Markevych Iana, Schoierer Julia, Hartig Terry, Chudnovsky Alexandra, Hystad Perry, Dzhambov Angel M, de Vries Sjerp, Triguero-Mas Margarita, Brauer Michael, Nieuwenhuijsen Mark J, Lupp Gerd, Richardson Elizabeth A, Astell-Burt Thomas, Dimitrova Donka, Feng Xiaoqi, Sadeh Maya, Standl Marie, Heinrich Joachim, Fuertes Elaine
Institute for Occupational, Social, and Environmental Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany; Institute of Epidemiology I, Helmholtz Zentrum München - German Research Center for Environmental Health, Neuherberg, Germany.
Institute for Occupational, Social, and Environmental Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Environ Res. 2017 Oct;158:301-317. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.06.028. Epub 2017 Jun 30.
In a rapidly urbanizing world, many people have little contact with natural environments, which may affect health and well-being. Existing reviews generally conclude that residential greenspace is beneficial to health. However, the processes generating these benefits and how they can be best promoted remain unclear.
During an Expert Workshop held in September 2016, the evidence linking greenspace and health was reviewed from a transdisciplinary standpoint, with a particular focus on potential underlying biopsychosocial pathways and how these can be explored and organized to support policy-relevant population health research.
Potential pathways linking greenspace to health are here presented in three domains, which emphasize three general functions of greenspace: reducing harm (e.g. reducing exposure to air pollution, noise and heat), restoring capacities (e.g. attention restoration and physiological stress recovery) and building capacities (e.g. encouraging physical activity and facilitating social cohesion). Interrelations between among the three domains are also noted. Among several recommendations, future studies should: use greenspace and behavioural measures that are relevant to hypothesized pathways; include assessment of presence, access and use of greenspace; use longitudinal, interventional and (quasi)experimental study designs to assess causation; and include low and middle income countries given their absence in the existing literature. Cultural, climatic, geographic and other contextual factors also need further consideration.
While the existing evidence affirms beneficial impacts of greenspace on health, much remains to be learned about the specific pathways and functional form of such relationships, and how these may vary by context, population groups and health outcomes. This Report provides guidance for further epidemiological research with the goal of creating new evidence upon which to develop policy recommendations.
在一个快速城市化的世界中,许多人很少接触自然环境,这可能会影响健康和幸福。现有综述通常得出结论,住宅绿地有益于健康。然而,产生这些益处的过程以及如何最好地促进这些益处仍不明确。
在2016年9月举行的一次专家研讨会上,从跨学科的角度审查了将绿地与健康联系起来的证据,特别关注潜在的生物心理社会途径以及如何探索和组织这些途径以支持与政策相关的人群健康研究。
将绿地与健康联系起来的潜在途径在三个领域中呈现,这三个领域强调了绿地的三个一般功能:减少危害(例如减少接触空气污染、噪音和热量)、恢复能力(例如注意力恢复和生理压力恢复)以及增强能力(例如鼓励体育活动和促进社会凝聚力)。还指出了这三个领域之间的相互关系。在若干建议中,未来的研究应:使用与假设途径相关的绿地和行为测量方法;包括对绿地的存在、可达性和使用情况的评估;使用纵向、干预性和(准)实验性研究设计来评估因果关系;并且鉴于现有文献中缺乏低收入和中等收入国家的相关内容,应纳入这些国家的研究。文化、气候、地理和其他背景因素也需要进一步考虑。
虽然现有证据证实了绿地对健康的有益影响,但关于这种关系的具体途径和功能形式,以及这些途径如何因背景、人群和健康结果而异,仍有许多需要了解的地方。本报告为进一步的流行病学研究提供了指导,目标是创造新的证据,以便据此制定政策建议。