文章討論 Social neuroscience: Stress and the city
Nature 474, 452–453 (23 June 2011) doi:10.1038/474452a
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352/abs/474452a.html
這篇文章是姜斌寄來的，聽過他們說明研究的室胞們應該更能想像理解這篇文章的脈絡
城市和壓力，為什麼我們需要關心
據統計，1950年世界上每十個人只有三個人住在都市地區，而預計到了2050年，也就是37年後這個不久的未來，這個地球，每十個人就有七個人會住在都市地區。這些數字還無法凸顯出在世界各大都市情況有多惡劣。在台灣，我猜想大概老早就超過七成的小孩在都市地區長大了吧。不過，大約是我們這一代才開始有許多人在都市中成長，上一代絕大多數都還是在鄉村地區或者沒那麼密集的都市區成長，變化相當劇烈。如果如現在科學證據逐漸證實的，都市與精神疾病(焦慮、憂鬱、精神分裂等等)息息相關，尤其，在都市地區被拉拔大的孩子有更多的人格與腦部發展問題，那麼這些問題在現在的社會只會愈發嚴重，還不是線性而是等比的那種。豪~恐~怖~的~縮~
這篇文章是篇導讀型報導，對於Lederbogen等人(2011)的腦部掃描研究做簡單的評論。我不知道能在像SCIENCE或者NATURE這類的龍頭期刊上面發表評論的人都是哪找來的，是編輯針對期刊內容去找人來導讀嗎?總之他們的文章都很有功力，三言兩語，兩頁不到的內容就把重點解釋得一清二楚。
活在哪裡腦子運作大不同
Lederbogen等人首先收集了成長生活環境由大都市到鄉村到原野地區的樣本，實驗中對他們施以社會性壓力任務(有興趣的人可以參考比爾姜斌的研究)，然後掃描他們的腦袋觀察處理情緒跟壓力的區塊，發現杏仁核(amygdala)以及扣帶皮層(perigenual anterior cingulate cortex, pACC)兩個腦區值得我們留意。杏仁核的活化和受測者目前居住的都市SIZE有關，而扣帶皮層的活化和受測者兒時在都市得居住時間長度有關。同時，兒時在都市地區生活時間越長，這兩個腦區之間的連結度就越低。
為什麼這兩個腦區的連結程度要被提出? 驚嚇的來了，這兩個腦區之間的低連結度在之前的研究中已經被證實和遺傳上的精神失調疾病有關。而且唷，杏仁核也被確認和個人社會網絡還有個人空間侵犯有關。戴董還花甚麼力氣呼籲大學生畢業後要花三萬還是五萬來培養人脈，先留意住在都市還是自然地區腦袋就有差了好嗎。總之，從過去的腦部研究證據來看，這兩個腦區之間有沒有良好溝通跟遺傳或者環境產生的精神問題大有相關。
進一步的控制實驗
Lederbogen等人了解在真實世界中的實驗有太多共變或干擾因素，實驗因子的信效度存疑，因此做了進一步的控制實驗來確認前述結果。好了，這也是個有趣值得思考一下的問題，要怎麼控制? 在原野區、鄉村區、都市區分別蓋三座一毛一樣的住宅請受測者入住個三年然後再來重複一次實驗嗎? 顯然這不論是在哪裡都是很容易被打槍的研究計劃，成本太大惹吧，是不是要連受測者的工作娛樂飲食都一併控制呢。
那麼作者他們怎麼做? 他們了解到，要說服人，不是在於收集樣本或者各項變因在實驗過程控制得多完整，而是告訴大家，他們出現星星的實驗結果(低連結的兩腦區)，確實來自於他們的實驗處理，也就是具有社會壓力的任務。所以他們就是簡單地做了另一組實驗，同樣的樣本背景，但是給予不具社會壓力的任務。哇啦，就是這麼簡單，同樣的過程，換個任務，證實這兩個腦區的反應與先前不一樣，就有力地提高了他們研究的信效度，再度確認了都市化與腦區之間的關係在於處理壓力上。此外呢，他們也控制了受測者的經濟、教育、婚姻、個人特質等等可能共變因素，結果顯示這些因素都沒有取代環境的效果。
並非一面倒
儘管心理、心生理或者蔚為熱潮的腦神經研究都提供了都市環境對我們不健康的影響證據，然而也有不同的聲音出現，例如有的研究顯示鄉村生活的自殺比例高於都市。當然這之中的解釋還很多面，不過這些都是我們不該忽視的現象。就是因為結果並非一面倒，這其中的思考才顯有趣。原因是甚麼，脈絡是甚麼，機制是甚麼，就待世界各地的研究者繼續去討論了。
Lederbogen等人將研究進一步擴展到長時間性以及大尺度地驗證，而未來我們可以做些甚麼? 除了機制仍未知還需要更進多研究之外，研究結果如何對於未來環境提供實質建議也是很重要的!
by 八塊
Showing posts with label green space. Show all posts
Showing posts with label green space. Show all posts
12/17/2008
瑋佳-進度報告和後續計畫-1
<首次嘗試使用連結以利說明, 請大家點點看再告訴我看不看得懂>
一、本學期進度( ~2009.1.31)
(一)投稿 J. Therapeutic Horticulture (AHTA)
就是去年受訓時上課不專心的小研究, 經撰寫成文後, 老師提供全文修改意見, 並建議加1個設計案後投稿AHTA的期刊http://www.ahta.org/research/journal.cfm, 因為他們有接受設計案的投稿, 也就是期刊中的Therapeutic Landscape and Garden Design分類(一般學術研究論文應是投Research分類).
預定採case study的撰寫方式, 主要內容包括: a.理論架構的建立; b.案例分析與論證; c.理論對應與設計原則擬定; d.設計成果(造園館1樓)
由於整篇文章已撰就, 僅須增修部分內容, 預計學期結束前可完成; 目前進度如下:
1. Abstract http://papayasu.blogspot.com/2008/12/exploration-and-application-of-natural.html
2. Introduction (包含文獻回顧, 研究目的) http://papayasu.blogspot.com/2008/12/benefit-and-application-of-natural.html
3. The theoretical framework of the benefit of natural views http://papayasu.blogspot.com/2008/12/benefit-and-application-of-natural_17.html
4. Case study: an empirical investigation and analysis (尚未改寫原本的研究方法與研究結果)
5. Design principles (尚未改寫原研究結論)
6. Designing a classroom (尚未完成設計, 預計邀請具建築設計背景者擔任作者之一, 負責教室的再設計)
11/14/2008
green spaces can reduce health inequality between social classes
A Britain’s study was published in special issue of The Lancet, which focuses on social and environmental factors of public health. Dr. Richard Mitchell, of the University of Glasgow, and his colleagues made an argument that health inequalities between rich and poor groups are much lower in areas that have lots of green spaces, such as parks, forests and playing fields.
Mitchell and his team noted that previous studies have shown that present to the natural environment, or so-called green space, has an independent effect on health and health-related behaviors. They examined whether income-related health disparities would be less pronounced in populations with greater access to green space.
They looked at the almost 41 million people in England below retirement age and obtained individual death records for 366,348 people to determine the association between exposure to green space, income, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific death (circulatory disease, lung cancer and suicide) from 2001 to 2005.
The study result revealed that health inequalities related to income deprivation in all-cause mortality and mortality from circulatory diseases were lower in populations living in the greener areas. In areas with the least green space, the health gap between the richest and poorest people was about half as large as that in the greenest areas -- an incident rate ratio (IRR) of 1.93 in the least green and 1.43 in the most green. IRR is a measure of how much higher the rate of death is among the poorest, when compared with that among the richest. The difference in IRR for circulatory disease was even larger - 2.19 in the least green areas and 1.54 in the most green. However, the amount of green space had no effect on deaths caused by lung cancer or suicide.
Evidence suggests that green environments which also promote or enhance beneficial physical activities may reduce risk of death from circulatory disease. Populations that are exposed to the greenest environments have lowest levels of health inequality related to income deprivation. ”Physical environments that promote good health might be crucial to reduce socioeconomic health inequalities,” Mitchell and colleagues concluded.
The study offers an idea in depth, which social welfare departments, health authorities and city planning decision-makers should consider green spaces in a serious way. The physical environment of residential areas could be important for risk of circulatory disease. The effect of green environments is not only based on aesthetic or leisure, but also on improvement of citizen’s health and diminution of social inequality. When we try to establish a completed social welfare system for deprived group, the restorative values of natural spaces should be included in our consideration. The network of greenway or green space system which increases opportunities to access nature could be viewed as another approach to improve the well-being of lower income group and to eliminate the basic disparity of different social classes.
Mitchell, R. and F. Popham (2008). Effect of Exposure to Natural Environment on Health Inequalities: An Observational Population. Lancet, 372, 1655–1660.
Mitchell and his team noted that previous studies have shown that present to the natural environment, or so-called green space, has an independent effect on health and health-related behaviors. They examined whether income-related health disparities would be less pronounced in populations with greater access to green space.
They looked at the almost 41 million people in England below retirement age and obtained individual death records for 366,348 people to determine the association between exposure to green space, income, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific death (circulatory disease, lung cancer and suicide) from 2001 to 2005.
The study result revealed that health inequalities related to income deprivation in all-cause mortality and mortality from circulatory diseases were lower in populations living in the greener areas. In areas with the least green space, the health gap between the richest and poorest people was about half as large as that in the greenest areas -- an incident rate ratio (IRR) of 1.93 in the least green and 1.43 in the most green. IRR is a measure of how much higher the rate of death is among the poorest, when compared with that among the richest. The difference in IRR for circulatory disease was even larger - 2.19 in the least green areas and 1.54 in the most green. However, the amount of green space had no effect on deaths caused by lung cancer or suicide.
Evidence suggests that green environments which also promote or enhance beneficial physical activities may reduce risk of death from circulatory disease. Populations that are exposed to the greenest environments have lowest levels of health inequality related to income deprivation. ”Physical environments that promote good health might be crucial to reduce socioeconomic health inequalities,” Mitchell and colleagues concluded.
The study offers an idea in depth, which social welfare departments, health authorities and city planning decision-makers should consider green spaces in a serious way. The physical environment of residential areas could be important for risk of circulatory disease. The effect of green environments is not only based on aesthetic or leisure, but also on improvement of citizen’s health and diminution of social inequality. When we try to establish a completed social welfare system for deprived group, the restorative values of natural spaces should be included in our consideration. The network of greenway or green space system which increases opportunities to access nature could be viewed as another approach to improve the well-being of lower income group and to eliminate the basic disparity of different social classes.
Mitchell, R. and F. Popham (2008). Effect of Exposure to Natural Environment on Health Inequalities: An Observational Population. Lancet, 372, 1655–1660.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
