Heterogeneity in the subjective well-being impact of access to urban green space

Healthy Environments: Understanding Perceptions of Underrepresented Communities in the United Kingdom

“…Our participants also reflected on how green spaces in cities are beneficial to their mental health and wellbeing, and a minority specified that it is the sense of space or vastness that facilitates this benefit. This sentiment echoes findings from Sharifi, Nygaard, and Stone (2021) that only larger (than about 9064 m 2 or 2.2 acres) urban green spaces have a significantly positive association with wellbeing [ 6 ], building a case for green corridors and green walls that can create the illusion of an enlarged green space.…”

“…Such unhealthy environments exacerbate health inequalities, since exposures such as air pollution are more likely to affect more deprived communities and individuals within those communities with existing health problems [ 1 ]. These definitions are applicable to both natural and built environments, as both can promote or hinder good health [ 6 ]. As such, in its Healthy New Towns programme, the United Kingdom’s (UK) National Health Service (NHS) highlights the role of the built environment in wellbeing and health promotion [ 7 ].…”

“…Social and environmental factors are influential for health and wellbeing, but will “vary in importance between communities, because of differences in the current services, facilities, priorities and needs of the communities, and because communities change over time” [ 16 ]. The successful design and implementation of environmental features that support climate action—such as cycle lanes and urban green spaces—depends on dialogue between policy makers, planners and community members to ensure these features align with communities’ needs and waste is minimised [ 6 ]. Yet such collaborations are often hampered by implicit bias and poor accessibility of environments such as green spaces to certain groups of society [ 17 , 18 ].…”

Trends and inequalities in distance to and use of nearest natural space in the context of the 20-min neighbourhood: A 4-wave national repeat cross-sectional study, 2013 to 2019

“…Evidence suggests that proximity to natural spaces can be associated with use (Ayala-Azcárraga et al, 2019;Seaman et al, 2010;Lin et al, 2014) and greater urban natural space access levels are associated with higher well-being levels (Sharifi et al, 2021). However, there are marked differences in use of these spaces between socioeconomic groups, with evidence showing that urban natural spaces in Europe are predominately used by more educated people (Peschardt et al, 2012) and those from lower socioeconomic groups are less likely to visit a natural space than those from higher socioeconomic groups (Burnett et al, 2021).…”

An assessment of the correlation between urban green space supply and socio-economic disparities of Tehran districts—Iran

“…As an essential part of urban ecosystem services, UGSs (urban green spaces) are increasingly acknowledged for their contribution to positive health behaviours, improved health outcomes (Ma et al, 2019;Müller et al, 2018;Remme et al, 2021;Sharifi et al, 2021;White et al, 2017), and promoting a reasonable nature-based solution to many urban challenges (Comber et al, 2008;Goodarzi et al, 2020;La Rosa, 2014;Soltanifard & Jafari, 2019). However, in many cities, including Tehran, these UGSs, such as parks, public gardens, greenways, are heterogeneously distributed over the city.…”