The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Urban green spaces′ effectiveness as a psychological buffer for the negative health impact of noise pollution: A systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Noise pollution is one of the four major pollutions in the world. Little evidence exists about the actual preventive benefits of psychological noise attenuation by urban green spaces, especially from the perspective of environmental medicine and, to the best of our knowledge, there is not a systematic analysis on this topic. The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate whether there is conclusive scientific evidence for the effectiveness of urban green spaces as a psychological buffer for the negative impact of noise pollution on human health and to promote an evidence-based approach toward this still growing environmental hazard. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for experimental and epidemiological studies published before June 04, 2013 in English and Spanish. Data was independently extracted in two step process by the authors. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies qualitative assessment was performed. We found moderate evidence that the presence of vegetation can generally reduce the negative perception of noise (supported with an electroencephalogram test in one of the experimental studies; consistent with the data from two epidemiological studies; one experiment found no effect and one was inconclusive about the positive effect). This review fills a gap in the literature and could help researchers further clarify the proper implementation of urban green spaces as a psychological buffer in areas with population exposed to chronic noise pollution.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Herzog, R., Álvarez-Pasquin, M. J., Díaz, C., Del Barrio, J. L., Estrada, J. M., & Gil, Á. (2013) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-13-154 · Cited by 1,652
An assessment of psychological noise reduction by landscape plants
Yang, F., Bao, Z. Y., & Zhu, Z. J. (2011) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph8041032 · Cited by 92
Cited by
Gascon, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Martínez, D., Dadvand, P., Forns, J., Plasència, A., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. (2015) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph120404354 · Cited by 1,171
Outdoor blue spaces, human health and well-being: a systematic review of quantitative studies
Gascon, M., Zijlema, W., Vert, C., White, M. P., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2017) · International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health · doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2017.08.004 · Cited by 769
Impact of environmental changes on Dermatology
Junior, V. H., Mendes, A. L., Talhari, C. C., & Miot, H. A. (2021) · Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia · doi:10.1016/j.abd.2020.11.004 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Dzhambov, A., & Dimitrova, D.
- Venue
- Noise and Health
- Publisher
- Medknow
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 70
- Pages
- 157
- ISSN
- 1463-1741 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2083803963
- Cited by
- 219
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Urban green spaces′ effectiveness as a psychological buffer for the negative health impact of noise pollution: A systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4103/1463-1741.134916
- The paper
- Dzhambov, A., & Dimitrova, D. (2014). Urban green spaces′ effectiveness as a psychological buffer for the negative health impact of noise pollution: A systematic review. Noise and Health. https://doi.org/10.4103/1463-1741.134916
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.