Angel M Dzhambov1, Iana Markevych2, Terry Hartig3, Boris Tilov4, Zlatoslav Arabadzhiev5, Drozdstoj Stoyanov5, Penka Gatseva6, Donka D Dimitrova7. 1. Department of Hygiene and Ecomedicine, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria. Electronic address: angelleloti@gmail.com. 2. Institute and Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany; Institute of Epidemiology, Helmholtz Zentrum München - German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany. 3. Institute for Housing and Urban Research, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 4. Medical College, Medical University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria; Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Management, University of Agribusiness and Rural Development, Plovdiv, Bulgaria. 5. Department of Psychiatry and Medical Psychology, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria. 6. Department of Hygiene and Ecomedicine, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria. 7. Department of Health Management and Healthcare Economics, Faculty of Public Health, Medical University of Plovdiv, Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing body of scientific literature indicates that urban green- and bluespace support mental health; however, little research has attempted to address the complexities in likely interrelations among the pathways through which benefits plausibly are realized. OBJECTIVES: The present study examines how different plausible pathways between green/bluespace and mental health can work together. Both objective and perceived measures of green- and bluespace are used in these models. METHODS: We sampled 720 students from the city of Plovdiv, Bulgaria. Residential greenspace was measured in terms of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), tree cover density, percentage of green areas, and Euclidean distance to the nearest green space. Bluespace was measured in terms of its presence in the neighborhood and the Euclidean distance to the nearest bluespace. Mental health was measured with the 12-item form of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). The following mediators were considered: perceived neighborhood green/bluespace, restorative quality of the neighborhood, social cohesion, physical activity, noise and air pollution, and environmental annoyance. Structural equation modelling techniques were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Higher NDVI within a 300 m buffer around the residence was associated with better mental health through higher perceived greenspace; through higher perceived greenspace, leading to increased restorative quality, and subsequently to increased physical activity (i.e., serial mediation); through lower noise exposure, which in turn was associated with lower annoyance; and through higher perceived greenspace, which was associated with lower annoyance. Presence of bluespace within a 300 m buffer did not have a straightforward association with mental health owing to competitive indirect paths: one supporting mental health through higher perceived bluespace, restorative quality, and physical activity; and another engendering mental ill-health through higher noise exposure and annoyance. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that having more greenspace near the residence supported mental health through several indirect pathways with serial components. Conversely, bluespace was not clearly associated with mental health.
BACKGROUND: A growing body of scientific literature indicates that urban green- and bluespace support mental health; however, little research has attempted to address the complexities in likely interrelations among the pathways through which benefits plausibly are realized. OBJECTIVES: The present study examines how different plausible pathways between green/bluespace and mental health can work together. Both objective and perceived measures of green- and bluespace are used in these models. METHODS: We sampled 720 students from the city of Plovdiv, Bulgaria. Residential greenspace was measured in terms of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), tree cover density, percentage of green areas, and Euclidean distance to the nearest green space. Bluespace was measured in terms of its presence in the neighborhood and the Euclidean distance to the nearest bluespace. Mental health was measured with the 12-item form of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). The following mediators were considered: perceived neighborhood green/bluespace, restorative quality of the neighborhood, social cohesion, physical activity, noise and air pollution, and environmental annoyance. Structural equation modelling techniques were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Higher NDVI within a 300 m buffer around the residence was associated with better mental health through higher perceived greenspace; through higher perceived greenspace, leading to increased restorative quality, and subsequently to increased physical activity (i.e., serial mediation); through lower noise exposure, which in turn was associated with lower annoyance; and through higher perceived greenspace, which was associated with lower annoyance. Presence of bluespace within a 300 m buffer did not have a straightforward association with mental health owing to competitive indirect paths: one supporting mental health through higher perceived bluespace, restorative quality, and physical activity; and another engendering mental ill-health through higher noise exposure and annoyance. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that having more greenspace near the residence supported mental health through several indirect pathways with serial components. Conversely, bluespace was not clearly associated with mental health.
Authors: Joana Cruz; Guangquan Li; Maria Jose Aragon; Peter A Coventry; Rowena Jacobs; Stephanie L Prady; Piran C L White Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 11.613
Authors: Abu Yousuf Md Abdullah; Jane Law; Zahid A Butt; Christopher M Perlman Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Sara Kress; Oliver Razum; Kim Alexandra Zolitschka; Jürgen Breckenkamp; Odile Sauzet Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Angel M Dzhambov; Iana Markevych; Boris Tilov; Zlatoslav Arabadzhiev; Drozdstoj Stoyanov; Penka Gatseva; Donka D Dimitrova Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Gregory N Bratman; Christopher B Anderson; Marc G Berman; Bobby Cochran; Sjerp de Vries; Jon Flanders; Carl Folke; Howard Frumkin; James J Gross; Terry Hartig; Peter H Kahn; Ming Kuo; Joshua J Lawler; Phillip S Levin; Therese Lindahl; Andreas Meyer-Lindenberg; Richard Mitchell; Zhiyun Ouyang; Jenny Roe; Lynn Scarlett; Jeffrey R Smith; Matilda van den Bosch; Benedict W Wheeler; Mathew P White; Hua Zheng; Gretchen C Daily Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 14.136
Authors: Regina Grazuleviciene; Sandra Andrusaityte; Audrius Dėdelė; Tomas Grazulevicius; Leonas Valius; Aurimas Rapalavicius; Violeta Kapustinskiene; Inga Bendokiene Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-06 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Marcia P Jimenez; Jessica Shoaff; Marianthi-Anna Kioumourtzoglou; Susan Korrick; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Marie-France Hivert; Emily Oken; Peter James Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 5.363