Kabisch_2017 - The health benefits of nature-based solutions to urbanization challenges for children and the elderly – A systematic review

Basic Article Info:

Article key Kabisch_2017
Title The health benefits of nature-based solutions to urbanization challenges for children and the elderly – A systematic review
Year 2017
Review type systematic review
Main topic Greenspace and health
Subjects area(s) Environment and nature, Social and behavioural, Health and well-being
Built environment scale Community / Population group
Application(s) Practice, Human interactions and community engagement, Evaluation
Geographically focused no
Prisma diagram used yes
Study focus start not mentioned
Study focus end 2017
Search string ( ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( urban ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( city ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( cities ) ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( child* ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( infant ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "old*people" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "aged population*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "ageing* population" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( population ageing ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "old generation*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( senior* ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( retired ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( elderly ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( demograph* ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( noise ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "biodiversity loss" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "air pollution" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "air quality" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( heat* ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( cool* ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "ecosystem service*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( flood* ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "loss of green space*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "loss of open space*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "decrease in green space*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "decrease in open space*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( densification ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "loss of natural area" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "decrease of natural area" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "loss of urban green space*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "loss of urban natural area*" ) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "green area*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "blue area*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "green space*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "blue space*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "natural environment*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "urban water" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "urban park*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "urban forest*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( garden* ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "urban tree*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "green infrastructure" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "green roof*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "green facade*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "green wall*" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "biophilic design" ) AND ( TITLE-ABS-KEY ( health ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( diseas* ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( health ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( disease* ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( disorder* ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "well-being" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "quality of life" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( illness* ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( mortality ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( morbidity ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( lung function ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( bronchit* ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( respirat* ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( asthma ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "mental health" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "physical health" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( obes* ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( overweight ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( diabetes ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "sleep disturbance" ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( depression ) )
No. of original sources 27
Synthesis method qualitative
Quantitative map included no
Conflict of interest not declared specifically
Comments Supplementary material is provided with search strings and search terms.

 

Details about searches

Search sources
Search source name Source type Comments Weblink
Scopus Online Database Scopus is the world's largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed research literature. With over 22,000 titles from more than 5,000 international publishers. https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic
Web of Sciences Online Database Web of Science is an online subscription-based scientific citation indexing service originally produced by the Institute for Scientific Information, now maintained by Clarivate Analytics, that provides a comprehensive citation search. https://apps.webofknowledge.com
Keywords used in search aged population, air pollution, child, CIGS, cool, demography, densification , depression, diabetes, disease, disorder, ecosystem, green infrastrucure, health, heat, illness, infant, loss of green space, loss of natural area, loss of open space, lung fuction, mental health, morbidity, noise, obesity, overweight, photovoltaics, physical health, quality of life, retired, senior, well-being

 

Authorship

Authors
Name Email Organisation Address Country
Nadja Kabisch* nadja.kabisch@geo.hu-berlin.de Department of Geography, Ghent University Krijgslaan 281 (S8), B-9000 Ghent Belgium
Nadja Kabisch* nadja.kabisch@geo.hu-berlin.de Department of Geography, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin Germany
Nadja Kabisch* nadja.kabisch@geo.hu-berlin.de Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology, Helmholtz Centre of Environmental Research-UFZ Leipzig Germany
Nadja Kabisch* nadja.kabisch@geo.hu-berlin.de Institute of Geography, Humboldt-University Berlin Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany Germany
Nadja Kabisch* nadja.kabisch@geo.hu-berlin.de Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research UFZ, 04318 Leipzig, Germany Germany
Matilda van den Bosch School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia (UBC) Vancouver Canada
Matilda van den Bosch Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia (UBC) Vancouver Canada
Matilda van den Bosch Department of Forest and Conservation Sciences, University of British Columbia (UBC) Vancouver, Canada
Raffaele Lafortezza Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Bari A Moro, Via Amendola 165/A, 70126 Bari Italy
Raffaele Lafortezza Center for Global Change and Earth Observations (CGCEO), Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48823 United States of America
Raffaele Lafortezza Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Bari A. Moro, Via Amendola 165/A, 70126 Bari, Italy

 

Funding

Funding sources
Funding source Address Country Funded year Comments
Federal Ministry of Education and Research Germany funding code: 01LN1705A
European Union FP7 Programme Europe (Region) Grant agreement no. 603567


Article publication information:

Article type Journal article
Article category Text
Geographical scale International
Language English
Chapter or part
Conference date
Conference venue
Published date 2017-09-18
Edition
Issue July
Journal Environmental Research
Pagination 362-373
Peer reviewed yes
Publication place
Publisher Elsevier Inc.
School / department or centre
Series volume no.
Series title
Series sort no.
Volume 159
Website owner
Copyrights of article Elsevier Ltd.
Licences of article
Identifiers of article DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2017.08.004, ISSN: 10960953, PMID: 28843167


Quality assessment

Quality measure Details Score Comments
QA question 1 Are the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review clearly delineated? 1 = “Yes” = Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described. general but concrete description of aims
QA question 2 Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol? 0 = ”No” = research question and inclusion criteria not outlined in detail. not provided
QA question 3 Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” =Cannot decide between “yes” and “no”, basing on the information provided in the paper. various types of studies for the scoping/mapping purpose
QA question 4 Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy? 0.5 = “Can’t answer / not sure / partially” = searched at least 2 databases (relevant to research question), provided key word and/or general search strategy, justified publication restrictions (e.g., language). 2 databases, references, reviews
QA question 5 Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in study selection. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 6 Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate? 0 =”No” = only one reviewer involved in the study selection or no description how many reviewers participated in data extraction. No description how many reviewers participated
QA question 7 Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions? 0 =”No” = No list of studies excluded at a full-text stage. not provided
QA question 8 Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail? 1 = “Yes” = ALL the following: Who (Population), What (Intervention, Comparator group, Outcome), Where and When described in detail. Table 2
QA question 9 Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review? 0 =”No” = no mention of RoB assessment of individual included studies. not provided
QA question 10 Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review? 0 =”No” = no report of the sources of funding for individual studies included in the review. not provided
QA question 11 If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 12 If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 13 Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/ discussing the results of the review? 0 =”No” = no discussion of the potential impact of RoB in individual studies. not provided
QA question 14 Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review? 1 = “Yes” = There was no significant heterogeneity in the results OR if heterogeneity was present the authors performed an investigation of sources of any heterogeneity in the results and discussed the impact of this on the results of the review. general discussion
QA question 15 If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review? N/A no meta-analysis
QA question 16 Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review? 1 = “Yes” = The authors reported no competing interests OR the authors described their funding sources and how they managed potential conflicts of interest. Funding sources disclosed in "Acknowledgemets"
Quality index Overall rating (Quality Index) assigned to each SR, highlighting whether major concerns arose during quality assessment that may affect overall conclusions of a SR: A = Minimal flaws; B = Some flaws; C = Major flaws in many aspects of the review. B no protocol, some details missing, some bias might be present
Suggested review type Actual review type:systematic map, systematic review, rapid review, scoping review, narrative review, etc. systematic review N/A
Risk of bias level How likely are the main conclusions of the review to be biased? Basing on review type and quality index and quality_index_comment assign: high moderate or low risk? medium no protocol; search details missing