不同类型和特征的绿地如何影响心理健康?范围审查

IF 4.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
F. Beute, M. Marselle, A. Olszewska‐Guizzo, M. Andreucci, A. Lammel, Z. G. Davies, Julie May Glanville, H. Keune, L. O'Brien, R. Remmen, A. Russo, S. de Vries
{"title":"不同类型和特征的绿地如何影响心理健康?范围审查","authors":"F. Beute, M. Marselle, A. Olszewska‐Guizzo, M. Andreucci, A. Lammel, Z. G. Davies, Julie May Glanville, H. Keune, L. O'Brien, R. Remmen, A. Russo, S. de Vries","doi":"10.1002/pan3.10529","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nGreen space matters for mental health but is under constant pressure in an increasingly urbanising world. Often there is little space available in cities for green areas, so it is vital to optimise the design and usage of these available green spaces. To achieve this, experts in planning, design and nature conservation need to know which types and characteristics of green spaces are most beneficial for residents' mental health.\n\nA scoping review of studies that compare different green space types and characteristics on mental health was conducted. A total of 215 (experimental, observational and qualitative) papers were included in the scoping review.\n\nThis review highlights a high level of heterogeneity in study design, geographical locations, mental health outcomes and green space measures. Few of the included studies were specifically designed to enable direct comparisons between green space types and characteristics (e.g. between parks and forests). The included studies have predominantly experimental research designs looking at the effects of short‐term exposure to green space on short‐term mental health outcomes (e.g. affect and physiological stress). More studies enabled only indirect comparisons, either within the same study or between different studies.\n\nAnalysis of the direction of the mental health outcomes (positive, neutral, negative) from exposure to various types and characteristics of green space found positive (i.e. beneficial) effects across all green space types. However, green space characteristics did appear to render more diverse effects on mental health, which is especially the case for vegetation characteristics (e.g. higher vegetation density can be negative for mental health).\n\nThe scoping review reveals gaps in the present evidence base, with a specific need for more studies directly comparing green space types and characteristics within the same study. Proposed future research directions include the use of longitudinal research designs focusing on green space characteristics, considering actual exposure and systematically addressing heterogeneity in factors influencing the relation between green spaces and mental health (e.g. type of interaction, user experience).\n\nRead the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.","PeriodicalId":52850,"journal":{"name":"People and Nature","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do different types and characteristics of green space impact mental health? A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"F. Beute, M. Marselle, A. Olszewska‐Guizzo, M. Andreucci, A. Lammel, Z. G. Davies, Julie May Glanville, H. Keune, L. O'Brien, R. Remmen, A. Russo, S. de Vries\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pan3.10529\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n\\n\\nGreen space matters for mental health but is under constant pressure in an increasingly urbanising world. Often there is little space available in cities for green areas, so it is vital to optimise the design and usage of these available green spaces. To achieve this, experts in planning, design and nature conservation need to know which types and characteristics of green spaces are most beneficial for residents' mental health.\\n\\nA scoping review of studies that compare different green space types and characteristics on mental health was conducted. A total of 215 (experimental, observational and qualitative) papers were included in the scoping review.\\n\\nThis review highlights a high level of heterogeneity in study design, geographical locations, mental health outcomes and green space measures. Few of the included studies were specifically designed to enable direct comparisons between green space types and characteristics (e.g. between parks and forests). The included studies have predominantly experimental research designs looking at the effects of short‐term exposure to green space on short‐term mental health outcomes (e.g. affect and physiological stress). More studies enabled only indirect comparisons, either within the same study or between different studies.\\n\\nAnalysis of the direction of the mental health outcomes (positive, neutral, negative) from exposure to various types and characteristics of green space found positive (i.e. beneficial) effects across all green space types. However, green space characteristics did appear to render more diverse effects on mental health, which is especially the case for vegetation characteristics (e.g. higher vegetation density can be negative for mental health).\\n\\nThe scoping review reveals gaps in the present evidence base, with a specific need for more studies directly comparing green space types and characteristics within the same study. Proposed future research directions include the use of longitudinal research designs focusing on green space characteristics, considering actual exposure and systematically addressing heterogeneity in factors influencing the relation between green spaces and mental health (e.g. type of interaction, user experience).\\n\\nRead the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"People and Nature\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"People and Nature\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10529\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"People and Nature","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10529","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

绿色空间对心理健康很重要,但在日益城市化的世界中,它面临着持续的压力。通常,城市中可用的绿地空间很少,因此优化这些可用绿地的设计和使用至关重要。为了实现这一目标,规划、设计和自然保护专家需要知道哪些类型和特征的绿地最有利于居民的心理健康。对比较不同绿地类型和特征对心理健康的影响的研究进行了范围审查。共有215篇(实验、观察和定性)论文被纳入范围审查。这篇综述强调了研究设计、地理位置、心理健康结果和绿地措施的高度异质性。在纳入的研究中,很少有专门设计用于直接比较绿地类型和特征(例如公园和森林之间的比较)。纳入的研究主要是实验性研究设计,着眼于短期接触绿地对短期心理健康结果(例如情绪和生理压力)的影响。更多的研究只能在同一项研究或不同研究之间进行间接比较。对接触各种类型和特征的绿地对心理健康结果(积极、中性、消极)的影响方向进行的分析发现,所有类型的绿地都有积极(即有益)的影响。然而,绿地特征似乎对心理健康产生了更多样化的影响,植被特征尤其如此(例如,较高的植被密度可能对心理健康不利)。范围审查揭示了现有证据基础的差距,具体需要更多的研究直接比较同一研究中的绿色空间类型和特征。建议未来的研究方向包括使用以绿地特征为重点的纵向研究设计,考虑实际暴露,系统地解决影响绿地与心理健康关系的因素的异质性(例如交互类型,用户体验)。在《华尔街日报》博客上阅读免费的《简明语言摘要》。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How do different types and characteristics of green space impact mental health? A scoping review
Green space matters for mental health but is under constant pressure in an increasingly urbanising world. Often there is little space available in cities for green areas, so it is vital to optimise the design and usage of these available green spaces. To achieve this, experts in planning, design and nature conservation need to know which types and characteristics of green spaces are most beneficial for residents' mental health. A scoping review of studies that compare different green space types and characteristics on mental health was conducted. A total of 215 (experimental, observational and qualitative) papers were included in the scoping review. This review highlights a high level of heterogeneity in study design, geographical locations, mental health outcomes and green space measures. Few of the included studies were specifically designed to enable direct comparisons between green space types and characteristics (e.g. between parks and forests). The included studies have predominantly experimental research designs looking at the effects of short‐term exposure to green space on short‐term mental health outcomes (e.g. affect and physiological stress). More studies enabled only indirect comparisons, either within the same study or between different studies. Analysis of the direction of the mental health outcomes (positive, neutral, negative) from exposure to various types and characteristics of green space found positive (i.e. beneficial) effects across all green space types. However, green space characteristics did appear to render more diverse effects on mental health, which is especially the case for vegetation characteristics (e.g. higher vegetation density can be negative for mental health). The scoping review reveals gaps in the present evidence base, with a specific need for more studies directly comparing green space types and characteristics within the same study. Proposed future research directions include the use of longitudinal research designs focusing on green space characteristics, considering actual exposure and systematically addressing heterogeneity in factors influencing the relation between green spaces and mental health (e.g. type of interaction, user experience). Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
People and Nature
People and Nature Multiple-
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
9.80%
发文量
103
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信