ArticleThe Lancet. Planetary health2025
A health impact assessment of progress towards urban nature targets in the 96 C40 cities.
Article in The Lancet. Planetary health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Street view-based exposure to greenspace and mortality: the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis.Environment international · 2026Article
- Neighborhood Greenspace Enhances Cardiopulmonary Function in Healthy Older Adults: A Multiomics Analysis from the BAPE Study.Environment & health (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- Article
- Beyond greenness: multidimensional urban nature profiles and arteriosclerotic cardiovascular risk.Environment international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrban greenspaces (eg, parks and trees) and blue spaces (eg, rivers and coasts) improve climate regulation and human health. In 2021, the mayors of 31 cities in the C40 Climate Leadership Group set 2030 targets for the percentage of urban greenspace and population with nearby natural (green or blue) space. We quantified annual all-cause mortality reductions from progress towards these targets for C40's 96 member cities.
methodsWe conducted a quantitative health impact assessment, testing three illustrative scenarios to increase urban greenspace: uniformly across space, in areas with the least nature, and in the most populated areas. We converted one percentage point progress towards each target in terms of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) using previously published associations. We used mortality rate estimates from The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study, population data from WorldPop, and a pooled hazard ratio of NDVI and all-cause mortality from an epidemiological meta-analysis.
findingsUniformly increasing greenspace by 1% yielded an estimated 96-city median of 1·77 (range 0·65-3·52, IQR 1·46-2·19) fewer annual premature deaths per 100 000 population; increasing the population percentage with nearby natural space yielded an estimated median of 0·56 (range 0·11-1·70, IQR 0·44-0·69) fewer annual premature deaths per 100 000 population. On average, compared with uniform increases, adding greenspace in the least natural areas provided 1·4-1·7 times (depending on the target) the health benefits, and adding greenspace in the most populated areas provided 2·7 times the health benefits.
interpretationThe geographical distribution of greenspace expansion influences the magnitude of associated health benefits across varied urban contexts. Health benefits are largest when greenspace is added near population centres.
fundingWellcome Trust, NASA, and The George Washington University.
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.