The association of fractional cover, foliage projective cover and biodiversity with birthweight

Measuring Greenspace in Rural Areas for Studies of Birth Outcomes: A Comparison of Street View Data and Satellite Data

Using street view data, in replace of remotely sensed (RS) data, to study the health impact of greenspace has become popular. However, direct comparisons of these two methods of measuring greenspace are still limited, and their findings are inconsistent. On the other hand, almost all studies of greenspace focus on urban areas. The effectiveness of greenspace in rural areas remains to be investigated. In this study, we compared measures of greenspace based on the Google Street View data with those based on RS data by calculating the correlation between the two and evaluating their associations with birth outcomes. Besides the direct measures of greenness, we also compared the measures of environmental diversity, calculated with the two types of data. Our study area consists of the States of New Hampshire and Vermont, USA, which are largely rural. Our results show that the correlations between the two types of greenness measures were weak to moderate, and the greenness at an eye-level view largely reflects the immediate surroundings. Neither the street view data- nor the RS data-based measures identify the influence of greenspace on birth outcomes in our rural study area. Interestingly, the environmental diversity was largely negatively associated with birth outcomes, particularly gestational age. Our study revealed that in rural areas, the effectiveness of greenspace and environmental diversity may be considerably different from that in urban areas.

Greenspace and Land Cover Diversity During Pregnancy in a Rural Region, and Associations With Birth Outcomes

Beneficial effects on health outcomes have been observed from exposure to spaces with substantial green vegetation ("greenspace"). This includes studies of greenspace exposure on birth outcomes; however, these have been conducted largely in urban regions. We characterized residential exposure to greenspace and land cover diversity during pregnancy in rural northern New England, USA, investigating whether variation in greenspace or diversity related to newborn outcomes. Five landscape variables (greenspace land cover, land cover diversity, impervious surface area, tree canopy cover, and the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) were aggregated within six circular zones of radii from 100 to 3,000 m around residential addresses, and distance to conservation land was measured, providing a total of 31 greenspace and diversity metrics. Four birth outcomes along with potentially confounding variables were obtained from 1,440 participants in the New Hampshire Birth Cohort Study. Higher greenspace land cover up to 3,000 m was associated with larger newborn head circumference, while impervious surface area (non-greenspace) had the opposite association. Further, birth length was positively associated with land cover diversity. These findings support beneficial health impacts of greenspace exposure observed in urban regions for certain health outcomes, such as newborn head circumference and length but not others such as birthweight and gestational age. Further our results indicate that larger radius buffer zones may be needed to characterize the rural landscape. Vegetation indices may not be interchangeable with other greenspace metrics such as land cover and impervious surface area in rural landscapes.

Green space in health research: an overview of common indicators of greenness

Human environments influence human health in both positive and negative ways. Green space is considered an environmental exposure that confers benefits to human health and has attracted a high level of interest from researchers, policy makers, and increasingly clinicians. Green space has been associated with a range of health benefits, such as improvements in physical, mental, and social wellbeing. There are different sources, metrics and indicators of green space used in research, all of which measure different aspects of the environment. It is important that readers of green space research understand the terminology used in this field, and what the green space indicators used in the studies represent in the real world. This paper provides an overview of the major definitions of green space and the indicators used to assess exposure for health practitioners, public health researchers, and health policy experts who may be interested in understanding this field more clearly, either in the provision of public health-promoting services or to undertake research.

Effects of Self-Rated Health Status on Residents' Social-Benefit Perceptions of Urban Green Space

Urban green spaces (UGS) provide many social benefits and improves residents' wellbeing. Studying residents' perceptions of UGS's social benefits and driving factors could promote public health and environmental justice. A questionnaire survey of 432 Beijing residents and statistical tests assessed the impacts of residents' living environments and self-rated health status on UGS perceptions. The results showed: (1) perceptions of UGS' physical health benefits were subdued, with an inclination towards other social benefits. Respondents more highly perceived accelerating patient recovery and reducing morbidity and mortality rates. Perceptions of bearing larger-head babies with higher weight were relatively low. For other social benefits, perceptions of improving the environment and life quality were higher, but reducing anger outbursts and resolving conflicts were lower. (2) Childhood living environments did not affect perceptions of social benefits, but current living environments did. Suburb residents understood reducing pain-relief medication demands and bearing larger-head babies better than city residents. City residents understood UGS' investments considerable and sustained returns better than village residents. City residents agreed with accelerating patient recovery higher than village ones. (3) Respondents with "poor" self-rated health status had better perceptions of other social benefits. Those with "excellent" ratings did not fully understand UGS' physical health benefits. "Poor" ratings understood improving a city's image and making cities livable and sustainable better than "good" or "fair" ratings. "Excellent" ratings had less understanding of larger-head babies than "good" or "fair" ratings. The study could enhance appreciation of UGS' social benefits to facilitate planning and management to meet residents' expectations.