More trees near homes linked to healthier newborns

More trees near homes linked to healthier newborns

The link between proximity to green space – including trees and parks – and healthy birth outcomes is well established. Now, new data from researchers at Drexel University's Dornsife School of Public Health adds to our understanding of these health benefits, taking into account other factors that may influence this connection, such as education, income and body mass index, but also taking it a step further by examining the effects of spending time near newly planted trees. The results were recently published in the journalScience of the overall environment.

Using a unique data set - the planting of more than 36,000 trees between 1990 and 2020 in Portland, Oregon by the nonprofit group Friends of Trees - researchers measured the number of new trees planted within 100 meters of a mother's address on the first 10 years after the birth of the child. the OREGON ARTE DANGERS ARTE ORDINANCE, planted.

The researchers controlled for factors that affect birth weight such as mother's race, first-time pregnancy, and found a link between the number of trees planted and higher birth weight. In addition, nearby tree planting, including new and existing trees, was associated with three important neonatal health measures: higher birth weight, a reduced risk of giving birth to a baby, and a reduced risk of giving birth prematurely.

For example, every tree within 100 meters of a mother's house after the birth of a child was associated with a statistically significant 2.3 gram increase in birth weight within 10 years. Unlike previous studies that also looked at greenspace and pregnancy, the current study controlled for existing tree cover to focus on the role of newly planted trees in newborn health.

Although well-established trees benefit, we find that newly planted trees are also associated with healthy birth weight. This is another data point that shows that tree planting is a relatively simple and inexpensive way to improve public health from the earliest stages of a life. “

Yvonne Michael, SCD,Senior Author,Professor and interim chair at the Dornsife School of Public Health

According to the researchers, living within 100 meters of at least 10 trees was associated with an increase in birth weight of about 50 grams. Birth weight benefits from trees in general with about 10 trees, the researchers found.

"Fifty grams may not seem like a lot, but if every baby in our sample gained 50 grams at birth, that means 642 fewer babies would be considered small for gestational age, and a higher risk of poorer development later in life," Michael said.

Stress is associated with an increased likelihood of having a premature baby and poor health outcomes later in life. The authors speculate that established older trees near one's address may provide more benefits than newly planted trees by also offering psychological restoration, as other studies have suggested that developed natural environments promote a "soft allure" - as opposed to psychologically draining features of buildings and other aspects of built environments.

“It is rare to include detailed information on large-scale tree plantings for research,” Michael said. "Existing tree cover is often closely linked to factors such as income, education and race, making it difficult to fully account for other possible explanations when examining birth outcomes. By focusing on newly planted trees, we were able to reduce the bias - essentially treating it as a natural experiment.

In the current study, existing trees, but not newly planted ones, helped mitigate some of the negative effects of road density - ratio of road length in an area to total land area - on birth weight. The authors speculated that this may be due to more developed leaves on established trees that are better equipped to combat road noise and reduce air pollution.

Although the authors observed decreasing birth weight in babies during the study, they said this was likely due to other factors associated with lower birth weight, such as: B. rising air temperatures and dangerous smoke from forest fires (in 2020) in the region. The authors' data set found that breed, education, and even existing tree canopy had no correlation with new trees planted in an area.

The authors note that a randomized controlled trial is needed to definitively prove that the trees cause these positive health outcomes. However, the current study provides some of the best data available to support the link between trees and positive birth outcomes.

The latest study follows several papers looking at the effects of greenspace on health, including a 2013 study published by Michael and colleagues that found theLossFrom 100 million trees to an invasive pest called the emerald ash borer coincided with a rise in deaths from heart disease and lower reipator disease in counties with more tree loss due to insect infestation.

In addition to Michael, other authors of this work include Geoffrey H. Donovan, Jeffrey P. Prestemon, and Abigail R. Kaminski of the USDA Forest Service.

Sources: