2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2022.112869
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Do sex and gender modify the association between green space and physical health? A systematic review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

4
32
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 70 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 138 publications
4
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This study also did not investigate the effect modifiers the reported associations, indicating further investigation is needed. This is particularly important from an equity perspective, not only based on evidence that communities living with socioeconomic disadvantage may benefit disproportionately more than their more advantaged counterparts from investments in built environment [ 71 ], but also given evidence of differences in associations reported in low and middle income countries [ 72 , 73 ] sex and gender identity [ 74 ], and even personality traits such as extraversion and neuroticism [ 75 ]. That research is crucial to ensure that recommendations for urban planning result in more inclusive and equitable cities that promote health across their diverse populations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This study also did not investigate the effect modifiers the reported associations, indicating further investigation is needed. This is particularly important from an equity perspective, not only based on evidence that communities living with socioeconomic disadvantage may benefit disproportionately more than their more advantaged counterparts from investments in built environment [ 71 ], but also given evidence of differences in associations reported in low and middle income countries [ 72 , 73 ] sex and gender identity [ 74 ], and even personality traits such as extraversion and neuroticism [ 75 ]. That research is crucial to ensure that recommendations for urban planning result in more inclusive and equitable cities that promote health across their diverse populations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on previous findings, we considered gender, socio-economic status, age, and BMI as covariates in each model [ 56 59 ] (see also Additional file 1 : Text S1). Third, as previous research has shown inequalities in the use of and access to natural environments [ 60 , 61 ] as well as in the association between built environment variables and health outcomes [ 62 , 63 ], we calculated interactions between the natural environment predictors and socio-demographic indicators (age, gender, and socio-economic status). In addition, for the outcome MVPA, we distinguished between weekdays (Monday–Friday) and weekend days (Saturday–Sunday) as physical activity patterns may differ due to structural changes [ 64 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This gap, in particular, is incredibly wide, ranging from the time humans need to spend with nature (duration), the amount of nature the designers need to provide (intensity), and how often humans need to experience nature (frequency) (Jiang et al 2014a ; Shanahan et al 2016a ). We also do not know the extent to which the people the landscapes are designed for may differ in stress recovery due to their demographics, such as gender, cultures, and personal experiences (Lyons 1983 ; Richards et al 2020 ; Rigolon et al 2021 ; Sillman et al 2022 ). Furthermore, current situations—such as air pollution, global climate changes, and pandemic—may prevent people from accessing physical nature or create more health risks (Browning et al 2020b ; Pinho et al 2021 ; Suppakittpaisarn et al 2020b ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%