4.3 Article

Mitigating Stress and Supporting Health in Deprived Urban Communities: The Importance of Green Space and the Social Environment

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph13040440

关键词

urban green space; stress; health; socio-economic deprivation; social isolation; place belonging; physical activity; gardens; allotments

资金

  1. Scottish Government [MLU/ECA/UGW/847/08]
  2. James Hutton Institute
  3. University of Edinburgh
  4. University of Glasgow
  5. University of Heriot-Watt
  6. Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Environment-health research has shown significant relationships between the quantity of green space in deprived urban neighbourhoods and people's stress levels. The focus of this paper is the nature of access to green space (i.e., its quantity or use) necessary before any health benefit is found. It draws on a cross-sectional survey of 406 adults in four communities of high urban deprivation in Scotland, United Kingdom. Self-reported measures of stress and general health were primary outcomes; physical activity and social wellbeing were also measured. A comprehensive, objective measure of green space quantity around each participant's home was also used, alongside self-report measures of use of local green space. Correlated Component Regression identified the optimal predictors for primary outcome variables in the different communities surveyed. Social isolation and place belonging were the strongest predictors of stress in three out of four communities sampled, and of poor general health in the fourth, least healthy, community. The amount of green space in the neighbourhood, and in particular access to a garden or allotment, were significant predictors of stress. Physical activity, frequency of visits to green space in winter months, and views from the home were predictors of general health. The findings have implications for public health and for planning of green infrastructure, gardens and public open space in urban environments.

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

4.3
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