Associations between Urban Green Spaces and Health are Dependent on the Analytical Scale and How Urban Green Spaces are Measured

Abstract

Although the benefits from exposure to urban green spaces (UGS) are increasingly reported, there are important knowledge gaps in the nature of UGS-health relationships. One such unknown area is the dependence of UGS-health associations on the types of UGS studied, the way they are quantified, and the spatial scale used in the analysis. These knowledge gaps have important ramifications on our ability to develop generalizations to promote implementation and facilitate comparative studies across different socio-cultural and socio-economic contexts. We conducted a study in Singapore to examine the dependence of UGS-health associations on the metrics for quantifying UGS (vegetation cover, canopy cover and park area) in different types of buffer area (circular, nested and network) at different spatial scales. A population-based household survey (n = 1000) was used to collect information on self-reported health and perception and usage pattern of UGS. The results showed that although all three UGS metrics were positively related to mental health at certain scales, overall, canopy cover showed the strongest associations with mental health at most scales. There also appears to be minimum and maximum threshold levels of spatial scale at which UGS and health have significant associations, with the strongest associations consistently shown between 400 m to 1600 m in different buffer types. We discuss the significance of these results for UGS-health studies and applications in UGS planning for improved health of urban dwellers.

Residential exposure to natural outdoor environments and general health among older adults in Shanghai, China

“…circular buffer, network buffer, and nested buffer) and different metrics of green spaces (e.g. vegetation cover, canopy cover, and park area) were used, the association between self-reported mental health and exposure to urban green spaces turned out to vary in Singapore [46].…”

Role of Urban Greening Strategies for Environmental Sustainability—A Review and Assessment in the Context of Saudi Arabian Megacities

“…GSs, in particular, provide socio-ecological and economic benefits, improve air quality [15,20], reduce noise pollution level, and support ESs (such as food, wood, and fuel provision) [20,21] and control of water pollution. GSs can also increase carbon storage capacity [22][23][24], reduce the urban heat island (UHI) effect [5,6,25,26], offer social benefits [6,27], enhance human health and well-being [28,29], and provide ecological benefits [30,31]. Thus, GSs have an immense impact on the overall sustainability of the urban environment.…”

Greening Blocks: A Conceptual Typology of Practical Design Interventions to Integrate Health and Climate Resilience Co-Benefits

“…Higher rates of tree canopy cover in a neighborhood is associated with higher potential for climate adaptation. For example, greater canopy cover would have greater heat island mitigation through increased shade and evapotranspiration [87,88]. It is also associated with human health benefits, such as better infant birth weight outcomes in neighborhoods with higher tree canopy cover [89,90].…”