Keita Ebisu1, Theodore R Holford2, Michelle L Bell3. 1. Yale University, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA. Electronic address: keita.ebisu@aya.yale.edu. 2. Yale University, School of Public Health, Department of Biostatistics, 60 College Street, New Haven, CT 06520, USA. 3. Yale University, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 195 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than half of the world's population lives in urban environments. Due to urban related factors (e.g. higher air pollution), urban residents may face higher risk of adverse health outcomes, while access to green space could benefit health. PURPOSE: We explored associations between urban and green land-use and birth weight. METHODS: Connecticut, U.S., birth certificate data (2000-2006) were acquired (n=239,811), and land-use data were obtained from the National Land Cover Database. We focused on three land-uses; urban space, urban open space, and green space (i.e. forest, shrub, herbaceous, and cultivated land). We estimated fractions of greenness and urbanicity within 250 m from residence. A linear mixed effects model was conducted for birth weight and a logistic mixed effects model for low birth weight (LBW) and small for gestational age (SGA). RESULTS: An interquartile range (IQR) increment in the fraction of green space within 250 m of residence was associated with 3.2g (95% Confidence Interval [0.4, 6.0]) higher birth weight. Similarly, an IQR increase in green space was associated with 7.6% [2.6, 12.4] decreased risk of LBW. Exposure to urban space was negatively correlated with green space (Pearson correlation=-0.88), and it showed negative association with birth outcomes. Results were generally robust with different buffer sizes and controlling for fine particles (PM2.5) and traffic. CONCLUSIONS: We found protective associations by green space on birth outcomes. Increasing green space and/or reducing urban space (e.g. the greening of city environments) may reduce the risk of adverse birth outcomes such as LBW and SGA. Populations living in urban environments will grow in the next half century, and allocation of green space among urban areas may play a critical role for public health in urban planning.
BACKGROUND: More than half of the world's population lives in urban environments. Due to urban related factors (e.g. higher air pollution), urban residents may face higher risk of adverse health outcomes, while access to green space could benefit health. PURPOSE: We explored associations between urban and green land-use and birth weight. METHODS: Connecticut, U.S., birth certificate data (2000-2006) were acquired (n=239,811), and land-use data were obtained from the National Land Cover Database. We focused on three land-uses; urban space, urban open space, and green space (i.e. forest, shrub, herbaceous, and cultivated land). We estimated fractions of greenness and urbanicity within 250 m from residence. A linear mixed effects model was conducted for birth weight and a logistic mixed effects model for low birth weight (LBW) and small for gestational age (SGA). RESULTS: An interquartile range (IQR) increment in the fraction of green space within 250 m of residence was associated with 3.2g (95% Confidence Interval [0.4, 6.0]) higher birth weight. Similarly, an IQR increase in green space was associated with 7.6% [2.6, 12.4] decreased risk of LBW. Exposure to urban space was negatively correlated with green space (Pearson correlation=-0.88), and it showed negative association with birth outcomes. Results were generally robust with different buffer sizes and controlling for fine particles (PM2.5) and traffic. CONCLUSIONS: We found protective associations by green space on birth outcomes. Increasing green space and/or reducing urban space (e.g. the greening of city environments) may reduce the risk of adverse birth outcomes such as LBW and SGA. Populations living in urban environments will grow in the next half century, and allocation of green space among urban areas may play a critical role for public health in urban planning.
Authors: Marci Lobel; Dolores Lacey Cannella; Jennifer E Graham; Carla DeVincent; Jayne Schneider; Bruce A Meyer Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Keita Ebisu; Theodore R Holford; Kathleen D Belanger; Brian P Leaderer; Michelle L Bell Journal: Environ Res Date: 2011-04-29 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Payam Dadvand; John Wright; David Martinez; Xavier Basagaña; Rosemary R C McEachan; Marta Cirach; Christopher J Gidlow; Kees de Hoogh; Regina Gražulevičienė; Mark J Nieuwenhuijsen Journal: Environ Int Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Perry Hystad; Hugh W Davies; Lawrence Frank; Josh Van Loon; Ulrike Gehring; Lillian Tamburic; Michael Brauer Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2014-07-11 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Joseph L Servadio; Abiola S Lawal; Tate Davis; Josephine Bates; Armistead G Russell; Anu Ramaswami; Matteo Convertino; Nisha Botchwey Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Kimberly B Glazer; Melissa N Eliot; Valery A Danilack; Lynn Carlson; Maureen G Phipps; Payam Dadvand; David A Savitz; Gregory A Wellenius Journal: Environ Res Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 6.498
Authors: Michelle M Clark; Olympe Chazara; Eric M Sobel; Håkon K Gjessing; Per Magnus; Ashley Moffett; Janet S Sinsheimer Journal: Hum Hered Date: 2017-02-18 Impact factor: 0.444
Authors: Maayan Yitshak-Sade; Itai Kloog; Joel D Schwartz; Victor Novack; Offer Erez; Allan C Just Journal: Environ Int Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 13.352
Authors: Kari A Weber; Wei Yang; Evan Lyons; David K Stevenson; Amy M Padula; Gary M Shaw Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Joan A Casey; Peter James; Kara E Rudolph; Chih-Da Wu; Brian S Schwartz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2016-03-11 Impact factor: 3.390