4.5 Review

A review of Nature Deficit Disorder (NDD) and its disproportionate impacts on Latinx populations

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT
卷 43, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.envdev.2022.100732

关键词

Nature-deficit disorder; Built environment; Healthy cities; Green spaces; Environmental health; Latinx communities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, there has been increased attention on the relationship between the built environment and health impacts, along with the lack of access to green spaces in Latinx communities. Research has found a lack of focus on the health implications of NDD in Latinx communities.
The term 'built environment' garnered a lot of attention in the last few decades for making the link between community design and health impacts. It also highlighted how access to green spaces, which has been correlated with positive public health outcomes, is disproportionately unavailable to Latinx communities. With the renaissance of the term Nature Deficit Disorder (NDD), it is fitting to examine the literature through a term that aims at identifying the etiology of this multi-faceted environmental justice issue. We conducted a review of the literature associated with NDD along with surrogate terms to understand the scope of its usage and applicability, as well as to examine NDD through an equity lens. We performed two searches, one focused on NDD and one on green spaces in Latinx communities to identify the research that has investigated green spaces through an equity perspective. We found that there is a dearth of primary research on the topic. This was best illustrated by the difficulty in finding articles on PubMed that explicitly mention NDD in Latinx communities. A strong body of research exists that indicates adequate access to greenspace is associated with many health benefits. However, future research efforts should focus on evaluating the health implications of NDD on Latinx communities so that this public health issue can be addressed head-on.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据