Richard Mitchell1, Frank Popham. 1. Research Unit In Health, Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, UK. Richard.Mitchell@ed.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between the percentage of greenspace in an area and the standardised rate of self-reported "not good" health, and to explore whether this association holds for areas exhibiting different combinations of urbanity and income deprivation. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional, ecological study in England. PARTICIPANTS: All residents of England as at the 2001 Census. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Age and sex standardised rate of reporting "not good" health status. RESULTS: A higher proportion of greenspace in an area was generally associated with better population health. However, this association varied according to the combination of area income deprivation and urbanity. There was no significant association between greenspace and health in higher income suburban and higher income rural areas. In suburban lower income areas, a higher proportion of greenspace was associated with worse health. CONCLUSIONS: Although, in general, higher proportion of greenspace in an area is associated with better health, the association depends on the degree of urbanity and level of income deprivation in an area. One interpretation of these analyses is that quality as well as quantity of greenspace may be significant in determining health benefits.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between the percentage of greenspace in an area and the standardised rate of self-reported "not good" health, and to explore whether this association holds for areas exhibiting different combinations of urbanity and income deprivation. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional, ecological study in England. PARTICIPANTS: All residents of England as at the 2001 Census. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Age and sex standardised rate of reporting "not good" health status. RESULTS: A higher proportion of greenspace in an area was generally associated with better population health. However, this association varied according to the combination of area income deprivation and urbanity. There was no significant association between greenspace and health in higher income suburban and higher income rural areas. In suburban lower income areas, a higher proportion of greenspace was associated with worse health. CONCLUSIONS: Although, in general, higher proportion of greenspace in an area is associated with better health, the association depends on the degree of urbanity and level of income deprivation in an area. One interpretation of these analyses is that quality as well as quantity of greenspace may be significant in determining health benefits.
Authors: Jolanda Maas; Robert A Verheij; Peter P Groenewegen; Sjerp de Vries; Peter Spreeuwenberg Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Elizabeth Richardson; Jamie Pearce; Richard Mitchell; Peter Day; Simon Kingham Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-05-11 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Elizabeth A Richardson; Richard J Mitchell; Niamh K Shortt; Jamie Pearce; Terence P Dawson Journal: Environ Health Date: 2009-12-21 Impact factor: 5.984