9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Association between Urban Greenspace and Health: A Systematic Review of Literature

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The current review aimed to explore the association between urban greenspaces and health indicators. In particular, our aims were to analyze the association between publicly accessible urban greenspaces exposure and two selected health outcomes (objectively measured physical activity (PA) and mental health outcomes (MH)). Two electronic databases—PubMed/Medline and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE)—were searched from 1 January 2000 to 30 September 2020. Only articles in English were considered. Out of 356 retrieved articles, a total of 34 papers were included in our review. Of those, 15 assessed the association between urban greenspace and PA and 19 dealt with MH. Almost all the included studies found a positive association between urban greenspace and both PA and MH, while a few demonstrated a non-effect or a negative effect on MH outcomes. However, only guaranteeing access is not enough. Indeed, important elements are maintenance, renovation, closeness to residential areas, planning of interactive activities, and perceived security aspects. Overall, despite some methodological limitations of the included studies, the results have shown almost univocally that urban greenspaces harbour potentially beneficial effects on physical and mental health and well-being.

          Related collections

          Most cited references125

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Academic Editor
                Journal
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                Int J Environ Res Public Health
                ijerph
                International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
                MDPI
                1661-7827
                1660-4601
                12 May 2021
                May 2021
                : 18
                : 10
                : 5137
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Medicine, University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy; gianfredi.vincenza@ 123456hsr.it (V.G.); croci.roberto@ 123456hsr.it (R.C.); oradini.aurea@ 123456hsr.it (A.O.-A.); stirparo.giuseppe@ 123456hsr.it (G.S.); marino.alessio@ 123456hsr.it (A.M.); c.signorelli@ 123456hsr.it (C.S.)
                [2 ]Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering Department, Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milan, Italy; maddalena.buffoli@ 123456polimi.it (M.B.); stefano.capolongo@ 123456polimi.it (S.C.)
                [3 ]Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, University of Pavia, 20158 Milan, Italy; anna.odone@ 123456unipv.it
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3848-981X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0960-9563
                Article
                ijerph-18-05137
                10.3390/ijerph18105137
                8150317
                34066187
                6dd63593-5f07-4579-9571-f70d34743804
                © 2021 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 24 March 2021
                : 08 May 2021
                Categories
                Review

                Public health
                physical activity,mental health,depression,anxiety,stress,green areas,green infrastructures,urban greenery,urban health,non-communicable diseases

                Comments

                Comment on this article