Coastal proximity and mental health among urban adults in England: The moderating effect of household income

300

113

Disadvantaged groups worldwide, such as low-income and racially/ethnically minoritized people, experience worse health outcomes than more privileged groups, including wealthier and white people. Such health disparities are a major public health issue in several countries around the world. In this systematic review, we examine whether green space shows stronger associations with physical health for disadvantaged groups than for privileged groups. We hypothesize that disadvantaged groups have stronger protective effects from green space because of their greater dependency on proximate green space, as they tend to lack access to other health-promoting resources. We use the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) method and search five databases (CINAHL, Cochrane, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) to look for articles that examine whether socioeconomic status (SES) or race/ethnicity modify the green space-health associations. Based on this search, we identify 90 articles meeting our inclusion criteria. We find lower-SES people show more beneficial effects than affluent people, particularly when concerning public green spaces/parks rather than green land covers/greenness. Studies in Europe show stronger protective effects for lower-SES people versus higher-SES people than do studies in North America. We find no notable differences in the protective effects of green space between racial/ethnic groups. Collectively, these results suggest green space might be a tool to advance health equity and provide ways forward for urban planners, parks managers, and public health professionals to address health disparities.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Green Space and Health Equity: A Systematic Review on the Potential of Green Space to Reduce Health Disparities

Rigolon

Browning

McAnirlin

et al. 2021

300

113

“…To explore relative deprivation, we calculated quintile scores from the 2019 index of multiple deprivation (IMD) dataset. The IMD has been used in a range of epidemiology and urban ecology studies [41,42]. In England, the IMD provides an output of relative deprivation based on multivariate analysis of demographic data (e.g., economics, crime risk, education and living environment) acquired for Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs) [43].…”

Section: Deprivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nature’s Role in Supporting Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Geospatial and Socioecological Study

Robinson

Brindley

Cameron

et al. 2021

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought about unprecedented changes to human lifestyles across the world. The virus and associated social restriction measures have been linked to an increase in mental health conditions. A considerable body of evidence shows that spending time in and engaging with nature can improve human health and wellbeing. Our study explores nature’s role in supporting health during the COVID-19 pandemic. We created web-based questionnaires with validated health instruments and conducted spatial analyses in a geographic information system (GIS). We collected data (n = 1184) on people’s patterns of nature exposure, associated health and wellbeing responses, and potential socioecological drivers such as relative deprivation, access to greenspaces, and land-cover greenness. The majority of responses came from England, UK (n = 993). We applied a range of statistical analyses including bootstrap-resampled correlations and binomial regression models, adjusting for several potential confounding factors. We found that respondents significantly changed their patterns of visiting nature as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. People spent more time in nature and visited nature more often during the pandemic. People generally visited nature for a health and wellbeing benefit and felt that nature helped them cope during the pandemic. Greater land-cover greenness within a 250 m radius around a respondent’s postcode was important in predicting higher levels of mental wellbeing. There were significantly more food-growing allotments within 100 and 250 m around respondents with high mental wellbeing scores. The need for a mutually-advantageous relationship between humans and the wider biotic community has never been more important. We must conserve, restore and design nature-centric environments to maintain resilient societies and promote planetary health.

“…Evidence suggests that living or undertaking moderate physical activity near blue spaces such as the coast, lakes, or rivers is associated with better general health and wellbeing. It reduces anxiety and depression [ 17 , 18 , 19 ], creates opportunities for social interactions [ 4 ], and is linked to a better general mood [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ]. However, the majority of these studies have focused on the salutogenic effects (i.e., the promotion and maintenance of physical and mental wellbeing) of being close to a water body, rather than being in direct contact with it.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Beneficial Effects of Short-Term Exposure to Scuba Diving on Human Mental Health

Carreño

Gascón

Vert

et al. 2020

Exposure to outdoor blue spaces can help improve human health by reducing stress, promoting social relationships, and physical activity. While most studies have focused on the adverse health effects of scuba diving, very few have assessed its health benefits. Moreover, when scuba diving is done in large groups with no diving instructor or pre-dive briefing, negative environmental impacts are generated and negative impacts on human health may also occur due to overcrowding, which may create stress. This is the first study to evaluate the effects of scuba diving on divers’ mental health using their diving practices to estimate the impacts on the ecosystem. In the marine-protected area of Cap de Creus and adjacent areas, we assessed the mental health of 176 divers and 70 beach users (control group) by employing a 29-item version of Profile of Mood State (POMS) questionnaires. According to the parameters associated with reduced environmental impacts, two scuba diving experiences were established. Poisson regression models were performed to assess both the contribution of the activity and diving experiences to POMS scores. Both groups (scuba divers and beach goers) reduced their POMS scores after carrying out the activities. Although no significant differences were found between beach and scuba diving activities, nor between the two different scuba diving experiences, our results showed that subjects with regular medication intake due to a chronic or psychiatric illness had a POMS reduction score significantly higher than other subjects. We conclude that both beach and scuba diving activities have positive effects for human mental health, particularly among subjects with regular medication intake.