Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BoredomIncarnate t1_j4rg3ra wrote

Rural doesn’t necessarily mean quality green spaces.


ommnian t1_j4rh4a0 wrote

Idk how you define "quality green space" but in most rural places, it's all around. Might not be in the form of public parks and walking trails, but it's there in farms and lakes and streams, and many of us have animals to care for that get us outside daily, large yards, gardens, etc.


BoredomIncarnate t1_j4rlc5m wrote

At least in this context, defining quality as ecological healthy with high biodiversity seems like the right choice.

While we are obviously talking averages/in general, I would guess that for every rural community with healthy lakes and streams, there are twice as many with monoculture farms with heavy herbicide and pesticide usage, which might not confer as much benefit if I am understanding correctly (which I might not be). I can’t back up those numbers, but maybe someone has the relevant data.

I would also like to note that I said “better access”, which doesn’t necessarily mean that other people don’t have access. Furthermore, I was simply trying to explain why wealth could be a confounding factor, not necessarily suggesting that there couldn’t be people seeing the same benefit without being wealthy.

I think that the bottom line is that more studies looking at how benefits vary depending on which kind of green space is available would be potentially helpful.