Twohig-Bennett, C. & Jones, A. The health benefits of the great outdoors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of green space exposure and health outcomes. About. Res. 166628–637 (2018).
Woodcock, CE et al. Free access to Landsat images. Science 3201011 (2008).
Tigges, J., Lakes, T. & Hostert, P. Classification of urban vegetation: benefits of RapidEye multitemporal satellite data. Remote Sensing Approx. 13666–75 (2013).
Chaix, B. et al. GPS tracking in neighborhood and health studies: a step forward for environmental exposure assessment, a step back for causal inference? place of health 2146–51 (2013).
Passchier-Vermeer, W. & Passchier, WF Noise exposure and public health. About. Health perspective. 108123–131 (2000).
Weilnhammer, V. et al. Extreme weather events in Europe and their health consequences – a systematic review. Int. J.Hyg. About. Health 233113688 (2021).
Donovan, GH, Gatziolis, D., Jakstis, K. & Comess, S. The natural environment and birth outcomes: comparison of LiDAR-derived 3D exposure measurements to vegetation index-based 2D measurements by normalized difference. place of health 57305–312 (2019).
Gascon, M. et al. Normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) as a marker of surrounding greenery in epidemiological studies: the case of the city of Barcelona. Urban for. Urban green. 1988–94 (2016).
Reid, CE, Kubzansky, LD, Li, J., Shmool, JL & Clougherty, JE It’s Not Easy to Assess Greenery: A Comparison of NDVI Datasets and Neighborhood Types and Their Associations with Health self-assessed in New York. place of health 5492-101 (2018).
Donovan, GH, Gatziolis, D., Longley, I. & Douwes, J. Vegetation diversity protects against childhood asthma: results from a large New Zealand birth cohort. Nat. Plants 4358–364 (2018).
Hystad, P. et al. Residential greenery and birth outcomes: Assessing the influence of spatially correlated built environment factors. About. Health perspective. 1221095-1102 (2014).
Triguero-Mas, M. et al. Natural outdoor environments and mental and physical health: relationships and mechanisms. About. Int. 7735–41 (2015).
Nowak, DJ, Crane, DE & Stevens, JC Air Pollution Control by Urban Trees and Shrubs in the United States. Urban for. Urban green. 4155–123 (2006).
James, P., Banay, RF, Hart, JE, and Laden, F. A review of the health benefits of greenery. Running. Epidemiol. representing 2131-142 (2015).
Li, D. & Sullivan, WC Impact of school landscape views on recovery from stress and mental fatigue. Countryside. Urban plan. 148149-158 (2016).
Velarde, M., Fry, G. & Tveit, M. Health effects of viewing landscapes – types of landscapes in environmental psychology. Urban for. Urban green. 6199-212 (2007).
Ulrich, RS Visual landscapes and psychological well‐being. Countryside. Res. 417–23 (1979).
Ulrich, RS View through a window may influence recovery after surgery. Science 224420–421 (1984).
Kaplan, S. The restorative benefits of nature: towards an integrative framework. J. About. Psychol. 15169–182 (1995).
De Vries, S., Van Dillen, SM, Groenewegen, PP & Spreeuwenberg, P. Green streetscape and health: stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Soc. Science. Med. 9426–33 (2013).
Sugiyama, T., Leslie, E., Giles-Corti, B. & Owen, N. Associations of neighborhood greenery with physical and mental health: Do walking, social coherence, and local social interaction explain the relationships? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 62e9 (2008).
Saelens, BE, Sallis, JF, Black, JB, and Chen, D. Neighborhood-based physical activity differences: an environment-wide assessment. A m. J. Public health 931552-1558 (2003).
Ball, K., Bauman, A., Leslie, E. & Owen, N. Perceived environmental aesthetics, convenience and companionship are associated with walking for exercise among Australian adults. Prev. Medium 33434–440 (2001).
Coombes, E., Jones, AP, and Hillsdon, M. The relationship between physical activity and overweight and objectively measured accessibility and use of green space. Soc. Science. Med. 70816–822 (2010).
Fan, Y., Das, KV, and Chen, Q. Green neighborhood, social support, physical activity, and stress: Cumulative impact assessment. place of health 171202-1211 (2011).
Ribe, RG The aesthetics of forestry: what does empirical research tell us about preferences? About. Managed. 1355–74 (1989).
Liddicoat, C. et al. Naturally diverse airborne environmental microbial exposures modulate the gut microbiome and may provide anxiolytic benefits in mice. Science. About. 701134684 (2020).
Haahtela, T. et al. The biodiversity hypothesis and allergic diseases: position statement of the World Allergy Organization. World Allergy Body. J 63 (2013).
Mohamed, GH et al. Natural and stress-induced effects on spectral leaf reflectance in Ontario species (Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, 2000).
Barron, S. et al. What do they like in trees? Add local voices to the design and planning of urban forests. Trees Forests People 5100116 (2021).
Lohr, VI & Pearson-Mims, CH Responses to Scenes with Spreading, Rounded, and Conical Tree Forms. About. Behaviour 38667–688 (2006).
Portland Parks and Recreation. Portland Heritage Trees https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/40280 (2020).
Rojas-Rueda, D., Nieuwenhuijsen, MJ, Gascon, M., Perez-Leon, D. & Mudu, P. Green spaces and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. Lancet Planet. Health 3e469–e477 (2019).
Strunk, JL et al. Evaluation of pushbroom DAP versus frame camera DAP and lidar for forest modeling. Remote Sensing Approx. 237111535 (2020).
Jiang, B. et al. Remote sensing imagery vs. eye-level photography: Assessing associations between measures of tree cover density. Countryside. Urban plan. 157270-281 (2017).
Gorelick, N. et al. Google Earth Engine: global geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sensing Approx. 20218-27 (2017).
The Planet team. Planet application program interface: in space for life on Earth (Planet, 2022); https://api.planet.com