School of Architecture, Huaqiao University, Xiamen, China; Virtual Reality and Nature Lab, Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA.
Virtual Reality and Nature Lab, Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA.
Environ Res. 2024 May 1;248:118400. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2024.118400. Epub 2024 Feb 1.
While many studies have found positive correlations between greenness and human health, rural Central Appalachia is an exception. The region has high greenness levels but poor health. The purpose of this commentary is to provide a possible explanation for this paradox: three sets of factors overwhelming or attenuating the health benefits of greenness. These include environmental (e.g., steep typography and limited access to green space used for outdoor recreation), social (e.g., chronic poverty, declining coal industry, and limited access to healthcare), and psychological and behavioral factors (e.g., perceptions about health behaviors, healthcare, and greenness). The influence of these factors on the expected health benefits of greenness should be considered as working hypotheses for future research. Policymakers and public health officials need to ensure that greenness-based interventions account for contextual factors and other determinants of health to ensure these interventions have the expected health benefits.
虽然许多研究发现绿化与人类健康之间存在正相关关系，但美国中阿巴拉契亚农村地区是一个例外。该地区绿化程度高，但健康状况不佳。本评论的目的是为这一悖论提供一个可能的解释：三组因素压倒或削弱了绿化对健康的益处。这些因素包括环境因素（例如，陡峭的地形和有限的进入用于户外娱乐的绿色空间的通道）、社会因素（例如，长期贫困、煤炭工业衰退以及获得医疗保健的机会有限）以及心理和行为因素（例如，对健康行为、医疗保健和绿化的看法）。这些因素对绿化预期健康益处的影响应被视为未来研究的工作假设。政策制定者和公共卫生官员需要确保基于绿化的干预措施考虑到背景因素和健康的其他决定因素，以确保这些干预措施具有预期的健康益处。
