Reduced Risk

The field of environmental health has historically addressed the risks of toxins, pollutants, and unfavorable environments within communities. There is now an emerging interest in the positive health contributions of environment and in providing quality, well-designed parks and nature for public health benefits. Trees and vegetation can dampen ambient noise, improve air quality, cool over-heated urban centers, and be a food security solution.

Fast Facts

  • Urban trees perform a range of environmental services that make cities healthier places, including improved air and water quality, energy savings, noise abatement, and improved soils. In total these services may provide billions of dollars of value each year.109
  • Estimated total annual air pollution removal (of ozone, particulate matter, NO2, SO2, and carbon monoxide) by urban trees across 55 U.S. cities is 711,000 metric tons, representing $3.8 billion in public value.7 
  • Urban heat island effect occurs in built up areas. Parks can be up to 2°F cooler than the surrounding urban area in the day.71  Large numbers of trees and expansive green spaces across a city can reduce local air temperatures by up to 9°F.110 
  • Appealing and easily accessible green environments may motivate and encourage physical exercise.111 Activity in outdoor green spaces - at any level, intensity, duration, or type – has been associated with mental and physical benefits.112,113
  • Research has found that city residents who live adjacent to green space have lower levels of illness and disease than other people of similar income levels.114 Physical environments that promote good health may reduce socioeconomic health inequalities.
  • Community gardening may help improve one’s diet. In one study adults were 3.5 times more likely to consume at least five servings of fruit or vegetables a day if someone in their household had participated in a community gardening project.115

cite: Wolf, K.L., S. Krueger, and K. Flora. 2015. Reduced Risk - A Literature Review. In: Green Cities: Good Health (www.greenhealth.washington.edu). College of the Environment, University of Washington.

Urban Stressors

The everyday challenges of living in cities can be stressors that have effects on individual and community health. A list of stressors follows, and some of the research about elements of metro nature that contribute to reductions or mitigations of stressors.

Air Quality

The 1970 Clean Air Act identifies seven air pollutants considered harmful to human health - ground-level ozone, lead, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particulate matter.1

Ground-level ozone is the most conspicuous pollutant, and is responsible for more than 95% of all days in the U.S. that violate air quality standards. Most detrimental to children and those frequently active outdoors, ozone inflames the lungs and increases susceptibility and aggravation of respiratory diseases and infections.1

A number of studies have linked ambient levels of ultrafine particles to short-term, adverse health effects,2,3 such as significant changes in indices of inflammation, homeostasis, lipids, and cardiovascular function.4

Vegetation, and trees in particular, can act as natural filters for both gases and particulate matter in urban environments.5 Particulate matter settles on leaf surfaces, though the particulates may become re-suspended due to wind or rain or deposited on the ground.6,7 The effects of urban trees on fine particulate matter (PM2.5) was modeled for 10 U.S. cities, with total annual PM2.5 removal varying from 5.2 tons in Syracuse to 71.1 tons in Atlanta. The estimated mortality reduction was approximately 1 person per year for each city but was as high as 7.6 people per year for New York. Overall air quality improvements attributed to urban trees ranged between 0.05% in San Francisco to 0.24% in Atlanta.8

In addition, in areas with complete tree cover, trees can remove as much as 15% of the ozone, 14% of the SO2, 8% of the NO2, and 0.05% of the CO from the air.5 Researchers using advanced modeling that accounts for a variety of landscape factors estimate that the NO2 reduction associated with Portland, Oregon’s urban trees results in significantly fewer respiratory problems, valued at $7 million in health care savings annually.9

Pollution removal rates differ depending on the amount of air pollution; length of time trees retain their leaves; species, size, age and location; precipitation; and other meteorological conditions.5) A large healthy tree (greater than 30 inches in diameter) removes about 70 times more air pollution annually than a small healthy tree (those less than 3 inches in diameter).10 Through helping to cool urban areas and mitigate the urban heat island effect, green spaces also help address air pollution by reducing the formation of photochemical ozone.11 Shade provided by urban trees also reduces energy demand, indirectly contributing to improved air quality.12

Some species like pine, larch, and silver birch have a more positive effect on air quality than those like oak, willow, and poplar, because they emit lower levels of VOCs; these substances can contribute to the formation of other pollutants, such as ozone.11 Trees can restrict air movement in dense urban areas and prevent/causing? the localized distribution of pollutants.13 Appropriate species selection and thoughtful planting design can maximize beneficial effects on air quality.6,7

Some urban forest management strategies to improve air quality include:5

  • Sustain the existing tree cover and increase the number of healthy trees,
  • Use low VOC emitting trees to reduce ozone and CO formation,
  • Use long-lived trees to reduce long-term emissions from planting and removing cycle,
  • Reduce fossil fuel use in vegetation maintenance,
  • Plant trees in energy conserving locations,
  • Plant trees to shade parked cars - reduces vehicle VOC emissions,
  • Supply ample water for tree growth - fosters pollution removal and temperature reduction,
  • Plant trees in polluted or heavily populated areas,
  • Avoid pollutant sensitive species, and
  • Use evergreen trees for particulate matter reduction - they remove particles year-round.

Asthma and Allergies

Pollen is associated with allergies and asthma.14 Urban trees are often selected for hardiness, ability to withstand pollution and resistance to disease, and tidiness fruit and leaf litter. However, many popular ornamental and non-fruit bearing species produce excessive pollen, perhaps aggravating allergies.sup>14 Pollen production varies among species. The male trees of dioecious species (those with separate sexes) are heavy pollinators. Male trees may be preferred for urban settings because they do not produce messy fruits, however they should be avoided due to allergy concerns. Some tree species are also shown to produce higher levels of pollen as concentrations of CO2 gas increase.sup>15 The allergenic effects of tree pollen may be enhanced by the presence of other air pollutants.16

Childhood asthma in the U.S. increased by 50% from 1980 to 2000, with higher prevalence in poor urban communities and substantial racial, ethnic, and socio-economic disparities.17,18 Research suggests the causes of this drastic increase might be changes in the environment (indoors and outdoors) and changes in lifestyle.19,20,21 Exposure to air pollution could be one contributing factor causing the excess asthma in urban areas.22,23,24 In a study of data on street tree density and asthma rates in New York City, the results show that street trees were associated with lower asthma rates.25 After adjustments to take density rates and proximity to sources of air pollution into account, an increase of 132 trees/mi2 was associated with a 29% lower early childhood prevalence of asthma.25 On the other hand, studies have indicated a higher prevalence of tree pollen allergies among children with greater tree canopy cover at their prenatal address. 25

Reduced Physical Activity

The Centers for Disease Control reported in 2008 that 25.4% of American adults were not physically active at all.26 Inactivity is contributing to the recent upsurge in obesity rates and associated diseases in the U.S. and other industrialized nations.27 Obesity can lead to increased risk for a number of serious physical and mental health conditions, including congestive heart failure, diabetes, osteoarthritis and coronary heart disease.28 Routine physical activity can help reduce these health risks, and also improve joint structure and function, muscle strength,29 relieve symptoms of depression and anxiety, improve mood, and enhance physical and psychological well-being.29

Research findings suggest that appealing and easily accessible green environments may motivate and encourage physical activity. The presence of nature can affect people’s perceptions and motivations about activity; one study found that in less vegetated neighborhoods, walking distances were judged as farther than they actually were, and residents did fewer trips by foot.30

Activity in outdoor green spaces – at any level, intensity, duration, or type – has been associated with mental and physical benefits.31,32 People who use parks and open spaces are three times more likely to achieve recommended levels of physical activity than non-users.33 In European studies of residential areas, residents with high levels of neighborhood green space were three times more likely to be physically active and their likelihood of being overweight or obese was reduced by up to 40%.34 A study of elderly residents that had nearby parks, tree-lined streets, and space for taking walks showed higher longevity over a 5-year study period.35

Noise

The amount and character of noise - or the acoustic landscape - is very important to human health and well-being.36 On one hand, music may be used to improve moods and satisfaction in the workplace and life. Some people seek quiet or relaxing sounds of nature to recover from a stressful day or simply to relax and decompress. However, sound has also been used in warfare; sonic cannons produce a deafening aural assault used to break resolve and willpower.37

In urban environments quiet can be difficult to find. A study by the MORI Institute in the U.K. found that 63% of people experience noise from neighbors and about half the reports were of annoyance.38 Even moderate sound levels can cause feelings of disturbance, increased blood pressure,40 increased risk of heart attacks,39 decreased well-being and quality of life,41,42 and stress reactions and sleeplessness.39 A long-term study of 18,973 individuals in the Netherlands found that individuals who experienced a cardiovascular health event during a 13 year period had on average higher exposure to road traffic day and night and exposure to air pollution at home.43

Sound can impacts our quality of life and mental health. In one study those with access to a quiet side of their home, not exposed to traffic or disruptive noises, had lower stress-related psychosocial symptoms and improved sleeping patterns than those always in a noisy environment.44 Noise can also make it more difficult to learn and apply cognitive thinking skills.39,45 Green space, particularly trees and large shrubs, can reduce ambient noise by providing a barrier or screen.11 Vegetation can be used to dampen and reduce noise, by providing a noise barrier as well as softening sharp tones.46,11 For example, residents of neighborhoods with parks and green spaces show significantly lower dissatisfaction and disturbance with traffic noises.47,48

Many factors affect vegetation’s ability to reduce noise: the biomass distribution, plant spacing, plant size, leaf size and shape, and the ability of the plant material to obstruct or absorb noise.49 In order to effectively buffer noise by 3-8 decibels, a planting strip must generally be over 10m wide.50 Research suggests that dense planting reaching to the ground and with no gaps may achieve noise reductions of up to 15 decibels.51 The degree of noise reduction can partially be perception; qualitative studies found that when portions of a vegetative barrier were removed listeners perceived that the volume level increased disproportionately.52

Vegetation can also affect perceptions of sound, which may also contribute to health. In a study of perceptions about soundscapes researchers compared subjective ratings to objective decibel measurements.53 They found that people rate man-made and natural sound differently, preferring the natural even if the sound levels are high. In a similar study, participants rated loud biological noises (wind, water, birds) as desirable, suggesting that a tranquil experience can be engineered within urban environments.54

Urban Lifestyles and Stress

Urban environments and busy lifestyles can be stressful. Stress can affect one’s well-being and lead to various ailments as well as anxiety-related disorders. Visual stimuli and positive aesthetics, such as the presence of plants, can be used to relieve tension and reduce stress.55,56 For example, increased greenery along transportation routes, such as major commuting roads, could be used to reduce driver stress, by reducing noise levels and providing restorative, natural scenery.57 Nature sounds have been shown to reduce stress. In a study comparing nature sounds versus various noise levels in the recovery from sympathetic arousal (a response to stress), nature noises were perceived as more pleasant and resulted in the fastest recovery from a psychological stressor (Figure 1).58

sound and stress recovery
Figure 1: Following a stressor, indication of better recovery while listening to nature versus other noises (using skin conductance).58

Climate

Recent shifts in both global and regional climate are contributing to increased environmental risks and health hazards. In the past century, the climate has shown marked changes, including increased average global temperature; changes to rainfall patterns; increased levels of CO2 , methane, and other gases; as well as many other direct and indirect effects.59 These changes impact human health, and the populations in urban environments are often more vulnerable to climatic changes due to residential density.59

Urban Heat Island

Higher temperatures can lead to increased discomfort, respiratory difficulties, heat cramps, exhaustion, non-fatal heat stroke, and heat related mortality, especially during heat waves.60 The Center for Disease Control estimates that between 1979 to 1999 exposure to excessive heat contributed to over 8,000 premature deaths in the U.S.61 A recent study found that for each 2°F increase in temperature in the U.S. there are an estimated 20-30 excess cancer cases and roughly 1,000 excess air-pollution-associated deaths.62 Densely-populated neighborhoods with high concentrations of ethnic/racial minorities appear to bear an inequitable amount of the risk associated with the urban heat island effect.63

The urban heat island effect and high density makes cities particularly vulnerable to heat waves.64 During a 2006 heat wave in California, emergency department visits showed significant increases in acute kidney failure, kidney inflammation, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and electrolyte imbalances.65

Urban development affects the absorption, reflection, and retainment of solar radiation as well as water retention and cooling, creating the urban heat island effect.60 Most urban building materials have high heat capacities - they store heat effectively. As a result, metropolitan areas can absorb and store twice the amount of heat during the day as rural areas66 and then release thermal heat at night.67 Higher temperatures can increase energy demand and increase levels of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

Paved and built impervious surfaces in urban areas - like concrete and roofs - result in less shade and moisture retention to cool the urban environment.60 Many steps can be taken in cities to ameliorate the effects of a heat island and decrease the susceptibility of cities to heat waves. For example, green roofs, cool pavement, increased vegetation, trees, and permeable surfaces can be used to reduce the heat island effect.60

The shading effect of trees as well as the cooling effects of evapotranspiration from leaves of vegetation reduces air temperatures (Figure 260).68,69,70 A meta-analysis of studies found that on average, urban greening cooled urban areas by about 2°F during the day71, with one study in a warm climate city finding that parks were 10.1°F cooler than surrounding areas71a. Researchers have found a correlation between shading in parks and higher visitation levels in warm climates, suggesting that shade is an important element of park design.72 A park’s cooling effect may extend into adjacent urban areas. Researchers estimate that cooling effects extend from 115 to 2,788 feet away from parks in Beijing, depending on the character of the area around each park.73 A study in Athens, Greece attributed wind speed as the most important factor extending cooling effects74, suggesting that city design that optimizes airflow around parks may aid ambient cooling.

temperatures across landscape
Figure 2: Air temperature differences - day and night - across the urban to rural landscape gradient.60

Extreme heat is a major source of weather-related mortality and illness around the world. In subtropical Australia, a 50°F increase in daily maximum temperature during the summer was associated with a 7.2% increase in hospital admissions the following day.75 Simulations of urban vegetation schemes in Melbourne, Australia suggest that average summer temperatures can be reduced by 0.5-2°C by doubling the city’s vegetation coverage and transforming much of the urban core into suburbs and parklands.76

Health Risk Inequity

Parks and vegetation can also have healing and restorative properties that can decrease health risks. However, many studies indicate that there are racial, ethnic, and socio-economic disparities in access to and quality of neighborhood green space.75 Those in a lower socioeconomic position are often less likely to be active than those with high socioeconomic status, in part because their neighborhood environments are often less conducive to physical activity.76The stress of poverty can cause physiological responses, which are expressed as increased risk of various diseases, including heart disease.77,78 The presence of nearby green space may reduce physiological and perceived stress among those living in poorer, urban neighborhoods.79,80 Research also suggests that health inequalities related to income deprivation for all-cause mortality and mortality from circulatory disease are lower in populations living in the greenest areas.81 Neighborhood green space may also improve people’s perceptions of their own health (See Figure 3).82

sound and stress recovery
Figure 3: Residents report better perceived health, when there is more green space in a neighorhood .82

Food Security

Reliable access to nutrient-rich food, known as food security, is directly correlated to one’s physical and mental health and socioeconomic status.83,84 Those who experience chronic limited access to food, or reliance on begging or scavenging, face an increased risk of obesity by 20-40%,85,86 due mainly to poor nutrition. Other factors in food security disparities include “food deserts” in low income neighborhoods, where fast food outlets are more common than healthy food options87, an over-reliance on cheap, energy dense foods high in fat and sugar88, and episodic food shortages.87,89

Gardens

Urban gardens can act as safety nets for low-income communities and at risk populations by bolstering food security, providing fresh produce, and setting up opportunities for physical activity.

Gardens appear to increase people's consumption of fresh produce. One study showed that respondents were 3.5 times more likely to consume at least five servings of fruit or vegetables if they or a family member had participated in a community gardening project within the last 12 months.90 Similar research finds that 56% of community gardeners met national recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption, compared with 37% of home gardeners and 25% of non-gardeners.91 The length of time that an individual reports having participated in gardening does not appear to have a relationship with the amount of produce consumed, suggesting that gardening programs targeted toward older individuals can effectively increase fruit and vegetable consumption for elders.92

Community or individual gardeners often employ ecological agricultural practices that do not rely heavily on chemical fertilizers and pesticides, thereby reducing pollution and potential threats to public health.93 Community gardens also create social benefits, fostering interpersonal relationships among neighbors.94 Community and individual gardens offer sources for improved nutrition; a stabilized, secure food source; and a reduction in the carbon footprint and environmental risks associated with food supply.

Urban Foraging

Urban forests can provide opportunities for residents to harvest wild plants and fungi for food, medicine and to maintain cultural traditions.95 Aside from native edible plants, urban forests often contain exotic fruit and nut-bearing trees that provide sustenance for community members. 97 Increasingly, non-profit organizations and municipal governments are promoting the use of urban green space for publicly-accessible edible landscaping and orchards to improve food security and environmental sustainability.96

Cleaning Contaminated Soils

Environmental risk literature indicates that heavy metals and toxins in urban soils and waters can contaminate gardens and wild foods, but that actual toxin uptake varies greatly by species.97 Phytoremediation, the use of certain plants to treat soil pollutants such as heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and oils, can help prepare contaminated areas for safer urban gardening or forage. Quick-growing mustard plants may effectively accumulate lead that entered urban environments through historical use of lead-based paints and gasoline additives98. Sunflowers are shown to accumulate both lead nitrate and zinc nitrate from contaminated roadsides.99 Experiments with poplars demonstrated that the trees successfully removed 19 of 29 potential PCBs from contaminated garden soil within 96 growing days.100 Additional plants commonly used in phytoremediation include willows, vetiver grass, reeds, cattails, and pennycress. These plants not only accumulate or alter toxins but also help rebuild soil structure at heavily impacted sites.101

Additional Risk Reduction

Urban Ecosystem Services

Trees, parks, open spaces and engineered nature are part of urban ecosystems, and provide ecosystem services. They can help to purify water, improve air quality, mitigate flooding and droughts, aid soil fertility and erosion control, reduce summer-time air temperatures and ultraviolet radiation, and bind toxic substances.102 Landscape elements like bioswales and rain gardens are used to filter and improve surface run-off water by removing silt and pollution, and reduce storm water.103

Transportation

Urban trees may also play a role in reducing traffic hazards. The most recent research suggests that trees may improve driving safety. One study found a 46% decrease in crash rates across urban arterial and highway sites after landscape improvements were installed104. Another study found that placing trees and planters in urban arterial roadsides reduced mid-block crashes by 5% to 20%.105 Overall the presence of trees and roadside vegetation may not only calm traffic but also reduce the stress of those behind the wheel106 , making transportation corridors safer for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists.

References

1. Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment. 2008. Chapter 10: Indicators of the Condition and Use of Urban and Suburban Areas. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: The Indicators. Washington D.C., Island Press.

2. Peters, A., S. von Klot, M. Heier, I. Trentinaglia, J. Cyrys, A. Hormann, M. Hauptmann, H.E. Wichmann, and H. Lowel. 2005. Particulate Air Pollution and Nonfatal Cardiac Events. Part I. Air pollution, Personal Activities, and Onset of Myocardial Infarction in a Case-Crossover Study. Research Report Health Effects Institute 1-66.

3. Peters, A., H.E. Wichmann, T. Tuch, J. Heinrich, and J. Heyder. 1997. Respiratory Effects are Associated with the Number of Ultra Fine Particles. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 155: 1376-1383.

4. Samet, J.M., A. Rappold, D. Graff, W.E. Cascio, J.H. Berntsen, Y.C. Huang, M. Herbst, M. Bassett, T. Montilla, M.J. Hazucha, P.A. Bromberg, and R.B. Devlin. 2009. Concentrated Ambient Ultrafine Particle Exposure Induces Cardiac Changes in Young Healthy Volunteers. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 179:1034-042.

5. Nowak, D.J. 2002. The Effects of Urban Trees on Air Quality. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

6. Domm J., R. Drew, A. Greene, E. Ripley, R. Smardon, and J. Tordesillas. 2008. Recommended Urban Forest Mixtures to Optimize Selected Environmental Benefits. EnviroNews: International Society of Environmental Botanists 14: 7–10.

7. Nowak D.J., D.E. Crane, and J.C. Stevens. 2006. Air Pollution Removal by Urban Trees and Shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 4: 115–23.

8. Nowak, D.J., S. Hirabayashi, A. Bodine, and R. Hoehn. 2013. Modeled PM2.5 Removal by Trees in Ten U.S. Cities and Associated Health Effects. Environmental Pollution 178, 395-402.

9. Rao, M., L.A. George, T.N. Rosenstiel, V. Shandas, and A. Dinno. 2014. Assessing the Relationship Among Urban Trees, Nitrogen Dioxide, and Respiratory Health. Environmental Pollution 194, 96-104.

10. Nowak, D.J. 1994. Air pollution removal by Chicago's urban forest. In: McPherson, E.G, D.J. Nowak and R.A. Rowntree. Chicago's Urban Forest Ecosystem: Results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report N-1E86. 63 - 81.

11. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. 2007. The Urban Environment. The Stationery Office, London.

12. Hartig, T., R. Mitchell, S. de Vries, and H. Frumkin. 2014. Nature and Health. Annual Review of Public Health 35, 1: 207-228.

13. Hartig, T., R. Mitchell, S. de Vries, and H. Frumkin. 2014. Nature and Health. Annual Review of Public Health 35, 1: 207-228.

14. Sheffield, P.E., K.R. Weinberger, K. Ito, T.D. Matte, R.W. Mathes, G.S. Robinson, and P.L. Kinney. 2011. The Association of Tree Pollen Concentration Peaks and Allergy Medication Sales in New York City: 2003--2008. ISRN Allergy.

15. Ziska, L.H., J.A. Bunce, and E.W. Goins. 2004. Characterization of an Urban-Rural CO2/Temperature Gradient and Associated Changes in Initial Plant Productivity During Secondary Succession. Oecologia 139, 3: 454-458.

16. Rodríguez-Rajo, F.J., D. Fdez-Sevilla, A. Stach, and V. Jato. 2010. Assessment Between Pollen Seasons in Areas With Different Urbanization Level Related to Local Vegetation Sources and Differences in Allergen Exposure. Aerobiologia 26,1: 1-14.

17. Gupta, R.S., V. Carrion-Carire, and K.B. Weiss. 2006. The Widening Black/White Gap in Asthma Hospitalizations and Mortality. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 117: 351-8.

18. Busse, W.W., and H. Mitchell. 2007. Addressing Issues of Asthma in Inner-City Children. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 119: 43-9.

19. Eder W., M.J. Ege, and E. von Mutius. 2006. The Asthma Epidemic. New England Journal of Medicine 355: 2226-2235.

20. Platts-Mills, T.A., E.A. Erwin, J.A. Woodfolk, et al. 2006. Environmental Factors Influencing Allergy and Asthma. Chemical Immunology and Allergy 91: 3-15.

21. Arruda L.K., D. Sole, C.E. Baena-Cagnani, et al. 2005. Risk Factors for Asthma and Atopy. Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology 5: 153-9.

22. Corburn J., J. Osleeb, and M. Porter. 2006. Urban Asthma and the Neighbourhood Environment in New York City. Health Place 12: 167-79.

23. Maantay, J. 2007. Asthma and Air Pollution in the Bronx: Methodological and Data Considerations in Using GIS for Environmental Justice and Health Research. Health Place 13: 32-56.

24. Lin, S., J.P. Munsie, S.A. Hwang, et al. 2002. Childhood Asthma Hospitalization and Residential Exposure to State Route Traffic. Environmental Research 88: 73-81.

25. Lovasi, G. S., J.W. Quinn, K.M. Neckerman, M.S. Perzanowski, and A. Rundle. 2008. Children Living in Areas With More Street Trees Have Lower Prevalence of Asthma. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 62: 647-49.

26. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. State Indicator Report on Physical Activity, 2010 National Action Guide. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/downloads/PA_State_Indicator_Report_2010_Action_Guide.pdf

27. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. Defining Overweight and Obesity. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/defining.htm

28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011. Health Consequences. www.cdc.gov/obesity/consequences.htm

29. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1996. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

30. Tilt, J.H., T.M. Unfried, and B. Roca. 2007. Using Objective and Subjective Measures of Neighborhood Greenness and Accessible Destinations for Understanding Walking Trips and BMI in Seattle, Washington. American Journal of Health Promotion 21, 4: 371-379.

31. Thompson, C.W. 2011. Linking Landscape and Health: The Recurring Theme. Landscape and Urban Planning 99: 187-195.

32. Pretty, J., R. Hine, and J. Peacock. 2006. Green Exercise: The Benefits of Activities in Green Places. Biologist 53, 3: 143-48.

33. Giles-Corti, B., M.H. Broomhall, M. Knuiman, C. Collins, K. Douglas, K. Ng, A. Lange, and R.J. Donovan. 2005. Increasing Walking: How Important is Distance To, Attractiveness, and Size of Public Open Space? American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28: 169-176.

34. Ellaway, A., S. Macintyre, and X. Bonnefoy. 2005. Graffiti, Greenery, and Obesity in Adults: Secondary Analysis of European Cross-Sectional Survey. British Medical Journal 331: 611-2.

35. Takano, T., K. Nakamura, and M. Watanabe. 2002. Urban Residential Environments and Senior Citizens’ Longevity in Mega-City Areas: The Importance of Walkable Green Space. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 56, 12: 913–916.

36. Adams, M., T. Cox, G. Moore, B. Croxford, M. Refaee, and S. Sharples. 2006. Sustainable Soundscapes: Noise Policy and the Urban Experience. Urban Studies 43: 2385.

37. Atkinson, R. 2007. Ecology of Sound: the Sonic Order of Urban Space. Urban Studies 44: 1905.

38. MORI Social Research Institute. 2003. Neighbour Noise: Public Opinion Research to Assess its Nature, Extent and Significance. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK.

39. Health Council of the Netherlands: Committee on Noise and Health. 1994. Noise and Health. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands, 15E.

40. Regecová, V., and E. Kellerová. 1995. Effects of Urban Noise Pollution on Blood Pressure and Heart Rate in Preschool Children. Journal of Hypertension 13: 405-412.

41. Health Council of the Netherlands: Committee on an Uniform Noise Metric. 1997. Assessing Noise Exposure for Public Health Purposes. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands 1997/23E.

42. Melamed, S., J. Luz, and M.S. Green. 1992. Noise Exposure, Noise Annoyance and Their Relation to Psychological Distress, Accident and Sickness Absence Among Blue-Collar Workers - the Cordis Study. lsrael Journal of Medical Sciences 28, 8-9: 629-635.

43. de Kluizenaar, Y., F.J. van Lenthe, A.J. Visschedijk, P.Y. Zandveld, H.M. Miedema, and J.P. Mackenbach. 2013. Road Traffic Noise, Air Pollution Components and Cardiovascular Events. Noise Health 15, 67: 388-397.

44. Öhrström, E., A. Skanberg, H. Svensson, and A. Gidlöf-Gunnarsson. 2006. Effects of Road Traffic Noise and the Benefit of Access to Quietness. Journal of Sound and Vibration 295: 40-59.

45. Cohen, S., G.W. Evans, D.S. Krantz, and D. Stokols. 1980. Physiological, Motivational and Cognitive Effects of Aircraft Noise on Children: Moving From the Laboratory to the Field. American Psychologist 35: 231-243.

46. Greenspace Scotland. 2008. Health Impact Assessment of Greenspace: A Guide. Health Scotland, Greenspace Scotland. Scottish Natural Heritage and Institute of Occupational Medicine.

47. Langdon, J. 1976. Noise Nuisance Caused by Road Traffic in Residential Areas. Part I. Journal of Sound and Vibrations 111: 243-263.

48. Kastka, J., and R. Nowack. 1987. On the Interaction of Sensory Experience, Causal Attributive Cognitions and Visual Context Parameters in Noise Annoyance. Developments in Toxicology and Environmental Science 15: 345-362.

49. Lull, H.W., and W.E. Sopper. 1969. Hydrologic Effects From Urbanization on Forested Watersheds in the Northeast. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Research Paper NE-146: 1-31.

50. Martens, M.J.M. 1981. Noise Abatement in Plant Monocultures and Plant Communities. Applied Acoustics. 14, 3: 167-189.

51. Land Use Consultants. 2004. Making Links: Greenspace and Quality of Life. London.

52. Fang, C., and D. Ling. 2003. Investigation of the Noise Reduction Provided by Tree Belts. Landscape and Urban Planning. 63, 4: 187-195.

53. Yang, W., and J. Kang. 2005. Acoustic Comfort Evaluation in Urban Open Public Spaces. Applied Acoustics 66, 2: 211-229.

54. Pheasant, R., K. Horoshenkov, G. Watts, and B. Barrett. 2008. The Acoustic And Visual Factors Influencing the Construction of Tranquil Space in Urban and Rural Environments: Tranquil Spaces=Quiet Places? The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 123, 3: 1446-1457.

55. Dijkstra, K., M.E. Pieterse, and A. Pruyn. 2008. Stress-Reducing Effects of Indoor Plants in the Built Healthcare Environment: The Mediating Role of Perceived Attractiveness. Preventive Medicine. 47: 279-283.

56. Adachi, M., C.L.E. Rohde, and A.D. Kendle. 2000. Effects of Floral and Foliage Displays on Human Emotions. HortTechnology 10: 59-63.

57. Parsons, R., L.G. Tassinary, R.S. Ulrich, M.R. Hebl, and M. Grossman-Alexander. 1998. The View From the Road: Implication for Stress Recovery and Immunization. Journal of Environmental Psychology 18, 2: 113-140.

58. Alvarsson, J.J., S. Wiens, and M.E. Nilsson. 2010. Stress Recovery During Exposure to Nature Sound and Environmental Noise. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 7: 1036-046.

59. Frumkin, H., J. Hess, G. Luber, J. Malilay, and M. McGeehin. 2008. Climate Change: the Public Health Response. American Journal of Public Health 98: 435-445.

60. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies.

61. Center for Disease Control. 2004. Extreme Heat: A Prevention Guide to Promote Your Personal Health and Safety.
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/heat_guide.asp

62. Jacobson, M. 2008. On the Causal Link Between Carbon Dioxide and Air Pollution Mortality. Geophysical Research Letters 35, L03809.

63. Jesdale, B.M., R. Morello-Frosch, and L. Cushing. 2013. The Racial/Ethnic Distribution of Heat Risk-related Land Cover in Relation to Residential Segregation. Environmental Health Perspectives 121, 7: 811-17.

64. Kinney, P.L., M.S. O'Neill, M.L. Bell, and J. Schwartz. 2008. Approaches for Estimating Effects of Climate Change on Heat-related Deaths: Challenges and Opportunities. Environmental Science & Policy 11: 87-96.

65. Knowlton, K., M. Rotkin-Ellman, G. King, H.G. Margolis, D. Smith, G. Solomon, R. Trent, and P. English. 2009. The 2006 California Heat Wave: Impacts on Hospitalizations and Emergency Department Visits. Environmental Health Perspectives 117, 1: 61-67.

66. Christen, A., and R. Vogt. 2004. Energy and Radiation Balance of a Central European City. International Journal of Climatology. 24, 11: 1395-1421.

67. Sailor, D.J., and H. Fan. 2002. Modeling the Diurnal Variability of Effective Aledo for Cities. Atmospheric Environment 36, 4: 713-725.

68. Taha, H., H. Akbari, A. Rosenfeld, and J. Huang, 1988. Residential Cooling Loads and the Urban Heat Island - the Effects Of Albedo. Building and Environments 23: 271-283.

69. Grimmond, C.S.B., and T.R. Oke. 1991. An Evapotranspiration-Interception Model for Urban Areas. Water Resources Research 27: 1739-1755.

70. Oke, T.R. 1989. The Micrometerology of the Urban Forest. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Sciences 324: 335-349.

71. Bowler, D.E., L. Buyung-Ali, T.M. Knight, and A.S. Pullin. 2010. Urban Greening to Cool Towns and Cities: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence. Landscape and Urban Planning 97, 3: 147-155.

71.a. Barradas, V.L. 1991. Air Temperature and Humidity and Human Comfort Index of Some City Parks of Mexico City. International Journal of Biometeorology 35, 1: 24-28.

72. Lin, T.P., K.T. Tsai, R.L. Hwang, and A. Matzarakis. 2012. Quantification of the Effect of Thermal Indices and Sky View Factor on Park Attendance. Landscape and Urban Planning 107, 2: 137-146.

73. Lin, W., T. Yu, X. Chang, W. Wu, and Y. Zhang. 2015. Calculating Cooling Extents of Green Parks Using Remote Sensing: Method and Test. Landscape and Urban Planning 134, 66-75.

74. Skoulika, F., M. Santamouris, D. Kolokotsa, and N. Boemi. 2014. On the Thermal Characteristics and the Mitigation Potential of a Medium Size Urban Park in Athens, Greece. Landscape and Urban Planning 123: 73-86.

75. Hondula, D.M., and A.G. Barnett. 2014. Heat-Related Morbidity in Brisbane, Australia: Spatial variation and Area-Level Predictors. Environmental Health Perspectives 122, 8: 831-836.

76. Chen, D., X. Wang, M. Thatcher, G. Barnett, A. Kachenko, and R. Prince. 2014. Urban Vegetation for Reducing Heat Related Mortality. Environmental Pollution 192: 275-284.

77. Wolch, J.R., J. Byrne, and J.P. Newell. 2014. Urban Green Space, Public Health, and Environmental Justice: The Challenge of Making Cities ‘Just Green Enough’. Landscape and Urban Planning 125: 234-244.

78. Popham, F., and R. Mitchell. 2007. Relation of Employment Status to Socioeconomic Position and Physical Activity Types. Preventative Medicine 45: 182-88.

79. Brunner, E. 1997. Stress and the Biology of Inequality. British Medical Journal 314: 1472-76.

80. Kiecolt-Glaser, J.K., P.T. Marucha, W.B. Malarkey, A.M. Mercado, and R. Glaser. 1995. Slowing of Wound Healing by Psychological Stress. The Lancet 346: 1194-96.

81. Roe, J.J., C.W. Thompson, P.A. Aspinall, M.J. Brewer, E.I. Duff, D. Miller, R. Mitchell, and A. Clow. 2013. Green Space and Stress: Evidence From Cortisol Measures in Deprived Urban Communities. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 10, 9: 4086-4103.

82. Kuo, F.E. 2001. Coping with Poverty: Impacts of Environment and Attention in the Inner City. Environment and Behavior 33, 1: 5-34.

83. Mitchell, R., and F. Popham. 2008. Effect of Exposure to Natural Environment on Health Inequalities: an Observational Population Study. The Lancet 372: 1655-660.

84. Maas, J., R.A. Verheij, P.P. Groenewegen, S. de Vries, and P. Spreeuwenberg. 2006. Green Space, Urbanity, and Health: How Strong is The Relation? Journal Of Epidemiology And Community Health 60: 587-592.

85. Cook, J.T., and D.A. Frank. 2008. Food Security, Poverty, and Human Development in the United States. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1136: 193-209.

86. Hampton, T. 2007. Food Insecurity Harms Health, Well-Being of Millions in the United States. Journal of American Medical Association 298: 1851-1853.

87. Townsend, M.S., J. Peerson, B. Love, C. Achterberg, and S.P. Murphy. 2001. Food Insecurity Is Positively Related to Overweight in Women. The Journal of Nutrition 131: 1738-45.

88. Bidwell, S. 2009. Food Security A Review and Synthesis of Themes From the Literature. Programme Area Four Community and Public Health Christchurch, Canterbury District Health Board.

89. Reidpath, D.D., C. Burns, J. Garrard, M. Mahoney, and M. Townsend. 2002. An Ecological Study of the Relationship Between Social and Environmental Determinants of Obesity. Health & Place 8, 2: 141-45.

90. Drewnowski, A., and S.E. Specter. 2004. Poverty and Obesity: the Role of Energy Density and Energy Costs. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 79: 6-16.

91. Dietz, W.H. 1995. Does Hunger Cause Obesity? Pediatrics 95: 766-767.

92. Alaimo, K., E. Packnett, R.A. Miles, and D.J. Kruger. 2008. Fruit and Vegetable Intake Among Urban Community Gardeners. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 40: 94-101.

93. Litt, J.S., M.J. Soobader, M.S. Turbin, J.W. Hale, M. Buchenau, and J.A. Marshall. 2011. The Influence of Social Involvement, Neighborhood Aesthetics, and Community Garden Participation on Fruit and Vegetable Consumption. American Journal of Public Health 101, 8: 1466.

94. Sommerfeld, A.J., A.L. McFarland, T.M. Waliczek, and J.M. Zajicek. 2010. Growing Minds: Evaluating the Relationship Between Gardening and Fruit and Vegetable Consumption in Older Adults. HortTechnology 20, 4: 711-17.

95. McClintock, N. 2010. Why Farm The City? Theorizing Urban Agriculture Through a Lens of Metabolic Rift. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 3: 191.

96. Hale, J., C. Knapp, L. Bardwell, M. Buchenau, J. Marshall, F. Sancar, and J.S. Litt. 2011. Connecting Food Environments and Health Through the Relational Nature of Aesthetics: Gaining Insight Through the Community Gardening Experience. Social Science & Medicine 72, 11: 1853-863.

97. McLain, R.J., K. MacFarland, et al. 2012. Gathering in the City: An Annotated Bibliography and Review of the Literature About Human-Plant Interactions in Urban Ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-849. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 107 pp.

98. Nordahl, D. 2009. Public Produce: the New Urban Agriculture. Washington, DC: Island Press. 236 p.

99. 97. McLain, R.J., K. MacFarland, et al. 2012. Gathering in the City: An Annotated Bibliography and Review of the Literature About Human-Plant Interactions in Urban Ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-849. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 107 pp.

100. Goldowitz, I.S., and J. Goldowitz. 2006. Phytoremediation of Lead-Contaminated Soil in the Urban Residential Environment Using Seed Mustard. Contaminated Soils, Sediments, and Water. 10: 271-276.

101. Adesodun, J.K., M.O. Atayese, T.A. Agbaje, B.A. Osadiaye, and O.F. Mafe. 2010. Phytoremediation Potentials of Sunflowers (Tithonia diversifolia and Helianthus annus) for Metals in Soils Contaminated with Zinc and Lead Nitrates. Water Soil Pollution 207: 195-201.

102. Meggo, R.E., and J.L. Schnoor. 2014. Cleaning Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) Contaminated Garden Soil by Phytoremediation. Environmental Sciences 1,1: 33-52.

103. Sleegers, F. 2010. Phytoremediation as Green Infrastructure and a Landscape of Experiences. Proceedings of the Annual International Conference on Soils, Sediments, Water and Energy 15: 13, 132-140.

104. Karjalainen, E., T. Sarjala, and H. Raitio. 2010. Promoting Human Health Through Forests: Overview and Major Challenges. Environmental Health and Preventative Medicine 15: 1-8.

105. Wolf, K. 2008. With Plants in Mind: Social Benefits of Civic Nature. Master Gardener 2, 1: 7-11.

106. Mok, J.-H., H.C. Landphair, and J.R. Naderi. 2006. Landscape Improvement Impacts on Roadside Safety in Texas. Landscape and Urban Planning 78: 263-274.

107. Naderi, J.R. 2003. Landscape Design in the Clear Zone: Effect of Landscape Variables on Pedestrian Health and Driver Safety. Transportation Research Record 1851: 119-130.

108. Cackowski, J.M., and J.L. Nasar. 2003. Restorative Effects of Roadside Vegetation: Implications for Automobile Driver Anger and Frustration. Environment and Behavior 35: 736-751.

109. Nowak, D.J., S.M. Stein, P.B. Randler, E.J. Greenfield, S.J. Comas, M.A. Carr, and R.J. Alig. 2010. Sustaining America's Urban Trees and Forests: A Forests on the Edge Report. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, General Technical Report NRS-62. Newtown Square, PA: Northern Research Station, 27 pp.

110. O’Rourke, P.A., and W.H. Terjung. 1981. Urban parks, energy budgets and surface temperatures. Archives for Meteorology, Geophysics, and Bioclimatology 29, 4: 327-344.

111. Stigsdotter, U.K, O. Ekholm, J. Schipperijn, M. Toftager, F. Kamper-Jørgensen, and T.B. Randrup. 2010. Health Promoting Outdoor Environments - Associations Between Green Space and Health, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Stress Based on a Danish National Representative Survey. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 38, 4: 411-17.

112. Thompson, C.W. 2011. Linking Landscape and Health: The Recurring Theme. Landscape and Urban Planning 99: 187-195.

113. Pretty, J., R. Hine, and J. Peacock. 2006. Green Exercise: The Benefits of Activities in Green Places. Biologist 53, 3: 143-48.

114. 83. Mitchell, R., and F. Popham. 2008. Effect of Exposure to Natural Environment on Health Inequalities: An Observational Population Study. The Lancet 372: 1655-1660.

115. 92. Alaimo, K., E. Packnett, R.A. Miles, and D.J. Kruger. 2008. Fruit and Vegetable Intake Among Urban Community Gardeners. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior 40, 2: 94-101.

 

 

print summary

credit: Margaret Bourke-White, Lunch Atop a Skyscraper, c. 1932


we're still working
on this page

 

 

yellow poplar image caption: flowers with large blooms usually produce heavy (large particle) pollen. These trees attract insects that transport pollen and do not depend on wind transportation. These trees are generally lower in their allergy potential. Also, "perfect" flowers on trees are desired. A perfect flower is one that has both male and female parts in a single flower - not just male and female parts on the same tree. Perfectly flowered trees include crab apple, cherry, dogwood, magnolia, and redbud. Less allergy problem: Female ash, female red maple (especially the "Autumn Glory" cultivar), yellow poplar, dogwood, magnolia, double-flowered cherry, fir, spruce and flowering plum, shot by Dcrjsr,

physical activity captions.The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommend that children and teens be physically active for at least 60 minutes on most, if not all, days. For children, the 60 minutes of activity can be done in smaller chunks of time over the day. Some of that time may come from physical education (PE) and gym classes in schools. The Guidelines recommend that adults should do a minimum of 2 hours and 30 minutes, or 30 minutes 5 days a week, of moderate-intensity aerobic activity a week. Health experts recommend this level of activity to reduce the risk of chronic disease later in life.

noise, trees around brick structures: These trees provide for a quiet a stroll through the city, blocking a noisy parking lot on the other side. Photo Credit: Raina Sheridan

Contact Us            © Copyright 2010-2018 University of Washington, College of the Environment