ArticleJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2024
The use of Enhanced Vegetation Index for assessing access to different types of green space in epidemiological studies.
Article in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Environmental phenotypes for healthy weight in children using population-based linked environment and health data: a cross-sectional observational study.Health & place · 2026Observational
- Cumulative residential greenness and childhood body mass index.Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2025Article
- Critical window of gestational greenspace exposure for the risk of low birth weight.Environmental research letters : ERL [Web site] · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExposure to green space can protect against poor health through a variety of mechanisms. However, there is heterogeneity in methodological approaches to exposure assessments which makes creating effective policy recommendations challenging.
objectiveCritically evaluate the use of a satellite-derived exposure metric, the Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), for assessing access to different types of green space in epidemiological studies.
methodsWe used Landsat 5-8 (30 m resolution) to calculate average EVI for a 300 m radius surrounding 1.4 million households in Wales, UK for 2018. We calculated two additional measures using topographic vector data to represent access to green spaces within 300 m of household locations. The two topographic vector-based measures were total green space area stratified by type and average private garden size. We used linear regression models to test whether EVI could discriminate between publicly accessible and private green space and Pearson correlation to test associations between EVI and green space types.
resultsMean EVI for a 300 m radius surrounding households in Wales was 0.28 (IQR = 0.12). Total green space area and average private garden size were significantly positively associated with corresponding EVI measures (β = < 0.0001, 95% CI: 0.0000, 0.0000; β = 0.0001, 95% CI: 0.0001, 0.0001 respectively). In urban areas, as average garden size increases by 1 m IMPACT: It is a widely implemented assumption in epidiological studies that an increase in EVI is equivalent to an increase in greenness and/or green space. We used linear regression models to test associations between EVI and potential sources of green reflectance at a neighbourhood level using satellite imagery from 2018. We compared EVI measures with a 'gold standard' vector-based dataset that defines publicly accessible and private green spaces. We found that EVI should be interpreted with care as a greater EVI score does not necessarily mean greater access to publicly available green spaces in the hyperlocal environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.