Ruoxiang Tu

Walking is a crucial transportation choice and physical activity for urban residents, especially with increasing urbanization and environmental issues. While it is well-established that walking through green spaces offers significant health benefits, the dose-response relationship between green walking exposure and its psychological impacts remains unclear. Additionally, the influence of the thermal environment on these benefits requires further investigation.A protest-posttest and crossover experiment conducted in a campus green space during a subtropical transitional season. A total of 37 participants were randomly assigned to two walking interventions, each 2 km in length, within the same space. The interventions were separated by a one-week washout period, and the walking directions (clockwise or counterclockwise) were also randomized.The Perceived Restorativeness Scale and Positive and Negative Affect Scale were used before and after a stress test, at the midpoint of and after the walk. Simultaneously, skin temperature and skin conductance levels were continuously recorded during the trial. Physical environmental parameters during the walks were measured using a mobile weather station carried by a researcher accompanying the participants. These parameters included air temperature, relative humidity, long-wave and short-wave radiation, noise levels, and major air pollutants such as CO and PM2.5.Physiological Equivalent Temperature during the walks was calculated, and paired t-tests and correlation analysis were used in Statistical analysis. The results showed that green walking had significant effects on participants’ physiological and psychological indicators, with noticeable stress reduction and mood improvement. Among the distances tested, a 2 km walk yielded the best restorative benefits, whereas the health benefits were weaker at 1 km and 2.5 km. Additionally, thermal comfort during the walks mediated the relationship between walking and the physiological, psychological, and restorative benefits. The mental health of pedestrians after green walking could be partially offset by thermal stress.

Despite growing research on green space and health benefits, the body of evidence remains heterogeneous and unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with high evidence levels are deemed timely. We searched Scopus, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for the literature up to January 2022 and assessed bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0. We calculated joint impact estimates for each green space exposure assessment technique using random and fixed effects models. Compared to non-green space situations, green space exposure was related to decreased negative feelings, such as fatigue −0.84 (95% CI: −1.15 to −0.54), and increased levels of pleasant emotions, such as vitality 0.85 (95% CI: 0.52 to 1.18). It also lowered physiological indicators, including heart rate levels, by 0.60 (95% CI: −0.90 to −0.31). Effect sizes were large and statistically significant, and the overall quality of the evidence was good. Existing RCTs on greenspace exposure pay insufficient attention to older and adolescent populations, different ethnic groups, different regions, and doses of greenspace exposure interventions. More research is needed to understand how and how much green space investment has the most restorative benefits and guide urban green space planning and renewal.

Urbanization and climate change have been rapidly occurring globally. Evidence-based healthy city development is required to improve living quality and mitigate the adverse impact of the outdoor neighborhood environment on public health. Taking Guangzhou as an example to explore the association of neighborhood environment and public health and preferably to offer some implications for better future city development, we measured ten environmental factors (temperature (T), wind-chill index (WCI), thermal stress index (HSI), relative humidity (RH), average wind speed (AWS), negative oxygen ions (NOI), PM2.5, luminous flux (LF), and illuminance (I)) in four seasons in four typical neighborhoods, and the SF-36 health scale was employed to assess the physical and mental health of neighborhood residents in nine subscales (health transition(HT), physiological functions (PF), general health status (GH), physical pain (BP), physiological functions (RP), energy vitality (VT), mental health (MH), social function (SF), and emotional functions (RE)). The linear mixed model was used in an analysis of variance. We ranked the different environmental factors in relation to aspects of health and weighted them accordingly. Generally, the thermal environment had the greatest impact on both physical and mental health and the atmospheric environment and wind environment had the least impact on physical health and mental health, respectively. In addition, the physical health of the resident was more greatly affected by the environment than mental health. According to the results, we make a number of strategic suggestions for the renewal of the outdoor neighborhood environment in subtropical monsoon climate high-density cities and provide a theoretical basis for improving public health through landscape architecture at the neighborhood scale.