46
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Risks and Benefits of Green Spaces for Children: A Cross-Sectional Study of Associations with Sedentary Behavior, Obesity, Asthma, and Allergy

      research-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

          Background: Green spaces have been associated with both health benefits and risks in children; however, available evidence simultaneously investigating these conflicting influences, especially in association with different types of greenness, is scarce.

          Objectives: We aimed to simultaneously evaluate health benefits and risks associated with different types of greenness in children, in terms of sedentary behavior (represented by excessive screen time), obesity, current asthma, and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

          Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of a population-based sample of 3,178 schoolchildren (9–12 years old) in Sabadell, Spain, in 2006. Information on outcomes and covariates was obtained by questionnaire. We measured residential surrounding greenness as the average of satellite-derived Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) in buffers of 100 m, 250 m, 500 m, and 1,000 m around each home address. Residential proximity to green spaces was defined as living within 300 m of a forest or a park, as separate variables. We used logistic regression models to estimate associations separately for each exposure–outcome pair, adjusted for relevant covariates.

          Results: An interquartile range increase in residential surrounding greenness was associated with 11–19% lower relative prevalence of overweight/obesity and excessive screen time, but was not associated with current asthma and allergic rhinoconjunctivitis. Similarly, residential proximity to forests was associated with 39% and 25% lower relative prevalence of excessive screen time and overweight/obesity, respectively, but was not associated with current asthma. In contrast, living close to parks was associated with a 60% higher relative prevalence of current asthma, but had only weak negative associations with obesity/overweight or excessive screen time.

          Conclusion: We observed two separable patterns of estimated health benefits and risks associated with different types of greenness.

          Citation: Dadvand P, Villanueva CM, Font-Ribera L, Martinez D, Basagaña X, Belmonte J, Vrijheid M, Gražulevičienė R, Kogevinas M, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ. 2014. Risks and benefits of green spaces for children: a cross-sectional study of associations with sedentary behavior, obesity, asthma, and allergy. Environ Health Perspect 122:1329–1335;  http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1308038

          Related collections

          Most cited references57

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

          A systematic review of evidence for the added benefits to health of exposure to natural environments

          Background There is increasing interest in the potential role of the natural environment in human health and well-being. However, the evidence-base for specific and direct health or well-being benefits of activity within natural compared to more synthetic environments has not been systematically assessed. Methods We conducted a systematic review to collate and synthesise the findings of studies that compare measurements of health or well-being in natural and synthetic environments. Effect sizes of the differences between environments were calculated and meta-analysis used to synthesise data from studies measuring similar outcomes. Results Twenty-five studies met the review inclusion criteria. Most of these studies were crossover or controlled trials that investigated the effects of short-term exposure to each environment during a walk or run. This included 'natural' environments, such as public parks and green university campuses, and synthetic environments, such as indoor and outdoor built environments. The most common outcome measures were scores of different self-reported emotions. Based on these data, a meta-analysis provided some evidence of a positive benefit of a walk or run in a natural environment in comparison to a synthetic environment. There was also some support for greater attention after exposure to a natural environment but not after adjusting effect sizes for pretest differences. Meta-analysis of data on blood pressure and cortisol concentrations found less evidence of a consistent difference between environments across studies. Conclusions Overall, the studies are suggestive that natural environments may have direct and positive impacts on well-being, but support the need for investment in further research on this question to understand the general significance for public health.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Air pollution removal by urban trees and shrubs in the United States

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of the Green Infrastructure

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Environ Health Perspect
                Environ. Health Perspect
                EHP
                Environmental Health Perspectives
                NLM-Export
                0091-6765
                1552-9924
                26 August 2014
                December 2014
                : 122
                : 12
                : 1329-1335
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL), Barcelona, Spain
                [2 ]CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
                [3 ]IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute), Barcelona, Spain
                [4 ]Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain
                [5 ]Departament de Biologia Animal, Biologia Vegetal i Ecologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain
                [6 ]Department of Environmental Sciences, Vytauto Didziojo Universitetas, Kaunas, Lithuania
                Author notes
                Address correspondence to P. Dadvand, CREAL, Doctor Aiguader, 88, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. Telephone: 34 93 214 7317. E-mail: pdadvand@ 123456creal.cat
                Article
                ehp.1308038
                10.1289/ehp.1308038
                4256701
                25157960
                77e06639-950e-4c10-b388-aee6894ad11e

                Publication of EHP lies in the public domain and is therefore without copyright. All text from EHP may be reprinted freely. Use of materials published in EHP should be acknowledged (for example, “Reproduced with permission from Environmental Health Perspectives”); pertinent reference information should be provided for the article from which the material was reproduced. Articles from EHP, especially the News section, may contain photographs or illustrations copyrighted by other commercial organizations or individuals that may not be used without obtaining prior approval from the holder of the copyright.

                History
                : 19 December 2013
                : 25 August 2014
                : 26 August 2014
                : 01 December 2014
                Categories
                Children's Health

                Public health
                Public health

                Comments

                Comment on this article