Abstract
The positive relationships between urban green space and health have been well documented. Little is known, however, about the role of residents’ emotional attachment to local green spaces in these relationships, and how attachment to green spaces and health may be promoted by the availability of accessible and usable green spaces. The present research aimed to examine the links between self-reported health, attachment to green space, and the availability of accessible and usable green spaces. Data were collected via paper-mailed surveys in two neighborhoods (n = 223) of a medium-sized Dutch city in the Netherlands. These neighborhoods differ in the perceived and objectively measured accessibility and usability of green spaces, but are matched in the physically available amount of urban green space, as well as in demographic and socio-economic status, and housing conditions. Four dimensions of green space attachment were identified through confirmatory factor analysis: place dependence, affective attachment, place identity and social bonding. The results show greater attachment to local green space and better self-reported mental health in the neighborhood with higher availability of accessible and usable green spaces. The two neighborhoods did not differ, however, in physical and general health. Structural Equation Modelling confirmed the neighborhood differences in green space attachment and mental health, and also revealed a positive path from green space attachment to mental health. These findings convey the message that we should make green places, instead of green spaces.
Highlights
Since the ground breaking work of Kaplan and Kaplan [1], a burgeoning body of literature has emerged on the health benefits of contact with nature
Epidemiological studies have demonstrated that the presence and the amount of urban green space are related to public health and health-related outcomes like lower mortality and morbidity rates [4,5], decreased levels of stress [6] and increased social interactions [7,8]
The emergence of a new “green health paradigm” in people-environment studies is to a large extent due to the increased availability of Geographical Information Systems (GIS), which enables the objective measurement of green space indicators for large areas
Summary
Since the ground breaking work of Kaplan and Kaplan [1], a burgeoning body of literature has emerged on the health benefits of contact with nature Much of this literature has focused on urban green spaces, such as parks, urban forests and community gardens, as a readily available type of nearby nature with a high potential for health and well-being [2,3]. Sometimes the territory is defined as a radius around a respondent’s home (see, for example [12,13]) and sometimes as a predefined administrative territory such as a census areas (see, for example [14,15]) This geo-statistical approach regards green spaces as flat surfaces in space, the advantages of the method are obvious. It takes advantage of the spatial patterning in the data, and it does not carry the risk of same source bias [16]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
