June 28, 2023
"To assess green spaces, the researchers used satellite imaging and applied a widely accepted measure of quantifying vegetation..."
"[T]hey also identified major parks near the participants’ homes. While that helped identify the location and quantity of plant life, the approach does not provide details about the type — for example, whether the area is a golf course or a forested nature trail — or quality of green space.
'We have this vegetation data, but it tells us very little about what the active ingredients in nature are that influence health....' 'Because we don’t know what type of green space it is, I think for cities, they don’t know is it sufficient just to plant a bunch of street trees?'... The study also left other unanswered questions, such as why the rate of biological aging did not appear to be the same across race, gender and socioeconomic status. For example, the researchers observed Black people who had more access to green space were only about 1 year younger in biological age compared to the study’s average 2.5 years.
Experts said more studies are needed to pinpoint how people might benefit from greenery and what other social determinants that could be involved...."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
40 comments:
So living in the Burbs is good now? I thought we all needed to be densely packed in to the smallest amount of land possible - you know - to "save" the plane?
The rooster crows and the sun subsequently rises, therefore . . .
the approach does not provide details about the type — for example, whether the area is a golf course or a forested nature trail — or quality of green space.
Probably cannot distinguish between green spaces that one can actually visit (parks and the like) versus places one cannot actually visit (private golf courses and the like). Being near a private course that one cannot visit probably has more of a negative impact.
As one with four degrees in the natural sciences I can state with confidence -- without reading a thing -- that this at best a lousy study, and probably downright shitty, just by their "we can't tell" comment, which is just a play for more money. A dear grad-school classmate of mine was the first woman [probably the first person] to earn a Ph.D. in Remote Sensing. Collectively "we" have been able to define major vegetation types from space for over 20 years, and to do so, easily, to a resolution of 5 metres.
Can't tell a golf course from a forest? Utter bullshit. Serious PEBKAC failure.
Or perhaps wealthier people are also healthier and can afford to live near open spaces.
"From "Living near green spaces could add 2.5 years to your life, new research finds" (WaPo)."
"Could" is a very popular word in journalism these days. Probably because it's meaningless.
For example, Jill Biden could strangle me in my sleep tonight and my dog could turn into a butterfly.
Or people who are already healthier are more likely to live near green space (cause they are healthier and make more money and can afford it).
You know, people who drive Cadillacs are considerably richer than people who don't. So if we just give poor people Cadillacs, maybe they'll become rich.
Nah.
Let's talk about the quality and quantity of arboreal coverage in a city. The City of Austin, for decades now, has claimed life and ddeath power over trees on private property.
From the city Arborist website: "What size tree is protected in Austin? The City Arborist Program administers the City of Austin's Tree Ordinance and issues permits to remove or impact regulated trees. On private property, the City regulates three classifications of trees: 8- to 18-inch diameter, Protected Trees (>19" diameter), and Heritage Trees (>30" diameter)."
Permits to remove or prune trees are MAY issue, with the onus on the property owner - through endless expensive certified arborist reports - to demonstrate that the tree is either a safety hazard, rotten to the core, or otherwise not able to keep growing. So if you want to put up new houses in Austin and a 19" Hackberry, or a vastly past its prime pecan, is in the middle of the lot, or your proposed construction will impact the root zone significantly, then to hell with your house plans, the tree comes first! No permit, build around the Critical Root Zone or just go away, no house on your property!!
And people wonder why new and renovated houses in Austin cost so much, and take so long to build. Every time I've interacted with the City Arborists, I've asked how this isn't an unconstitutional taking without recompense to the property owner, and never have I gotten more than a rude chuckle in response. I tell home owners to chop down any tree approaching 18" in diameter while they still can, to avoid the City Arborists in future.
So sure, green spaces for health of the city residents, or as Austin claims, to help with heat island effects of cleared land. Good luck finding a house to live in that doesn't cost you 5x to 20x what your parents paid for one. That might make your health worse than not having a tree on your lot at all!
Good luck disentangling cause from effect in that one.
Methodology doubts here. Being near certain city parks subtracts years from your life. Morningside Park? Needle Park, West 70s? At least once upon a time.
Reading through all the stuff late in the article showed how silly and flimsy this claim is. Being near substantial amounts of green spaces might help life expectancy, as it lowers your blood pressure. But you have to move out of a city and most suburbs to find that amount of green space. The rest sounded like a frustrated urban planner's carefully worked-out nonsense to get a pet conclusion "proved." Using all of 900 people in four cities. And then -- oh, yes, "further research is needed." Gotta stay busy next academic year, too. But even taking it seriously enough to argue over is excessive, I think.
One of the most interesting things about the soft sciences is that what the researchers thought there research would prove was true is almost inevitably proven to be true by the their research.
".....deep inside my heart
I know I can’t escape"
It's the best part about Georgia.
Though it is getting slowly cleared to make way for people that keep coming.
You mean......emptying my bowels entirely is not the cure-all it's cracked up to be, and I should be living next to a park??
"Experts said more studies are needed to pinpoint how people might benefit from greenery and what other social determinants that could be involved...." IE: Grifters seeking more taxpayer dollars to rune correlation is causation studies.
I'm guessing the people who live near the "green spaces" are richer than average, which contributes mightily to longevity. (Ain't a lot of green spaces in the ghetto, homie.)
"Living near green spaces could add 2.5 years to your life, new research finds"
Unless, of course, some deforestation is needed to grow food for the starving or to improve economic conditions experienced by the poor.
Key word here...could. They could add years to you life or they could not.
Aren't MOST of these "green spaces", just marijuana fields ?
How water-privileged of them.
GIGO. Study design appears to be of the classic Global Warming Panic variety: “The effect of global warming on the mating habits of the lesser earwig.” Every finding —> more research needed, please send money.
Across the road from our place is 76,000 (seventy six thousand) acres of State owned land. No buildings allowed. Might we live forever?
Lewis Wetzel said...
One of the most interesting things about the soft sciences is that what the researchers thought there research would prove was true is almost inevitably proven to be true by the their research.
well, if it wasn't; there was a sizable flaw in their testing procedures.
The Scientific Method..
as explained to gilbar; by the ONLY tenured professor that HE's ever slept with:
1) decide hypothesis you want to Prove (usually involves finding what they'll PAY you to prove)
2) construct testing procedures, that will provide data to prove hypothesis
3) gather data, by paying college students to participate in your testing
4) MANIPULATE data to further align data towards intended proof of hypothesis
5) publish.. Stating, at the end: MORE RESEARCH IS NEEDED
You CAN'T tell me this is wrong; i helped her with her dissertation.
When I was a pre-med student doing work in the oceanography department, a successful professor told me the secret is to find someplace you want to go, then study something that is only found there. He was a world expert on venomous sea animals. He did a lot of SCUBA diving in Truk Lagoon and other south Pacific places.
“or as Austin claims, to help with heat island effects of cleared land. “
Austin is clearly wrong here, the only reason that atmospheric temperatures rise ( or drop) is the generation of CO2 by man made processes. Even the Sun does not matter.
The sad thing is that the people who wasted their time conducting this pointless activity were paid to do so, quite handsomely. Were that not the case, they could have been more productively occupied sitting near a major thoroughfare with "Will Work For Food" signs around their necks.
"So living in the Burbs is good now? I thought we all needed to be densely packed in to the smallest amount of land possible - you know - to 'save' the plane?"
Don't pretend to be obtuse for the sake of making a snarky quip. There is a difference between what is good for the individual and what is good for the planet. What is good for (or desirable to) the individual (multiplied by the billions) will ultimately be (and already is becoming) inimical to the planet--or, rather, to the planetary conditions that allow the current life forms here to exist in conditions optimal to their/our survival. Teeming with life forms or barren of life...mass extinction, followed by the rise of new life forms, as has occurred here before...whatever the case, the planet will continue.
"For example, Jill Biden could strangle me in my sleep tonight and my dog could turn into a butterfly."
Well, no. Your dog could not turn into a butterfly.
"You mean......emptying my bowels entirely is not the cure-all it's cracked up to be, and I should be living next to a park??"
The optimum situation would be for you to be able to regularly empty your bowels in a park.
"Across the road from our place is 76,000 (seventy six thousand) acres of State owned land. No buildings allowed. Might we live forever?"
Don't be piggish. Take your 2.5 years of extra lifespan and be happy with that!
My preliminary research indicates that a penthouse apartment with a panoramic view of the NY harbor would add 4.3 years to my life. The control group can stay in my present apartment. We'll see who lives longer. Some funding is needed to support this project but it will provide invaluable information to those interested in longevity studies.
Much like Tolkien's Hobbits knew, it is good to be around things that grow.
Always with a "could" in the headline, something I always append with "or it might not"
If they are unable to distinguish plant type, they're using a bad dataset, or poor satellite data.
Wet streets cause rain.
"Across the road from our place is 76,000 (seventy six thousand) acres of State owned land. No buildings allowed. Might we live forever?"
Don't be piggish. Take your 2.5 years of extra lifespan and be happy with that!
Sorry to be imprecise. It was a question not a request.
I'm really surprised that the headline said: "could add 2.5 years to your life"
Usually they add in yet another weasel word, and say: "could add UP TO 2.5 years to your life"
Strikes me as cargo cult reasoning.
In California, the green turns brown for half the year.
As my dad used to say…if it’s green it’s grass
I call this "Find the Mistakes" science.
Post a Comment