Table 2 Characteristics of studies included in green or other spaces comparison
Study ID | Study design | Country | Description of Intervention and comparison | Participants/ Setting | Outcomes reported |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Branas 2011 [39] | CBA study | USA | Greening of abandoned vacant lots (involved removing trash and debris, grading the land, planting grass and trees to create a park-like setting, and installing low wooden post-and-rail fences around each lot’s perimeter vs No greening of vacant lots | Vacant lots in urban Pennsylvania | Physical activity Blood pressure |
Bohn-Goldbaum 2013 [51] | CBA study | Australia | Upgrade of playgrounds in a park vs Parks not renovated/with similar pre-renovation playgrounds as intervention park | Visitors to parks in lower SE urban neighbourhoods | Physical activity |
Cortinez O'Ryan 2017 [45] | CBA study | Chile | Neighbourhood with street closed for play vs control neighbourhood | Children living in selected neighbourhoods | Physical activity |
Cohen 2009 [53] | CBA study | USA | Park improvements ( e.g. new or refurbished gymnasiums, field improvements in watering and landscaping; improvements to picnic areas, upgrades to a walking path, and enhancements to a play-ground area..” vs No intervention | Visitors to study parks | Physical activity Park safety |
D’Haese 2015 [46] | CBA study | Belgium | Play streets vs no intervention | Children living in streets part of study | Physical activity |
Goldsby 2016 [44] | CBA study | USA | Living in close proximity (near) to new inner-city park (within 1.5 miles) vs living farther away from the park (further than 5 miles) | Children under 19 years old living in the intervention area | Body weight and related measures |
Kubota 2019 [48] | CBA study | Japan | Construction of a new multipurpose exercise facility including indoor facilities (25 m pool, 170 m walking trail, multi-purpose gym, and group exercise rooms) and outdoor facilities (multi-purpose athletic field, 875 m walking trail, and park), accessible to all residents for a small fee + PA promotion vs No new exercise facility or PA promotion but with routine health promotion program | Adults 30–74 years old living in communities near the new infrastructure | Physical activity |
Quigg 2012 [47] | CBA study | New Zealand | Playground upgrade vs no intervention | Children 5–10 years old attending schools in selected communities | Physical activity |
Richardson 2020 [50] | CBA study | USA | Public housing development and greenspace landscaping, including changing the streetscape surrounding the developments, providing improved aesthetics (e.g. trees, grass) and walkability (e.g. sidewalks, street crossings) targeted for specific neighborhoods. Renovation of current greenspace, including multiple parks, six outdoor stairwells, and three trails connecting parks vs Fewer investments, exclusively related to housing | Visitors to study parks in low-income urban neighbourhoods | Physical activity Body weight and related measures Neighborhood satisfaction Neighborhood safety |
Slater 2016 [54] | CBA study | USA | Park renovation (including replacing old playground equipment and ground surfacing and community engagement) vs no renovations and no community engagement | Adults visiting the selected parks | Physical activity Neighborhood safety |
Tester 2009 [52] | CBA study | USA | Park renovations (artificial turf, new fencing, landscaping, lighting, and picnic benches were added. In Park A, permanent soccer goals were installed, and in Park B, a walkway around the field was restored) vs no intervention | Visitors to study parks | Physical activity |
Veitch 2018 [43] | Cluster RCT | Australia | Park refurbishment vs no infrastructure changes | Visitor to study parks | Physical activity |
Ward Thompson 2019 [49] | CBA study | Scotland | Physical changes to the woodland environment to facilitate access to and use of the woods vs no intervention | Adults living in communities at specific distances classified as in the lowest 30% of deprivation | Physical activity |