Domestic gardens and self-reported health: a national population study

Abstract

BackgroundThere is a growing recognition of the health benefits of the natural environment. Whilst domestic gardens account for a significant proportion of greenspace in urban areas, few studies, and no population level studies, have investigated their potential health benefits. With gardens offering immediate interaction with nature on our doorsteps, we hypothesise that garden size will affect general health—with smaller domestic gardens associated with poorer health.MethodsA small area ecological design was undertaken using two separate analyses based on data from the 2001 and 2011 UK census. The urban population of England was classified into ‘quintiles’ based on deprivation (Index of Multiple Deprivation) and average garden size (Generalised Land Use Database). Self-reported general health was obtained from the UK population census. We controlled for greenspace exposure, population density, air pollution, house prices, smoking, and geographic location. Models were stratified to explore the associations.ResultsSmaller domestic gardens were associated with a higher prevalence of self-reported poor health. The adjusted prevalence ratio of poor self-reported general health for the quintile with smallest average garden size was 1.13 (95% CI 1.12–1.14) relative to the quintile with the largest gardens. Additionally, the analysis suggested that income-related inequalities in health were greater in areas with smaller gardens. The adjusted prevalence ratio for poor self-reported general health for the most income deprived quintile compared against the least deprived was 1.72 (95% CI 1.64–1.79) in the areas with the smallest gardens, compared to 1.31 (95% CI 1.21–1.42) in areas with the largest gardens.ConclusionsResidents of areas with small domestic gardens have the highest levels of poor health/health inequality related to income deprivation. Although causality needs to be confirmed, the implications for new housing are that adequate garden sizes may be an important means of reducing socioeconomic health inequalities. These findings suggest that the trend for continued urban densification and new housing with minimal gardens could have adverse impacts on health.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12942-018-0148-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The good things in urban nature: A thematic framework for optimising urban planning for nature connectedness

“…Many of the observations about animals and bird song came from people's gardens or views from their home windows, highlighting the importance of having access to a garden and green views as a common and frequent 'point of contact' with nature (Cameron et al, 2012). This is consistent with correlational analysis which found that garden size was significantly associated with wellbeing, even when considering other variables such as socioeconomic status (Brindley, Jorgensen, & Maheswaran, 2018). The theme with the second largest representation of observations was that of expressing gratitude at having street trees along commutes to work and university; and enjoying seeing street trees out of office or home windows.…”

Walking Ecosystems in Microbiome-Inspired Green Infrastructure: An Ecological Perspective on Enhancing Personal and Planetary Health

“…Importantly, this type of interconnected lifestyle comes with a rich exposure to diverse microbiota and the associated health benefits common to traditional and agricultural communities [52]. Urban residents surrounded by more green space tend to be healthier, regardless of socioeconomic status [53]. As previously discussed, diverse microbiota are fundamental to good human health.…”

Where the wild things are! Do urban green spaces with greater avian biodiversity promote more positive emotions in humans?

“…The natural world is increasingly viewed as being salutogenic, with good numbers of studies linking aspects of nature (Fuller et al 2007;McMahan and Estes 2015;Wood et al 2018) and green spaces (Wheeler et al 2015;Markevych et al 2017;Brindley et al 2018;Tost et al 2019) to human health and well-being. In a world that is rapidly urbanising, however, access to nature and green spaces can be restricted owing to densification or urban sprawl (Haaland and van den Bosch 2015), and provision of green space not being prioritised within city planning (Moseley et al 2013;Sanesi et al 2017;Douglas et al 2019).…”