Viniece Jennings

Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions

Urban green space is purported to offset greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, remove air and water pollutants, cool local climate, and improve public health. To use these services, municipalities have focused efforts on designing and implementing ecosystem-services-based “green infrastructure” in urban environments. In some cases the environmental benefits of this infrastructure have been well documented, but they are often unclear, unquantified, and/or outweighed by potential costs. Quantifying biogeochemical processes in urban green infrastructure can improve our understanding of urban ecosystem services and disservices (negative or unintended consequences) resulting from designed urban green spaces. Here we propose a framework to integrate biogeochemical processes into designing, implementing, and evaluating the net effectiveness of green infrastructure, and provide examples for GHG mitigation, stormwater runoff mitigation, and improvements in air quality and health.

Public Parks and Wellbeing in Urban Areas of the United States

Sustainable development efforts in urban areas often focus on understanding and managing factors that influence all aspects of health and wellbeing. Research has shown that public parks and green space provide a variety of physical, psychological, and social benefits to urban residents, but few studies have examined the influence of parks on comprehensive measures of subjective wellbeing at the city level. Using 2014 data from 44 U.S. cities, we evaluated the relationship between urban park quantity, quality, and accessibility and aggregate self-reported scores on the Gallup-Healthways Wellbeing Index (WBI), which considers five different domains of wellbeing (e.g., physical, community, social, financial, and purpose). In addition to park-related variables, our best-fitting OLS regression models selected using an information theory approach controlled for a variety of other typical geographic and socio-demographic correlates of wellbeing. Park quantity (measured as the percentage of city area covered by public parks) was among the strongest predictors of overall wellbeing, and the strength of this relationship appeared to be driven by parks’ contributions to physical and community wellbeing. Park quality (measured as per capita spending on parks) and accessibility (measured as the overall percentage of a city’s population within ½ mile of parks) were also positively associated with wellbeing, though these relationships were not significant. Results suggest that expansive park networks are linked to multiple aspects of health and wellbeing in cities and positively impact urban quality of life.

Advancing Sustainability through Urban Green Space: Cultural Ecosystem Services, Equity, and Social Determinants of Health

Urban green spaces provide an array of benefits, or ecosystem services, that support our physical, psychological, and social health. In many cases, however, these benefits are not equitably distributed across diverse urban populations. In this paper, we explore relationships between cultural ecosystem services provided by urban green space and the social determinants of health outlined in the United States Healthy People 2020 initiative. Specifically, we: (1) explore connections between cultural ecosystem services and social determinants of health; (2) examine cultural ecosystem services as nature-based health amenities to promote social equity; and (3) recommend areas for future research examining links between urban green space and public health within the context of environmental justice.

Approaching Environmental Health Disparities and Green Spaces: An Ecosystem Services Perspective

Health disparities occur when adverse health conditions are unequal across populations due in part to gaps in wealth. These disparities continue to plague global health. Decades of research suggests that the natural environment can play a key role in sustaining the health of the public. However, the influence of the natural environment on health disparities is not well-articulated. Green spaces provide ecosystem services that are vital to public health. This paper discusses the link between green spaces and some of the nation’s leading health issues such as obesity, cardiovascular health, heat-related illness, and psychological health. These associations are discussed in terms of key demographic variables—race, ethnicity, and income. The authors also identify research gaps and recommendations for future research.

Ecosystem services and preventive medicine a natural connection

Modern public health challenges require interdisciplinary solutions that integrate knowledge of human behavior and its complex relationship with the physical environment. Historically, this discourse was dominated by studies of hazards and other negative health consequences associated with human–environment interactions. However, growing evidence suggests that contact with green spaces (e.g., parks, forests, gardens) can be beneficial to physical and mental health. Despite these findings, integration of the natural environment into preventive medicine policy and practice has been slow. This is partly due to limited recognition of the multifaceted health benefits associated with green spaces and the challenge of characterizing and evaluating these benefits. Minimal dialogue across disciplines, especially between environmental and health professionals, has exacerbated the divide, further hindering nature-based health promotion. Many environmental and social scientists have embraced the concept of “ecosystem services” as a framework for understanding, evaluating, and communicating the contributions of ecosystems to human well-being. Ecosystem services describe nature’s direct and indirect benefits to humans, including life-supporting ecological processes and provision of outdoor spaces that encourage active lifestyles, which support the prevention of diseases and other maladies. As these services have major implications for human health and well-being, the integration of ecosystem services and preventive medicine may be an important strategy for advancing health research, education, and practice. Research from multiple fields of study suggests that contact with nature can be beneficial to public health and well-being. Though a recent literature review showed mixed observations with regard to green space and

Finding Common Ground: Environmental Ethics, Social Justice, and a Sustainable Path for Nature-Based Health Promotion

Decades of research have documented continuous tension between anthropocentric needs and the environment’s capacity to accommodate those needs and support basic human welfare. The way in which society perceives, manages, and ultimately utilizes natural resources can be influenced by underlying environmental ethics, or the moral relationship that humans share with the natural world. This discourse often centers on the complex interplay between the tangible and intangible benefits associated with nonhuman nature (e.g., green space), both of which are relevant to public health. When ecosystem degradation is coupled with socio-demographic transitions, additional concerns related to distributional equity and justice can arise. In this commentary, we explore how environmental ethics can inform the connection between the ecosystem services from green space and socially just strategies of health promotion.

Relationships between Characteristics of Urban Green Land Cover and Mental Health in U.S. Metropolitan Areas

Urbanization increases risk for depression and other mental disorders. A growing body of research indicates the natural environment confers numerous psychological benefits including alleviation of mental distress. This study examined land cover types and landscape metrics in relation to mental health for 276 U.S. counties within metropolitan areas having a population of 1 million or more. County Health Rankings and Behavioral Risk and Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) provided a measure of mental health. The 2011 National Land Cover Database (NLCD) provided data on green land cover types, from which seven landscape metrics were generated to characterize landscape patterns. Spearman’s rho correlation and stepwise logistic regression models, respectively, were employed to examine bivariate and multivariate relationships. Models were adjusted for county population and housing density, region, race, and income to account for potential confounding. Overall, individual measures of landscape patterns showed stronger associations with mental health than percent total cover alone. Greater edge contrast was associated with 3.81% lower odds of Frequent Mental Distress (FMD) (Adjusted Odd’s Ratio (AOR) = 0.9619, 95% CI = 0.9371, 0.9860). Shrubland cohesion was associated with greater odds of FMD (AOR = 1.0751, 95% CI = 1.0196, 1.1379). In addition, distance between shrubland cover was associated with greater odds of FMD (AOR = 1.0027, 95% CI = 1.0016, 1.0041). Although effect sizes were small, findings suggest different types of landscape characteristics may have different roles in improving mental health.

Urban Green Space and the Pursuit of Health Equity in Parts of the United States

Research has demonstrated that inequitable access to green space can relate to health disparities or inequalities. This commentary aims to shift the dialogue to initiatives that have integrated green spaces in projects that may promote health equity in the United States. Specifically, we connect this topic to factors such as community revitalization, affordable housing, neighborhood walkability, food security, job creation, and youth engagement. We provide a synopsis of locations and initiatives in different phases of development along with characteristics to support effectiveness and strategies to overcome challenges. The projects cover locations such as Atlanta (GA), Los Angeles (CA), the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.), South Bronx (NY), and Utica (NY). Such insight can develop our understanding of green space projects that support health equity and inform the dialogue on this topic in ways that advance research and advocacy.

Associations Between Worksite Walkability, Greenness, and Physical Activity Around Work

This article explores the role of the work environment in determining physical activity gained within and around the workplace. With most adults spending more than half of their waking day at work, the workplace is a promising venue for promoting physical activity. We used a sample of 147 employed women—median age = 53 years old; 42% meeting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) physical activity recommendations—wearing a GPS device and accelerometer on the hip for 7 days to assess location and physical activity at minute-level epochs. We analyzed the association between geographic information systems (GIS) measures of walkability and greenness around the workplace and the amount of physical activity gained while in the work neighborhood. Our results showed that working in high walkable environments was associated with higher levels of moderate to vigorous physical activity while at work, and with higher moderate to vigorous physical activity gained within the work neighborhood. Increasing walkability levels around workplaces can contribute to increasing physical activity of employees.