No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
It is well accepted that particulate matter (PM) can affect human health detrimentally. Chronic and prolonged exposures to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ranging between 2.5 and 10 microns (PM10), 0.1 and 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and less than 0.1 microns in size (UFPM), have been associated with cardiopulmonary diseases. PM is ubiquitously present in urban settings, while primarily absent in forest environments primarily due to the direct interception of airborne pollution particles by trees. Both short- and long-term exposure to trees in forested environments is associated with lower blood pressure and inflammation, as well as enhanced immune function. Additionally, exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) actively released by trees is associated with improved health through enhanced natural killer cell activity, reduced inflammatory responses, and reduced psychological stress. This article presents the results of a literature review on the harmful health effects of air pollution in urban environments, and the potential of forested environments to promote health and disease prevention.
Societal Impact Statement
Trees play a critical role for people and the planet. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the presence of trees and urban nature can improve people's mental and physical health, children's attention and test scores, the property values in a neighborhood, and beyond. Trees cool our urban centers. Trees are essential for healthy communities and people. The benefits that trees provide can help cities and countries meet 15 of the 17 internationally supported United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. This critical review provides a comprehensive argument that trees should be considered an important part of the equation by project managers and civic leaders as we collectively work toward reaching these sustainability goals.
Summary
We live in an era influenced by humans to the point that the Earth's systems are now altered. In addition, a majority of the world's population live in cities. To meet the needs of people in a changing world, The United Nations General Assembly created the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDG) to improve the quality of life for people. These broad goals outline the greatest challenges of our time. An effective strategy to assist in meeting these goals is to plant and protect trees, especially in cities where the majority of people live. This paper serves as a critical review of the benefits of trees. Trees promote health and social well‐being by removing air pollution, reducing stress, encouraging physical activity, and promoting social ties and community. Children with views of trees are more likely to succeed in school. Trees promote a strong economy and can provide numerous resources to the people that need them. While cities are getting hotter, trees can reduce urban temperatures. They provide habitat and food for animals. Finally, trees are valuable green infrastructure to manage stormwater. Money spent on urban forestry has a high return on investment. As we navigate this human‐dominated era, we need skilled people who understand the nuances of the built environment and trees as we strategically plan the cities of the future. The overwhelming evidence from the scientific literature suggests that investing in trees is an investment in meeting the UN SDG, and ultimately an investment for a better world.
Living near vegetation, often called “green space” or “greenness”, has been associated with numerous health benefits. We hypothesized that the two key components of urban vegetation, trees and grass, may differentially affect health. We estimated the association between near-residence trees, grass, and total vegetation (from the 2010 High Resolution Land Cover dataset for New York City (NYC)) with self-reported health from a survey of NYC adults (n = 1281). We found higher reporting of “very good” or “excellent” health for respondents with the highest, compared to the lowest, quartiles of tree (RR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.06–1.44) but not grass density (relative risk (RR) = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.86–1.17) within 1000 m buffers, adjusting for pertinent confounders. Significant positive associations between trees and self-reported health remained after adjustment for grass, whereas associations with grass remained non-significant. Adjustment for air pollutants increased beneficial associations between trees and self-reported health; adjustment for parks only partially attenuated these effects. Results were null or negative using a 300 m buffer. Findings imply that higher exposure to vegetation, particularly trees outside of parks, may be associated with better health. If replicated, this may suggest that urban street tree planting may improve population health.
Forests, Trees and Human Health and Well-being: Introduction
- K Nilsson
- M Sangster
- C C Konijnendijk