Suchergebnisse

AbstractIntroductionMomentum for urban densification is increasing opportunities for apartment-living, but can result in reduced green space availability that negatively influences mental health. However, in contexts where apartment-living is atypical and commonly viewed as secondary to house-ownership, it may be a stressful antecedent condition (or marker of selective processes aligned with psychological distress) wherein occupants could benefit disproportionately from green space.MethodData were extracted from the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study baseline (2006–2009,n = 267,153). The focus was on subsets of 13,196 people living in apartments and 66,453 people living in households within the cities of Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong. Multilevel models adjusted for confounders tested associations between psychological distress (Kessler 10 scale) with percentage total green space, tree canopy and open grass within 1.6 km road network buffers.ResultsPsychological distress was higher in occupants of apartments (11.3%) compared with houses (7.9%). More green space was associated with less psychological distress for house-dwellers (OR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.91–0.98), but there was no association for apartment-dwellers. More tree canopy was associated with lower psychological distress for house-dwellers (OR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.85–0.92) and apartment-dwellers (OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.79–0.96). Open grass was associated with more psychological distress among house-dwellers (OR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.00–1.13) and also for apartment-dwellers (OR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.07–1.35).ConclusionsOverall, investments in tree canopy may benefit the mental health of house and apartment residents relatively equally. Urban tree canopy in densely populated areas where apartments are common needs to be protected. Further work is needed to understand factors constraining the prevention potential of open grass, to unlock its benefits for mental health.

How can we communicate to the public that population level health interventions are effective at improving health? Perhaps the most familiar "currency" of effect is that which can be brought about via medication. Comparisons of effect sizes may be effective ways of communicating the benefits of population health interventions if they are seen and understood in the same way that medications are. We developed a series of comparisons to communicate benefits of population health interventions in terms of similar gains to be obtained from statins, metformin and antihypertensive medications for prevention of cardiovascular events, type 2 diabetes, obesity and hypertension. A purposive search identified evidence of population health intervention-related benefits. This evidence ranged from meta-analyses of RCTs to that from observational cohort studies. Population health interventions included implementation of national smoke free legislation, enhanced neighbourhood walkability, increased opportunities for active travel and protection of urban green space. In some cases, the benefits of population health interventions were found to be equivalent to, or even outweighed those of the medications to which they were compared. For example, RCT-based evidence suggested that exercise taken with a view of a green space was associated with 12 mmHg and 6 mmHg reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respectively, which was at least on par with the reductions associated with antihypertensive medications. Future work will test the effectiveness of these comparisons for increasing the familiarity, credibility and acceptability of population health interventions and, in particular, examine the importance of communicating putative mechanisms and potential co-benefits.

Background Concerns about loss of greenspace with urbanisation motivate much research on nature and health; however, contingency of greenspace-health associations on the character of community change remains understudied. Methods With aggregate data from governmental sources for 1432 Swedish parishes, we used negative binomial regression to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality during 2000–2008 in relation to percentage area (in 2000) of urban residential greenspace, urban parks and rural greenspace, looking across parishes with decrease, stability or increase in population density. We also assessed interactions between land use and population change. Results Parishes with ≥1 decile increase in population density had lower incidence of all-cause (IRR=0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.95) and CVD mortality (IRR=0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.94) compared with parishes with stable populations. In stable parishes, all-cause mortality was lower with higher percentages of urban green (IRR=0.998, 95% CI 0.996 to 1.000) and rural green land uses (IRR=0.997, 95% CI 0.996 to 0.999). These results were inverted in densifying parishes; higher all-cause mortality attended higher initial percentages of urban (IRR=1.081, 95% CI 1.037 to 1.127) and rural greenspace (IRR=1.042, 95% CI 1.007 to 1.079) as measured in 2000. Similar associations held for CVD mortality. Conclusions More greenspace was associated with lower all-cause and CVD mortality in communities with relatively stable populations. In densifying communities, population growth per se may reduce mortality, but it may also entail harm through reductions in amount per capita and/or quality of greenspace.

BACKGROUND: Concerns about loss of greenspace with urbanisation motivate much research on nature and health; however, contingency of greenspace-health associations on the character of community change remains understudied. METHODS: With aggregate data from governmental sources for 1432 Swedish parishes, we used negative binomial regression to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for all-cause and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality during 2000–2008 in relation to percentage area (in 2000) of urban residential greenspace, urban parks and rural greenspace, looking across parishes with decrease, stability or increase in population density. We also assessed interactions between land use and population change. RESULTS: Parishes with ≥1 decile increase in population density had lower incidence of all-cause (IRR=0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.95) and CVD mortality (IRR=0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.94) compared with parishes with stable populations. In stable parishes, all-cause mortality was lower with higher percentages of urban green (IRR=0.998, 95% CI 0.996 to 1.000) and rural green land uses (IRR=0.997, 95% CI 0.996 to 0.999). These results were inverted in densifying parishes; higher all-cause mortality attended higher initial percentages of urban (IRR=1.081, 95% CI 1.037 to 1.127) and rural greenspace (IRR=1.042, 95% CI 1.007 to 1.079) as measured in 2000. Similar associations held for CVD mortality. CONCLUSIONS: More greenspace was associated with lower all-cause and CVD mortality in communities with relatively stable populations. In densifying communities, population growth per se may reduce mortality, but it may also entail harm through reductions in amount per capita and/or quality of greenspace.

Engagement with nature is an important part of many people's lives, and the health and wellbeing benefits of nature–based activities are becoming increasingly recognised across disciplines from city planning to medicine. Despite this, urbanisation, challenges of modern life and environmental degradation are leading to a reduction in both the quantity and the quality of nature experiences. Nature–based health interventions (NBIs) can facilitate behavioural change through a somewhat structured promotion of nature–based experiences and, in doing so, promote improved physical, mental and social health and wellbeing. We conducted a Delphi expert elicitation process with 19 experts from seven countries (all named authors on this paper) to identify the different forms that such interventions take, the potential health outcomes and the target beneficiaries. In total, 27 NBIs were identified, aiming to prevent illness, promote wellbeing and treat specific physical, mental or social health and wellbeing conditions. These interventions were broadly categorized into those that change the environment in which people live, work, learn, recreate or heal (for example, the provision of gardens in hospitals or parks in cities) and those that change behaviour (for example, engaging people through organized programmes or other activities). We also noted the range of factors (such as socioeconomic variation) that will inevitably influence the extent to which these interventions succeed. We conclude with a call for research to identify the drivers influencing the effectiveness of NBIs in enhancing health and wellbeing.