I wish I could go live in Bhutan.
Living Near Trees, Not Just Green Space, Improves Wellbeing
121–130 of 210 posts
Re: Living Near Trees, Not Just Green Space, Improves Wellbeing
#122Living near trees implies living in an area where space usage is prioritized for nature instead of the stacked concrete boxes most people (have to?) live in. It is likely a less stressful environment overall than places filled with just concrete walls, asphalt and, at best, some grass. Personally I find tree tops swaying in the wind oddly hypnotic and relaxing. I've thought of why... One reason could be that babies a…
Setup a network of putted plants around your living room, setup a mini water reservoir and connect it daisy chained to all the plants with a pump and drip system, hookup a few optimally tuned LED lights spread above, hook the lights and pump up to a time to run when you're sleeping.
Re: Living Near Trees, Not Just Green Space, Improves Wellbeing
#123yeah, no shit... who would'e thought. like homo sapiens ain't an animal.
Re: Living Near Trees, Not Just Green Space, Improves Wellbeing
#124I think of high contrast areas as having the strongest mood boosting. By that I mean river fronts, visible mountain ranges, the beach, the edges of forests. No doubt trees in cities are visually pleasing, living in the middle of dark dense forest not so much.
'round these parts, trees seem to perform two useful functions. They fall on houses during storms (quite common) or they burn down whole towns. Be careful what you wish for.
Re: Living Near Trees, Not Just Green Space, Improves Wellbeing
#125Interested if places with evergreen trees (e.g. PNW) fair better than areas with mostly deciduous trees?
Re: Living Near Trees, Not Just Green Space, Improves Wellbeing
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
London people are funny. They thing if you are outside of Zone 2 that you are "out in the sticks" (an idiom for "living in the countryside"), make fun of you and desperately want you to want to live in London.
It's not funny, it makes sense. Imagine what would happen if you are living in zone 3+, and your friend/partner lives in zone 3+ on the _opposite_ side of London. You could easily have a 90 minute travel time between those two points. In most places a travel time that long would count as being in another city.
Well you could’ve move in with your partner, and meet your friend somewhere. I get what you are saying but London is damn expensive so living out a bit makes sense for many people.
Re: Living Near Trees, Not Just Green Space, Improves Wellbeing
#127Possibly related to the Biophilia Hypothesis [0].
Re: Living Near Trees, Not Just Green Space, Improves Wellbeing
#128Living near trees implies living in an area where space usage is prioritized for nature instead of the stacked concrete boxes most people (have to?) live in. It is likely a less stressful environment overall than places filled with just concrete walls, asphalt and, at best, some grass. Personally I find tree tops swaying in the wind oddly hypnotic and relaxing. I've thought of why... One reason could be that babies a…
From the article: > In recent years, study after study has found that living in neighborhoods with abundant green space is linked to positive health outcomes. But it specifically calls out trees as more beneficial than other green spaces. > But when it come to promoting human health, not all green spaces are created equal. That’s the conclusion of new Australian research, which finds higher levels of wellness in area…
I think the OP may have a point, though. You can have an area with lots of big buildings, take one lot and make a "greenspace" with it: some grass, a fountain, some bushes. But to make an area with trees (especially plural), you need some place fairly wide, that has light, and has enough ground water to support the trees. An area that supports those trees will have to be less built up than the average area that can support a lawn (which just needs a patch of light and a sprinkler) for instance.
From that perspective, I wonder to what extent the studies (which seem to be based on Australian cities) is biased by the types of environments that generally have trees in Australia. If you have have an avenue that is totally canopied by 100 year old trees like in some US or Canadian cities, is that enough? Or do you need a fairly large green space that also has trees? I wonder because I always found residential areas with old trees on relatively small lots to be really claustrophobic (but I know people who love them, of course).
Re: Living Near Trees, Not Just Green Space, Improves Wellbeing
#129This finding fits in with other research that trees absorb fine particulate matter (PM 2.5). PM 2.5 is a hazardous air pollution from burning coal and many other sources.
Re: Living Near Trees, Not Just Green Space, Improves Wellbeing
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Manhattan has Central Park, which is a forest. Compare vs the suburban sprawl of modern design where it's an ocean of tract housing with stunted little fresh-planted trees and I'd say the reverse is generally true. I can see the argument for rural living, but not for modern suburbia.
This is going to seem pedantic but like just sharing my perspective. Central Park sooo doesn't feel like a forest to me. It's like walking around a crowded lawn (ok maybe thats a bit dramatic). But Central park really doesn't do it for me; when I'm in NYC I need to spend time in Prospect Park (which is closerrr to a forest) or else I go crazy
Are you sure you’ve explored the whole thing? The crowded lawn is certainly one part of it but there are whole swaths up near 110th that are much quieter as well as large dense tree sections e.g. near the zoo.