Cited by 437Urban Green Space and HealthUrban Arborization and Environmental StudiesEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities

Green Space Quality and Health: A Systematic Review

Open access
Nguyen, Phi-Yen, Astell-Burt, Thomas, Rahimi-Ardabili, Hania, Feng, Xiaoqi·2021·International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract

(1) Background: As cities densify, researcher and policy focus is intensifying on which green space types and qualities are important for health. We conducted a systematic review to examine whether particular green space types and qualities have been shown to provide health benefits and if so, which specific types and qualities, and which health outcomes. (2) Methods: We searched five databases from inception up to June 30, 2021. We included all studies examining a wide range of green space characteristics on various health outcomes. (3) Results: 68 articles from 59 studies were found, with a high degree of heterogeneity in study designs, definitions of quality and outcomes. Most studies were cross-sectional, ecological or cohort studies. Environment types, vegetation types, and the size and connectivity of green spaces were associated with improved health outcomes, though with contingencies by age and gender. Health benefits were more consistently observed in areas with greater tree canopy, but not grassland. The main outcomes with evidence of health benefits included allergic respiratory conditions, cardiovascular conditions and psychological wellbeing. Both objectively and subjectively measured qualities demonstrated associations with health outcomes. (4) Conclusion: Experimental studies and longitudinal cohort studies will strengthen current evidence. Evidence was lacking for needs-specific or culturally-appropriate amenities and soundscape characteristics. Qualities that need more in-depth investigation include indices that account for forms, patterns, and networks of objectively and subjectively measured green space qualities.

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 · 10.3390/ijerph182111028

Cites

111 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Nature exposure is thought to be beneficial, especially for mental, cardiovascular and respiratory health.

    “Nature exposure (ie, exposure to green and blue spaces) is thought to be beneficial, especially for mental, cardiovascular and respiratory health.1–4”

    From Cross-sectional associations of different types of nature exposure with psychotropic, antihypertensive and asthma medication (2023) · cites this paper as [1]

    The Discussion (§4.2) reports probable mental-health benefits and potential cardiovascular and respiratory benefits from green space. The Results (§3.5) also report mental restoration after coastal visits, but do not establish cardiovascular or respiratory benefits from blue-space exposure. The claim extends the three-outcome summary beyond the green spaces primarily reviewed. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [106]US National Research Council Committees on Environmental Epidemiology and Life Science Environmental-Epidemiology Studies: Their Design and Conduct 1997 Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233644/ (accessed on 15 September 2021)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nguyen, P.-Y., Astell-Burt, T., Rahimi-Ardabili, H., & Feng, X.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Population Wellbeing and Environment Research Lab (PowerLab), Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia
  • School of Population Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2033, Australia
  • University of Wollongong (AU)
Corresponding author
Feng, Xiaoqi
Venue
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-10-20
Volume
18
Issue
21
Pages
11028
ISSN
1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3206924707
Cited by
420
References
111
Citations by year
2026: 109 · 2025: 117 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 1
FWCI
4.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1140317, 1148792, 1101065)
  • Green Cities Fund (GC15005)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Urban Green Space and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Urban Arborization and Environmental Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Environmental Justice and Health Disparities
Keywords
green space quality, urban green space, health benefits, tree canopy, grassland, cardiovascular conditions, psychological well-being, age and gender differences, soundscape
MeSH terms
Parks, Recreational, Cities, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Cohort Studies

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