomes. Methods We searched five online databases and reference lists up to January 2017. Studies satisfying a priori eligibility criteria were evaluated independently by two authors. Results We included 103 observational and 40 interventional studies investigating ~100 health outcomes. Meta-analysis results showed increased greenspace exposure was associated with decreased salivary cortisol −0.05 (95% CI −0.07, −0.04), heart rate −2.57 (95% CI −4.30, −0.83), diastolic blood pressure −1.97 (95% CI −3.45, −0.19), HDL cholesterol −0.03 (95% CI −0.05, <-0.01), low frequency heart rate variability (HRV) −0.06 (95% CI −0.08, −0.03) and increased high frequency HRV 91.87 (95% CI 50.92, 132.82), as well as decreased risk of preterm birth 0.87 (95% CI 0.80, 0.94), type II diabetes 0.72 (95% CI 0.61, 0.85), all-cause mortality 0.69 (95% CI 0.55, 0.87), small size for gestational age 0.81 (95% CI 0.76, 0.86), cardiovascular mortality 0.84 (95% CI 0.76, 0.93), and an increased incidence of good self-reported health 1.12 (95% CI 1.05, 1.19). Incidence of stroke, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, asthma, and coronary heart disease were reduced. For several non-pooled health outcomes, between 66.7% and 100% of studies showed health-denoting associations with increased greenspace exposure including neurological and cancer-related outcomes, and respiratory mortality. Conclusions Greenspace exposure is associated with numerous health benefits in intervention and observational studies. These results are indicative of a beneficial influence of greenspace on a wide range of health outcomes. However several meta-analyses results are limited by poor study quality and high levels of heterogeneity. Green prescriptions involving greenspace use may have substantial benefits. Our findings should encourage practitioners and policymakers to give due regard to how they can create, maintain, and improve existing accessible greenspaces in deprived areas. Furthermore the development of strategies and interventions for the utilisation of such greenspaces by those who stand to benefit the most.