You must log in or register to comment.

bow_m0nster t1_j3qfjl0 wrote

Or maybe rich people can afford healthcare AND live in neighborhoods that have more space and care for greenery.


Lankpants t1_j3sw2av wrote

Every one of the participants can "afford" healthcare. This study was conducted in Australia, not America. We have universal, free healthcare.

Wealth was also a control of the study.


unswsydney OP t1_j3oaqan wrote

HNY r/science, popping in to share this study led by UNSW Professor Xiaoqi Feng and Professor Thomas Astell-Burt from the UOW.

Prof Feng studied 100,000 Australian adults living in apartments or houses and analysed the nearby green space as well as 10 years of hospitalisation and death data.

The study found that for those living in houses, green space was associated with a lower risk of heart disease-related mortality. But not all green spaces were equally beneficial – larger amounts of tree canopy, but not open grass, was associated with these positive health effects.

Here's the link to the full study if you want to take a read:


RingtailRush t1_j3qphj3 wrote

As someone who identified as the shut-in nerd, happy in my own house thanks no need to go outside.

Actually going outside, spending some time in the park, taking a short walk on my lunch break has been so beneficial to my health and mental wellness I'm amazed some people just don't.


DrabDonut t1_j3snnmf wrote

As a fellow weirdo shut in, it pisses me off how much better I feel if I spend time at a park.


pokey68 t1_j3p03w4 wrote

Makes me wonder about green as an interior paint color for my well-being.


Raiziell t1_j3qt731 wrote

Maybe get some easy growing vining plants to take over a wall? It sounds awesome in my head, but I'm obviously not sure or any effects.


Confused_AF_Help t1_j3r0fm8 wrote

I suppose hanging vines is ok, but once they start latching to walls and furniture, it's a matter of time until you get mold everywhere


Raiziell t1_j3r3rh1 wrote

1:4 peroxide/water fixes that issue easy enough in the soil. I use it all of the time, but yeah I'd imagine any popping up on leaves could lead to issues.


AutoModerator t1_j3oanth wrote

Vote for Best of r/science 2022!

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


International_Hawk72 t1_j3qr99f wrote

Feel like this is more correlation than causation. You live in a nice area with lots of trees and green spaces; you probably have more wealth, and access to healthcare.


ILoveLongDogs t1_j3qkebs wrote

The title implies this has no effect on the homeless.


NorthernLight_ t1_j3qp73f wrote

Pseudo-science at best. I'm concerned with the amount of young athletes developing major heart issues. This "green space and tree coverage reduces heart attacks" article reeks of agenda.


Lankpants t1_j3qyvu2 wrote

If they followed the scientific method, which they did since this is a published article then it's definitionally not pseudoscience. It could be poorly carried out, biased, etc (I don't believe it is however) but not one lick of that would make it pseudoscience, it would only make it bad science.

I personally think that study into people's living conditions is incredibly valuable. It's something that impacts every facet of people's lives and better knowledge could end up generating huge improvements to people's lives.


GlenJman t1_j3obvnr wrote

That could really easily be just correlation, I'd be interested to compare the costs of living and average income in places that have greater tree coverage vs. places that don't. More costly apartments and housing have more space for gardens and trees, while poorer urban areas don't.


curbsideSofa t1_j3ojoc3 wrote

Hey neat you spent 5 seconds thinking of a possible omitted variable (income) that could be correlated to both cardiovascular disease (CVD) and neighborhood.

But before saying that a published study could just be picking up on this omitted variable correlation, perhaps you could open the paper and see if income controls were included in the specification:

"Confounders were selected to address issues of selection into neighborhoods containing more green space that are also known correlates of CVD, including sea, age, annual household income..."

Your criticism is not valid. Please engage with the content before sharing reasons it could be wrong, because in this case those reasons have explicitly already been accounted for.


GlenJman t1_j3oll2z wrote

Counterintuitive results for apartment dwellers

Interestingly, for those living in apartments, green space wasn’t associated with better cardiovascular health outcomes. Again, the study authors say there may be a few possible reasons, but more research in this area is needed.

“One reason is that apartments are normally quite dense and may be even crowded. So you can imagine that if you plant the same number of trees in a low density area and then a high density area, the ratio of trees to people changes,” Prof. Feng said.

“Also, even if there is some green space within or around your apartment block, it’s often not an area you can or would want to visit, or permit children to play in. It’s there to tick a box but offers few qualities to attract people to spend time there."

Oops. I interacted with the article and it said what I said. Green areas with trees helped heart health only for people who owned houses and have free time to walk around. If you're low income and don't have free time to walk in the park, green spaces do nothing.


curbsideSofa t1_j3onfya wrote

The title conditioned on "for those living in houses"

You said the result could be correlation of green space, income, and CVD.

I pointed out that income was a control, so your criticism was not valid.

You now move the goal posts and engage with the part of the study about apartment dwellers.

Allow me to try one last time: for those living in houses, nearby green space that includes trees reduces risk of death from CVD, after controlling for income.

Keep doing mental gymnastics, but your initial criticism was not valid.


silent519 t1_j3qg1sq wrote

> That could really easily be just correlation

it is not, there are observational studies showing people in hospitals side facing the forest recover faster than on the other side facing the city.