11 sources: 9 meta-analyses, 2 systematic reviews
Environmental · Concept
Green Space and Physical Health
Living near green space is associated with lower mortality, consistently and dose-responsively, and with lower cardiometabolic risk.
Beta content: this dimension's review set is version 0.9-beta and upgrades in place after the Round-2 internal reviews.
8 of 12 sources behind this entry were read from the abstract only; they are marked in the sources list.
Any levelAnywhere
Conceptual. Where you can choose, favour routes and routines that pass through green space.
NoneFor most adultsCity dwellers
What the evidence says
What the sources say
Research consistently shows that people living in greener areas have lower all-cause mortality, and the association strengthens with more greenness rather than appearing at a single threshold. Pooled cohort evidence links residential greenness to reduced mortality, and separate reviews find lower incidence of type 2 diabetes and better cardiometabolic profiles. This is observational evidence, so it supports risk-reduction framing rather than a promise.
Common misconceptions
- Misconception: 'Any park visit delivers the mortality benefit.' The evidence is about residential exposure over years, not about single visits.
What we won't claim
- Does not claim green space prevents disease in any individual
- Observational association only
11 sources: 9 meta-analyses, 2 systematic reviews
- Agreement
- Direction recorded for 0 of 11 sources; not yet recorded for the rest.
- The claim's outcome
- Outcome not yet recorded
- Certainty
- No source states a certainty rating.
- How the sources were read
- Some sources are based on abstracts, not full texts.
What each source measured and concluded (11)
systematic review · 2023
Ccami-Bernal et al. (2023) — Green space exposure and type 2 diabetes mellitus incidence: A systematic review.
- What it measured
- Incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review (no meta-analysis)
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 13 cohort studies (sample sizes 1,700 to 1,922,545)
systematic review · 2024
Bryer et al. (2024) — Greenspace exposure and associated health outcomes: a systematic review of reviews
- What it measured
- Association between greenspace exposure and health outcomes
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review of reviews (umbrella review)
- Studies and participants, as stated
- 36 systematic reviews
meta-analysis · 2022
Liu et al. (2022) — Green space and cardiovascular disease: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
- What it measured
- Cardiovascular disease events (CVD, IHD, CBVD mortality, stroke incidence/prevalence) in relation to green space (NDVI)
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review with meta-analysis
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=53 studies (>100 million persons, 18 countries)
meta-analysis · 2024
Patwary et al. (2024) — Impact of green space and built environment on metabolic syndrome: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
- What it measured
- Metabolic syndrome in relation to green space and built environment
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=18 studies
meta-analysis · 2023
Bu et al. (2023) — Association of greenspace with hypertension in adult: a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies
- What it measured
- Blood pressure and hypertension
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=27 articles
meta-analysis · 2020
Yuan et al. (2020) — Green space exposure on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
- What it measured
- Mortality and cardiovascular outcomes
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=22 studies (meta-analysis included 8 cohort studies)
meta-analysis · 2024
Zhou et al. (2024) — Longitudinal association between urban blue-green space exposure and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of exposure types and buffers
- What it measured
- Mortality (all-cause, respiratory, circulatory, cancer) associated with urban blue-green space exposure
- How it was read
- based on the abstract, not the full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis (of longitudinal cohort studies)
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=21 studies, 28,700,187 participants
meta-analysis · 2024
Kaczyńska (2024) — Urban Green Spaces’ Influence on Civilization Diseases—Meta-Analysis and Critical Review
- What it measured
- Prevalence of overweight/obesity, diabetes, and hypertension.
- How it measured it
- BMI (self-report and objective), self-reported diagnosis and medical records for diabetes and hypertension.
- How it was read
- read in full text
meta-analysis · 2019
Rojas-Rueda et al. (2019) — Green spaces and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies
- What it measured
- All-cause mortality.
- How it measured it
- Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI.
- Its conclusion, in its own words
- “We found evidence of an inverse association between surrounding greenness and all-cause mortality. Interventions to increase and manage green spaces should therefore be considered as a strategic public health intervention.”
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Meta-analysis of 9 cohort studies
- Studies and participants, as stated
- N=8,324,652 participants across 9 studies
- Heterogeneity, as stated
- Heterogeneity between studies due to different populations and buffer sizes.
meta-analysis · 2020
Luo et al. (2020) — Greenspace with overweight and obesity: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of epidemiological studies up to 2020
- What it measured
- Overweight/obesity.
- How it measured it
- BMI, waist circumference (WC), whole body fat (WBF).
- Its conclusion, in its own words
- “Current evidence indicates that there might be an association between greater access to greenspace and lower odds of overweight/obesity.”
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of 57 studies
- Heterogeneity, as stated
- Low quality of some included studies and high between-study heterogeneity
meta-analysis · 2023
Bianconi et al. (2023) — Impacts of Urban Green on Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Diseases—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- What it measured
- CVD morbidity and mortality, IHD mortality, CBVD mortality.
- How it measured it
- NDVI (objective).
- How it was read
- read in full text
- What the review says it includes
- Systematic review with meta-analyses of multiple studies
- Heterogeneity, as stated
- Heterogeneity of included studies affecting comparability
- Heterogeneity, as stated
- High statistical heterogeneity in some meta-analyses
Key sources (12) · 1 not counted
Each source below is shown with its study design and a link to the original study, or, where it is not a completed research paper, with what kind of record it is; those are not counted. This is the audit trail.
systematic reviewGreen space exposure and type 2 diabetes mellitus incidence: A systematic review.
systematic reviewGreenspace exposure and associated health outcomes: a systematic review of reviews
meta-analysisGreen space and cardiovascular disease: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
meta-analysisImpact of green space and built environment on metabolic syndrome: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
meta-analysisAssociation of greenspace with hypertension in adult: a systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies
meta-analysisGreen space exposure on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
meta-analysisLongitudinal association between urban blue-green space exposure and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of exposure types and buffers
PreprintGreen Space and Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis
meta-analysisUrban Green Spaces’ Influence on Civilization Diseases—Meta-Analysis and Critical Review
meta-analysisGreen spaces and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies
meta-analysisGreenspace with overweight and obesity: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of epidemiological studies up to 2020
meta-analysisImpacts of Urban Green on Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Diseases—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Why do some records show a record type instead of a study design?
A study design is shown for a completed, peer-reviewed paper. A registered protocol, a preprint, a conference abstract, a referee report or a book chapter has not been through peer review as a finished paper, so it is labelled for what it is, and it is counted in no source count. Where a record could not be confirmed as a completed paper at all, it says so rather than guessing. They all stay in the list, and their DOI still resolves, because the count of what was screened is part of the audit trail.
- Protocol / registration A registered plan for a review or trial, not its results.
- Preprint Posted by its authors before peer review.
- Conference abstract A conference summary rather than a peer-reviewed paper.
- Peer-review report A referee's report on a paper, not the paper itself.
- Guideline / position stand A recommendation derived from evidence, which is a step further from the data than the evidence itself.
- Book chapter A chapter in a scholarly book rather than a journal paper.
- Type not recorded Our record does not say what kind of publication this is, so it is counted in no source count. That is a gap in our data, not a judgement about the research.
“Abstract only” means the review read that paper’s abstract, not its full text; “screened only” means it was included at re-screening and not extracted. Both stay in the trail with their DOI, because how a source was read is part of the audit.
Explore all 401 studies in Environmental →
The full evidence base this focus area draws on, every study with its design and DOI.What it is for
Judge health claims for myselfLower my long-term disease riskSpend more time in nature