Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 482

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 188 of the 188 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Spatial dimensions of the influence of urban green-blue spaces on human health: A systematic review

Open access
Labib, S.M., Lindley, Sarah, Huck, Jonny J.·2020·Environmental Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND There is an increasing volume of literature investigating the links between urban environments and human health, much of which involves spatial conceptualisations and research designs involving various aspects of geographical information science. Despite intensifying research interest, there has been little systematic investigation of pragmatic methodological concerns, such as how studies are realised in terms of the types of data that are gathered and the analytical techniques that are applied, both of which have the potential to impact results. The aim of this systematic review is, therefore, to understand how spatial scale, datasets, methods, and analytics are currently applied in studies investigating the relationship between green and blue spaces and human health in urban areas. METHOD We systematically reviewed 93 articles following PRISMA protocol, extracted information regarding different spatial dimensions, and synthesised them in relation to various health indicators. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION We found a preponderance of the use of neighbourhood-scale in these studies, and a majority of the studies utilised land-use and vegetation indices gleaned from moderate resolution satellite imagery. We also observed the frequent adoption of fixed spatial units for measuring exposure to green and blue spaces based on physical proximity, typically ranging between 30 and 5000 m. The conceptual frameworks of the studies (e.g., the focus on physical vs. mental health or the definition of exposure to green space) were found to have an influence on the strength of association between exposure and health outcomes. Additionally, the strength and significance of associations also varied by study design, something which has not been considered systematically. CONCLUSION On the basis of our findings, we propose a set of recommendations for standardised protocols and methods for the evaluation of the impact of green-blue spaces on health. Our analysis suggests that future studies should consider conducting analyses at finer spatial scales and employing multiple exposure assessment methods to achieve a comprehensive and comparable evaluation of the association between greenspace and health along multiple pathways.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envres.2019.108869

Cites

188 of 188 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 188 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Allen, 2012, Environmental reviews and case studies: Advancing green infrastructure at all scales: From landscape to site, Environ. Pract., 14, 17, 10.1017/S1466046611000469 · doi:10.1017/s1466046611000469
  2. Bivand, 2008, vol. 747248717
  3. Boroushaki, 2008, Implementing an extension of the analytical hierarchy process using ordered weighted averaging operators with fuzzy quantifiers in ArcGIS, Comput. Geosci., 34, 399, 10.1016/j.cageo.2007.04.003 · doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2007.04.003
  4. Griffith, 2016, Spatial autocorrelation and uncertainty associated with remotely-sensed data, Remote Sens., 8, 535, 10.3390/rs8070535 · doi:10.3390/rs8070535
  5. Helbich, 2019, 126, 107
  6. Klingberg, 2017, 26, 31
  7. Labib, 2018, The potentials of Sentinel-2 and LandSat-8 data in green infrastructure extraction, using object based image analysis (OBIA) method, European J Remote Sensing, 51, 231, 10.1080/22797254.2017.1419441 · doi:10.1080/22797254.2017.1419441
  8. Tiefelsdorf, 2007, Semiparametric filtering of spatial autocorrelation: the eigenvector approach, Environ. Plan., 39, 1193, 10.1068/a37378 · doi:10.1068/a37378
  9. Veitch, 2016, 38, 96
  10. Waller, 2004, vol. 368
  11. Zhang, 2009, NDVI spatial pattern and its differentiation on the Mongolian Plateau, J. Geogr. Sci., 19, 403, 10.1007/s11442-009-0403-7 · doi:10.1007/s11442-009-0403-7

Cited by

See all 482

Metadata

Authors
Labib, S. M., Lindley, S., & Huck, J. J.
Venue
Environmental Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
180
Pages
108869
ISSN
0013-9351 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2982679941
Cited by
482
References
188
FWCI
5.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
  • www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
  • www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
Funders
  • University of Manchester
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council
  • Science for Equity, Empowerment and Development Division
  • Economic and Social Research Council (NE/N013530/1)
  • Natural Environment Research Council

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Spatial dimensions of the influence of urban green-blue spaces on human health: A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108869
The paper
Labib, S. M., Lindley, S., & Huck, J. J. (2020). Spatial dimensions of the influence of urban green-blue spaces on human health: A systematic review. Environmental Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108869

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.