Ian Alcock

Would You Be Happier Living in a Greener Urban Area? A Fixed-Effects Analysis of Panel Data:

Urbanization is a potential threat to mental health and well-being. Cross-sectional evidence suggests that living closer to urban green spaces, such as parks, is associated with lower mental distress. However, earlier research was unable to control for time-invariant heterogeneity (e.g., personality) and focused on indicators of poor psychological health. The current research advances the field by using panel data from over 10,000 individuals to explore the relation between urban green space and well-being (indexed by ratings of life satisfaction) and between urban green space and mental distress (indexed by General Health Questionnaire scores) for the same people over time. Controlling for individual and regional covariates, we found that, on average, individuals have both lower mental distress and higher well-being when living in urban areas with more green space. Although effects at the individual level were small, the potential cumulative benefit at the community level highlights the importance of policies to protect and promote urban green spaces for well-being.

Beyond greenspace: an ecological study of population general health and indicators of natural environment type and quality

BackgroundMany studies suggest that exposure to natural environments (‘greenspace’) enhances human health and wellbeing. Benefits potentially arise via several mechanisms including stress reduction, opportunity and motivation for physical activity, and reduced air pollution exposure. However, the evidence is mixed and sometimes inconclusive. One explanation may be that “greenspace” is typically treated as a homogenous environment type. However, recent research has revealed that different types and qualities of natural environments may influence health and wellbeing to different extents.MethodsThis ecological study explores this issue further using data on land cover type, bird species richness, water quality and protected or designated status to create small-area environmental indicators across Great Britain. Associations between these indicators and age/sex standardised prevalence of both good and bad health from the 2011 Census were assessed using linear regression models. Models were adjusted for indicators of socio-economic deprivation and rurality, and also investigated effect modification by these contextual characteristics.ResultsPositive associations were observed between good health prevalence and the density of the greenspace types, “broadleaf woodland”, “arable and horticulture”, “improved grassland”, “saltwater” and “coastal”, after adjusting for potential confounders. Inverse associations with bad health prevalence were observed for the same greenspace types, with the exception of “saltwater”. Land cover diversity and density of protected/designated areas were also associated with good and bad health in the predicted manner. Bird species richness (an indicator of local biodiversity) was only associated with good health prevalence. Surface water quality, an indicator of general local environmental condition, was associated with good and bad health prevalence contrary to the manner expected, with poorer water quality associated with better population health. Effect modification by income deprivation and urban/rural status was observed for several of the indicators.ConclusionsThe findings indicate that the type, quality and context of ‘greenspace’ should be considered in the assessment of relationships between greenspace and human health and wellbeing. Opportunities exist to further integrate approaches from ecosystem services and public health perspectives to maximise opportunities to inform policies for health and environmental improvement and protection.

Coastal proximity and physical activity: Is the coast an under-appreciated public health resource?

BACKGROUND Recent findings suggest that individuals living near the coast are healthier than those living inland. Here we investigated whether this may be related to higher levels of physical activity among coastal dwellers in England, arising in part as a result of more visits to outdoor coastal settings. METHOD Participants (n=183,755) were drawn from Natural Englands Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment Survey (2009-2012). Analyses were based on self-reported physical activity for leisure and transport. RESULTS A small, but significant coastal proximity gradient was seen for the likelihood of achieving recommended guidelines of physical activity a week after adjusting for relevant area and individual level controls. This effect was statistically mediated by the likelihood of having visited the coast in the last seven days. Stratification by region, however, suggested that while the main effect was relatively strong for west coast regions, it was not significant for those in the east. CONCLUSIONS In general, our findings replicate and extend work from Australia and New Zealand. Further work is needed to explain the marked regional differences in the relationship between coastal proximity and physical activity in England to better understand the coasts potential role as a public health resource.

Land cover and air pollution are associated with asthma hospitalisations: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND There is increasing policy interest in the potential for vegetation in urban areas to mitigate harmful effects of air pollution on respiratory health. We aimed to quantify relationships between tree and green space density and asthma-related hospitalisations, and explore how these varied with exposure to background air pollution concentrations. METHODS Population standardised asthma hospitalisation rates (1997-2012) for 26,455 urban residential areas of England were merged with area-level data on vegetation and background air pollutant concentrations. We fitted negative binomial regression models using maximum likelihood estimation to obtain estimates of asthma-vegetation relationships at different levels of pollutant exposure. RESULTS Green space and gardens were associated with reductions in asthma hospitalisation when pollutant exposures were lower but had no significant association when pollutant exposures were higher. In contrast, tree density was associated with reduced asthma hospitalisation when pollutant exposures were higher but had no significant association when pollutant exposures were lower. CONCLUSIONS We found differential effects of natural environments at high and low background pollutant concentrations. These findings can provide evidence for urban planning decisions which aim to leverage health co-benefits from environmental improvements.