Comparison of the Health Benefits of Different Types of Nature

Sjerp De Vries*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)


In their study, Astell-Burt and Feng1 address 2 important limitations of much of the research on contact with nearby nature and human health and well-being.2 The first one is its cross-sectional design, preventing the ability to draw firm conclusions regarding the causality of observed associations. The second one is that most studies do not distinguish between different types of green and/or blue space and consequently tell us little about which type of nature is most beneficial. In their study, they begin to address this gap by making efficient use of longitudinal health data already collected for other purposes and enriching these data with land-use data on the availability of green and blue space in the residential environment. Consequently, in addition to prevalence data, incidence data were available on high risk of psychological distress, physician-diagnosed anxiety and/or depression, and less than good self-rated health. Furthermore, they distinguished 3 types of vegetation: tree canopy, grass, and low-lying vegetation. They concluded that tree canopy may be more beneficial than the other 2 types.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere198215
Number of pages2
JournalJAMA Network Open
Issue number7
Publication statusPublished - 26 Jul 2019


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of the Health Benefits of Different Types of Nature'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this