ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2026
Where to Plant Trees? Designing Net-Zero Industrial Landscapes that Promote Public Health.
Article in Environmental science & technology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To contribute to the development of holistic sustainability strategies, we present a computational sustainable design framework for techno-ecological systems that integrates ecosystem coservices into the pursuit of carbon neutrality and net-positive industries. Public-health impacts of land-based pollution mitigation strategies are explicitly modeled and implemented within an integrated optimization framework, enabling the simultaneous evaluation of climate mitigation and local health outcomes. This nature-positive and people-positive approach identifies where land-use changes (LUCs) can most effectively reduce pollutant exposure and health-related incidences, providing practical guidance for prioritizing locations for nature-based solutions. A power generation case study is presented to compare this health-based social benefit approach with conventional and prior techno-ecological approaches. Highlighting LUC spatial importance, our study shows that 97% of averted mortalities may be lost between best- and worst-case scenarios. Our results suggest that cost-benefit analyses of land-use changes focused solely on carbon uptake overlook substantial opportunities to simultaneously improve public health. This approach highlights increased economic value for ecological restoration and supports more informed decision-making and investment in nature-based strategies that address climate change while delivering local benefits to ecosystems and communities.
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.