Living Near Trees, Not Just Green Space, Improves Wellbeing

Post by zamber » Sat, Aug 03, 2019, 11:27 PM UTC

c22 wrote: post #95

jnurmine wrote: post #83

Living 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…

There was a period in my life where I suffered a severe psychotic break and spent several weeks in a mental hospital. The thing that got me well enough to be discharged was a portable cd player and a handful of mix cds one of my friends brought me, but what allowed me to fully recover was spending the next 3 months at my parent's house mostly watching the wind ruffle through their collection of Japanese Maples.

Post by learc83 » Sun, Aug 04, 2019, 1:50 AM UTC

jdietrich wrote: post #196

learc83 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also controlled for "age, sex, annual household income, economic status (eg, employed, retired, or unemployed), highest educational qualification, and couple status". Taken together those are likely to capture socio-economic status in all but a few edge cases. With a very large study size, and a huge result (30% difference) it's unlikely that it can be explained by socioeconomic status. The study discusses this…

>Taken together those are likely to capture socio-economic status in all but a few edge cases. Socio-economic status is notoriously difficult to control for. https://academic.oup.com/bmb/article/81-82/1/21/282643

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sun, Aug 04, 2019, 8:06 AM UTC

lonelappde wrote: post #94

ineedasername wrote: post #79

This is another study that makes me wonder what the real cause may be. Areas with trees, in an urban setting, tend to be more expensive locations. So, is it the the trees, or the higher socio-economic status? In suburban and rural areas where trees are more common, even if the cost of living is low, everything is less dense, people tend to have larger dwellings at lower prices, etc. So, again, is it the trees or the…

It certainly would be strange if wealth-independent happiness caused people to live near trees but trees didn't make them happy.

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o » Sun, Aug 04, 2019, 6:01 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #203

jdietrich wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Taken together those are likely to capture socio-economic status in all but a few edge cases. Socio-economic status is notoriously difficult to control for. https://academic.oup.com/bmb/article/81-82/1/21/282643

If this were a small study or found a small result, then edge cases like lower income millennials with no degree who live in inherited houses in wealthy areas with trees might skew the results. If you disagree with the studies methodology fine, but I'm satisfied that authors have done their due diligence with respect to socio-economic status.

Post by ineedasername » Mon, Aug 05, 2019, 10:48 PM UTC

padolsey wrote: post #140

ineedasername wrote: post #79

This is another study that makes me wonder what the real cause may be. Areas with trees, in an urban setting, tend to be more expensive locations. So, is it the the trees, or the higher socio-economic status? In suburban and rural areas where trees are more common, even if the cost of living is low, everything is less dense, people tend to have larger dwellings at lower prices, etc. So, again, is it the trees or the…

For better controlled research on the effects of green spaces have a look at Ming Kuo's work. E.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245234610_Aggressio...