An exploration of the associations between urban natural environments and indicators of mental and physical health.

Natural environments, namely green and blue spaces, have been found to have positive influences on mental health outcomes globally. As the contribution of poor mental health to the disease burden increases, the mechanisms through which natural environments may improve health are of growing importance. This study creates a novel visibility index methodology and investigates whether i) views of natural environments and ii) access to natural environments, are associated with psychological stress and physical activity in Wellington, New Zealand. It also builds upon the work conducted in New Zealand as the first study to investigate links between blue space and mental health and provides an insight into the mechanisms through which increased natural environments may improve health. Individual level data for 442 individuals from the New Zealand Health Survey was obtained and Geographical Information Systems (GIS) were used to investigate whether area-level exposure to natural environments influenced their psychological stress and levels of physical activity. Results from regression analysis indicate that increased distant visible green space (beyond 3km), visible blue space, and a combination of green and blue spaces from neighbourhood centroids reduce psychological stress. Some access measures to natural environments were found to have positive associations with psychological stress, however increased proximal access to green space was associated with decreased physical activity. The findings conclude that the visibility of natural environments appears to have stronger associations with stress reduction than access to them. The findings of this paper should influence urban development and inform decision and policy making, particularly the development and/or relocation of health related facilities

Obtaining fruit and vegetables for the lowest prices: pricing survey of different outlets and geographical analysis of competition effects.

AIMS: Inadequate fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption is an important dietary risk factor for disease internationally. High F&V prices can be a barrier to dietary intake and so to improve understanding of this topic we surveyed prices and potential competition between F&V outlet types. METHODS: Over a three week early autumn period in 2013, prices were collected bi-weekly for 18 commonly purchased F&Vs from farmers' markets (FM) selling local produce (n = 3), other F&V markets (OFVM) (n = 5), supermarkets that neighbored markets (n = 8), and more distant supermarkets (n = 8), (in urban Wellington and Christchurch areas of New Zealand). Prices from an online supermarket were also collected. RESULTS: A total of 3120 prices were collected. Most F&Vs (13/18) were significantly cheaper at OFVMs than supermarkets. Over half of the F&Vs (10/18) were significantly cheaper at nearby compared to distant supermarkets, providing evidence of a moderate 'halo effect' in price reductions in supermarkets that neighbored markets. Weekend (vs midweek) prices were also significantly cheaper at nearby (vs distant) supermarkets, supporting evidence for a 'halo effect'. Ideal weekly 'food basket' prices for a two adult, two child family were: OFVMs (NZ$76), online supermarket ($113), nearby supermarkets ($124), distant supermarkets ($127), and FMs ($138). This represents a savings of$49 per week (US$26) by using OFVMs relative to (non-online) supermarkets. Similarly, a shift from non-online supermarkets to the online supermarket would generate a$13 saving. CONCLUSIONS: In these locations general markets appear to be providing some substantially lower prices for fruit and vegetables than supermarkets. They also appear to be depressing prices in neighboring supermarkets. These results, when supplemented by other needed research, may help inform the case for interventions to improve access to fruit and vegetables, particularly for low-income populations

Markets studied and distance from matched supermarkets in the Wellington and Christchurch regions included in this pricing study.

<p>Markets studied and distance from matched supermarkets in the Wellington and Christchurch regions included in this pricing study.</p

Fruit and vegetable prices (NZ$ per kilogram) by type of outlet (means over the three week study period in 2013).

<p>* These codes denote the outlet or time associated with the lowest mean prices e.g., ‘N’ for nearby supermarkets (see codes in the Table headings).</p><p>** These prices were significantly cheaper than non-online supermarkets at the weekend, with p-values <0.05.</p

Other characteristics of the lowest priced F&V items for which price data were collected, by outlet type.

<p>* That is the percentage of all F&V produce sampled for pricing data that was labeled as discounted.</p><p>** It is possible that some produce was not labeled as being from the USA, Australia or other countries from which NZ imports F&V produce.</p><p>Note: The difference in proportions for items labeled as discounted between nearby versus distant supermarkets at 7% vs 3% respectively, was significant (p<0.0001).</p

Daily and weekly costs of consuming an optimal (for health) intake of fruit and vegetables by outlet.

<p>Notes:</p><p>* That is 300 g of fruit and 400 g of vegetables, as per the GBD 2010 Study (see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0089775#s2" target="_blank"><i>Methods</i></a>).</p><p>** With a child assumed to have half the intake of an adult.</p