19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Urban Trees and Human Health: A Scoping Review

      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 urban forest is a green infrastructure system that delivers multiple environmental, economic, social and health services, and functions in cities. Environmental benefits of urban trees are well understood, but no review to date has examined how urban trees affect human health. This review provides a comprehensive summary of existing literature on the health impacts of urban trees that can inform future research, policy, and nature-based public health interventions. A systematic search used keywords representing human health, environmental health, and urban forestry. Following screening and appraisal of several thousand articles, 201 studies were conceptually sorted into a three-part framework. Reducing Harm, representing 41% of studies, includes topics such as air pollution, ultraviolet radiation, heat exposure, and pollen. Restoring Capacities, at 31%, includes attention restoration, mental health, stress reduction, and clinical outcomes. Building Capacities, at 28%, includes topics such as birth outcomes, active living, and weight status. The studies that were reviewed show substantial heterogeneity in purpose and method yet indicate important health outcomes associated with people’s exposure to trees. This review will help inform future research and practice, and demonstrates why urban forest planning and management should strategically promote trees as a social determinant of public health.

          Related collections

          Most cited references196

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

          Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

          Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
            Bookmark
            • 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

              Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                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
                18 June 2020
                June 2020
                : 17
                : 12
                : 4371
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, College of the Environment, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
                [2 ]Ontario Climate Consortium Secretariat, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Toronto, ON L4K 5R6, Canada; sharon.lam@ 123456mail.utoronto.ca
                [3 ]Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada (Government of Canada), Vancouver, BC V6B 5J3, Canada; jmckeen@ 123456ualberta.ca
                [4 ]Climate Change and Innovation Bureau, Health Canada (Government of Canada), Ottawa, ON K1Y 4X2, Canada; gregory.richardson@ 123456canada.ca
                [5 ]School of Population and Public Health, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada; matilda.vandenbosch@ 123456ubc.ca
                [6 ]Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
                [7 ]Engagement and Research, Tree Canada, Ottawa, ON K1R 6S3, Canada; abardekjian@ 123456treecanada.ca
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence: kwolf@ 123456uw.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2590-5829
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1410-0099
                Article
                ijerph-17-04371
                10.3390/ijerph17124371
                7345658
                32570770
                aed04f19-f0de-43f6-9957-8f79141184c1
                © 2020 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 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 27 May 2020
                : 14 June 2020
                Categories
                Review

                Public health
                urban forest,green infrastructure,urban greening,greenspace,ecosystem services,public health,social determinant,health promotion

                Comments

                Comment on this article