Greater greenspace exposure is associated with multiple favorable health outcomes across observational and interventional studies, although evidence quality and heterogeneity vary by outcome.

This page isolates one claim from the wider argument of The Human OS Manual.

The classification describes the evidence supporting this claim, not the Human OS framework as a whole.

Twohig-Bennett and Jones systematically reviewed 103 observational and 40 interventional studies and meta-analyzed multiple outcomes, finding favorable associations across several physiological measures and disease/mortality outcomes.

The review reports poor study quality and high heterogeneity for several pooled outcomes. It does not establish that greenspace alone causes all observed health differences or specify one exposure dose that improves aging.

This record captures the natural-environment half of EN 31.2 separately from the urban-design/physical-activity study.

Supported by appropriate human studies, major reviews, trials, cohort research, or converging evidence. The strength of the category does not remove population, dose, timing, or context limitations.

Sources are listed according to the role they play in this claim. One source may provide direct support, another may explain a mechanism, establish a limitation, or prevent an interpretation from becoming broader than the evidence allows.

The printed book preserves the claim inside the argument that gives it meaning. These references connect the current digital record to the first-edition evidence trail.

This claim connects to the following parts of the Human OS architecture. The module labels locate the claim inside the framework; they do not imply that the research source validates the architecture itself.