Article

Morbidity is related to a green living environment.

EMGO Institute, VU University Medical Centre, Van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Journal of epidemiology and community health (Impact Factor: 3.29). 10/2009; 63(12):967-73. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2008.079038
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT As a result of increasing urbanisation, people face the prospect of living in environments with few green spaces. There is increasing evidence for a positive relation between green space in people's living environment and self-reported indicators of physical and mental health. This study investigates whether physician-assessed morbidity is also related to green space in people's living environment.
Morbidity data were derived from electronic medical records of 195 general practitioners in 96 Dutch practices, serving a population of 345,143 people. Morbidity was classified by the general practitioners according to the International Classification of Primary Care. The percentage of green space within a 1 km and 3 km radius around the postal code coordinates was derived from an existing database and was calculated for each household. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were performed, controlling for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.
The annual prevalence rate of 15 of the 24 disease clusters was lower in living environments with more green space in a 1 km radius. The relation was strongest for anxiety disorder and depression. The relation was stronger for children and people with a lower socioeconomic status. Furthermore, the relation was strongest in slightly urban areas and not apparent in very strongly urban areas.
This study indicates that the previously established relation between green space and a number of self-reported general indicators of physical and mental health can also be found for clusters of specific physician-assessed morbidity. The study stresses the importance of green space close to home for children and lower socioeconomic groups.

3 Followers
 · 
132 Views
  • Source
    01/2015; DOI:10.1037/a0038961
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many studies suggest that exposure to natural environments ('greenspace') enhances human health and wellbeing. Benefits potentially arise via several mechanisms including stress reduction, opportunity and motivation for physical activity, and reduced air pollution exposure. However, the evidence is mixed and sometimes inconclusive. One explanation may be that "greenspace" is typically treated as a homogenous environment type. However, recent research has revealed that different types and qualities of natural environments may influence health and wellbeing to different extents. This ecological study explores this issue further using data on land cover type, bird species richness, water quality and protected or designated status to create small-area environmental indicators across Great Britain. Associations between these indicators and age/sex standardised prevalence of both good and bad health from the 2011 Census were assessed using linear regression models. Models were adjusted for indicators of socio-economic deprivation and rurality, and also investigated effect modification by these contextual characteristics. Positive associations were observed between good health prevalence and the density of the greenspace types, "broadleaf woodland", "arable and horticulture", "improved grassland", "saltwater" and "coastal", after adjusting for potential confounders. Inverse associations with bad health prevalence were observed for the same greenspace types, with the exception of "saltwater". Land cover diversity and density of protected/designated areas were also associated with good and bad health in the predicted manner. Bird species richness (an indicator of local biodiversity) was only associated with good health prevalence. Surface water quality, an indicator of general local environmental condition, was associated with good and bad health prevalence contrary to the manner expected, with poorer water quality associated with better population health. Effect modification by income deprivation and urban/rural status was observed for several of the indicators. The findings indicate that the type, quality and context of 'greenspace' should be considered in the assessment of relationships between greenspace and human health and wellbeing. Opportunities exist to further integrate approaches from ecosystem services and public health perspectives to maximise opportunities to inform policies for health and environmental improvement and protection.
    International Journal of Health Geographics 04/2015; 14(1):17. DOI:10.1186/s12942-015-0009-5 · 2.62 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many of us feel intuitively that having access to nature in urban environments is important for our quality of life. The evidence base supporting this claim has grown considerably in recent years, with high profile studies highlighting the links between access to greenspace/having views of nature and health and wellbeing. Physical activity in green environments is increasingly seen as a valuable treatment for mental health problems and a buffer against the development of depression and anxiety disorders. This paper explores the existing research and theory on the value of nature in the built environment for the wellbeing of city-dwellers, focusing on the role of urban forestry. It also raises questions about what we still have to learn about these less tangible benefits of urban trees and woodlands.