Next Article in Journal
Is Irritable Bowel Syndrome Considered in Clinical Trials on Physical Therapy Applied to Patients with Temporo-Mandibular Disorders? A Scoping Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Comparison Study of Perceived Neighborhood-Built Environment and Elderly Leisure-Time Physical Activity between Hangzhou and Wenzhou, China
Previous Article in Journal
Feeding Arsenic-Containing Rice Bran to Growing Pigs: Growth Performance, Arsenic Tissue Distribution, and Arsenic Excretion
Previous Article in Special Issue
Municipal Residence Level of Long-Term PM10 Exposure Associated with Obesity among Young Adults in Seoul, Korea
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 17
Issue 22
10.3390/ijerph17228529
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impact of the Environment on the Quality of Life and the Mediating Effects of Sleep and Stress

by
Katherine Ka Pik Chang
1,
Frances Kam Yuet Wong
1,*,
Ka Long Chan
2,
Fiona Wong
3,
Hung Chak Ho
4,
Man Sing Wong
2,
Yuen Shan Ho
1,
John Wai Man Yuen
1,
Judy Yuen-man Siu
5 and
Lin Yang
1
1
School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
2
Department of Land Surveying and Geo-Informatics, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
3
School of Optometry, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
4
Department of Urban Planning and Design, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China
5
Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(22), 8529; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228529
Submission received: 13 September 2020 / Revised: 12 November 2020 / Accepted: 12 November 2020 / Published: 17 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Urban Environment and Health)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(1) Background: Environment is an independent factor that affects one’s quality of life (QoL), where studies suggest that health behaviours also affect one’s quality of life. The purpose of the present study was to examine the association between environmental conditions and QoL and how individual health behaviours affect this association. (2) Methods: Participants aged 20 or above were recruited from 11 tertiary planning units in the central part of Kowloon. These tertiary planning units were selected as they represented the overall living environment in Hong Kong, with a mix of the poorer urban areas alongside relatively affluent districts. A mediation analysis was implemented using multiple linear regressions to examine the effects of environmental conditions on QoL. (3) Results: Of the 607 eligible participants included for analysis, 390 were female and 217 were male, with a mean age of 47.4 years. Living within 500 m of a green space area had benefits on the physical aspect of QoL and physical activity but no effect on the psychological aspect of QoL. Moderate satisfaction with public spaces affected QoL positively. In contrast, less satisfaction with public spaces affected QoL negatively in both physical and psychological aspects through the mediating effect of stress. Poor environmental quality affected all domains of QoL negatively through the mediating effects of increased stress and poor sleep. (4) Conclusions: Environment is an important factor that affects individuals’ overall well-being. The interaction between environmental conditions and individual variables, especially perceived stress and sleep, is extremely important when assessing its impact on QoL. The findings of this study support the importance of individual stress and sleep in mediating the relationship between the environment and QoL for health. Further studies should be conducted to include objective measurements, such as those of cortisol levels for stress and physical fitness tests.

1. Introduction

Quality of life (QoL) is a broad multidimensional concept that is significant as a desired health outcome. It represents the expectation and concern for one’s own health and life, including both positive and negative aspects of QoL in the context of the culture and value systems [1]. The 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) is a widely used health-related QoL tool that is aimed at detecting a subjective expression of health status with eight health concepts in the two main dimensions of physical and mental health [2]. However, these dimensions focus on a disease’s effect on specific functional aspects but do not address the QoL that is embedded in a cultural, social and environmental context [3]. The World Health Organization (WHO) thus initiated the development of the World Health Organization Quality of Life 100 (WHOQOL 100) to consider people’s overall well-being. The WHO Quality of Life Brief Scale (WHOQOL-BREF), a short form of the WHOQOL100, was field-tested, which resulted in the identification of a four-domain structure: physical health, psychological health, social relationships and the environment in general. These four constructs were found to have moderate correlations but had adequate discriminant validity, reflecting the different measures they each represent [4].
The dimensions of QoL for health traditionally include physical, psychological and social aspects, but in recent years, the environment has been identified as another important dimension of life [5]. Green space in urban areas constitutes an environmental determination to improve both physical and psychological health, enhance the quality of living and resilience in urban areas and promote sustainable lifestyles among urban residents [6]. It provides access to nature and scenic beauty in urban areas, which may influence physical health [7], psychological health [8,9] and environmental health [10]. The distance to green space has been emphasised as an important factor that affects health. A Danish study based on a national survey found that residents living closer than 1 km to green space had higher mean scores on all eight subscales of the SF-36 than those living more than 1 km away [11]. A British study that included all residents appearing in the Census found that the percentage of green space was associated with better health in general, although the effects were not significant among a group with higher income and those living in suburban areas [12]. However, a German study did not find any association between green space and health-related QoL [13]. Other studies revealed that the quantity of green space is associated with health. A greater expanse of forest in rural and urban green spaces was associated with fewer mental health issues [14]. A systematic review supported the positive association of the quantity of green space with psychological health, although the evidence for the relationship between green spaces and general health is less strong [15].
Public spaces in neighbourhoods with man-made recreational resources, such as walking trails, cycling areas and swimming pools, are advantageous to physical activity [5] and contribute to overall feelings about the community [16] and QoL [17,18]. A survey was conducted among Australian adults and found that environmental attributes, including access to parks, bicycle and walking trails and the presence of green space, were positively related to physical and psychological health [18]. Similarly, a Dutch survey found that environmental qualities from buildings, noise and traffic were strongly related to all four domains of QoL, as measured by the WHOQOL-BREF [17]. Perception of the public open space and built environment are essential constituents in the evaluation of the neighbourhood, health [19] and QoL [20]. Our earlier study, however, found that satisfaction with the neighbourhood environment was only significantly related to psychological QoL [21]. Residents who reported perceiving moderate satisfaction with the public space in the neighbourhood had a significantly higher psychological QoL.
Previous studies reported possible mediators that might explain the relationship between the environment and QoL, including socioeconomic status and individual health behaviours [22,23,24]. Green spaces appear to have a stronger effect on health among lower socioeconomic classes within a Dutch population [25]. Mitchell and Popham [12] argued that the income-related inequality in health of the lower socioeconomic subpopulation could be reduced through greater exposure to green space. A sub-analysis was conducted among a Dutch data set from a population survey and found that the green space effect on health was stronger among the elderly and homemakers [26]. These two groups were suggested to be more confined and thus more exposed to the local environment. Apart from socioeconomic status, several mediator variables have been proposed that can clarify the environmental effect on QoL through individual health behaviours. Gong et al. [27] found that an increased percentage of green space within a 400-metre area was significantly associated with more participation in physical activity among a group of elderly men in the U.K., but few differences in the levels of physical activity were found in a New Zealand population [28]. People who engaged in physical activity and who had greener households reported less stress [29] and improved physical and psychological health [29,30,31].
Stress is a subjective response to the perception of external influences, including environmental factors [32]. Those who live closer to green spaces were found to have lower odds of experiencing stress, as measured by the Perceived Stress Scale [11]. These results supported those found by Maas et al. [25]. Comparison between people living within a 3 km and 1 km radius from green space found that both the elderly and the youth who live within 1 km of it perceived better general health. Living closer to green space is associated with decreased cortisol levels and stress [33] and with better QoL [11]. Individuals with more perceived stress were found to have a higher chance of poor sleep quality, but the adverse effect of stress on sleep quality could be attenuated by more green space [34]. Perceived stress may also serve as a mediator for health. Studies suggest that stress can mediate health outcomes by reinforcing individual health behaviours [26,35,36]. Sleep has also been associated with neighbourhoods that have green space. A Canadian population-based survey explored the psychological well-being and QoL associated with sleep [37]. They found that poor sleep was linked to impaired quality of life and increased stress. Environmental features, such as light, noise and traffic, can affect perceived sleep quality, impaired mood [38] and produce longer reaction times [39]. Cote and colleagues found that reaction times get longer among individuals with sleep deprivation. People seem to be compensating for longer reaction times by using more mental effort, as measured by a high-frequency electroencephalogram [39], thus impairing mood and psychological well-being. People who live in an environment that has 80% or more green space reported longer sleep duration at night [40]. Other individual health behaviours, such as smoking, drinking [16,21] and fruit and vegetable consumption [41], are considered to have an impact on QoL [16].
According to Marans and Mohai’s theoretical model [42], health and QoL may be linked not only with leisure resources but also environmental conditions [43]. The model hypothesised that the perceptions of environmental and urban amenities will influence peoples’ satisfaction, physical health and their use of such amenities. Environmental amenities include the quality of the ambient environment (air, water, noise and hazardous waste) and natural recreation resources. Urban amenities include man-made recreational resources (walking trails, swimming pools and cycling areas), cultural resources (sports teams, cinemas and galleries), health services and facilities, public space and public transport [44]. The use or non-use of natural or man-made recreational resources by an individual is associated with physical health [44] and individual health behaviours, such as physical activity [45]. The model provides opportunities to explore the relationship between environmental conditions and QoL. In this study, we proposed that the effect of environmental conditions is not only associated with but also interacts with individual health behaviours and QoL. These relationships have not previously been well studied; therefore, the aim of this study was to examine environmental conditions and individual health behaviours as mediating factors that affect QoL.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Eligible Participants and Recruitment

Participants were recruited from 11 tertiary planning units (TPUs) in the centre of Kowloon. These TPUs were selected as they represented the overall living environment in Hong Kong, with older, poorer urban areas alongside relatively affluent districts. A sample size of 598 provided a precision range of 4% from the true values at a 95% confidence level [46,47]. Residents who had been living in the selected TPUs for at least 24 months who were Chinese and aged 20 or above were invited to answer a questionnaire. Those who were cognitively impaired or unable to communicate effectively were excluded. Trained research assistants approached potential participants on the streets, in parks and outside the entrances of shopping malls in the TPUs. The participants were provided with an information sheet explaining the study and were reassured that their participation was voluntary and that the information provided was anonymous. Their specific names would not be associated with the reporting of the findings.

2.2. Assessments

2.2.1. Quality of Life

The primary outcome of this study was QoL, which was measured using the WHOQOL-BREF (Hong Kong version). There were 26 items, all of which were rated using a five-point Likert scale. Cronbach’s alpha (α) for the scale ranged from 0.66 in the social domain to 0.84 in the psychological domain [4]. Confirmatory analyses showed that the comparative fit indexes ranged from 0.837 for the environmental domain to 1.0 for the social domain, demonstrating that the four domains had acceptable construct validity. The domain scores were calculated and transformed into a linear scale between 0 and 100, following the scoring guidelines [4]. A higher score indicated a better QoL. In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for each domain of QoL was as follows: 0.74 for physical, 0.77 for psychological, 0.63 for social and 0.78 for environmental.

2.2.2. Sociodemographic

Sociodemographic data included age, education level, occupation, marital status, monthly income, living location, housing types and others living in the same residence. For the socioeconomic status (SES), we categorised the participants based on their residential addresses with reference to the 2014/15 household expenditure survey in Hong Kong [48]. The participants were asked to provide the street name and number of their address for the team to denote the percentage of green space within a 500 m radius of their residence using a vegetation map of Hong Kong. This map was estimated based on object-oriented classification with high-resolution Satellite Pour I’Observation de la Terre (SPOT) image [49]. SPOT-6 satellite images consisted of panchromatic wavelengths at a 1.5 m spatial resolution and multispectral wavelengths at a 6 m spatial resolution. A digital elevation model (DEM) and digital surface models (DSMs) were used to separate vegetation structures from urban infrastructures and buildings. The vegetation map, derived by the project team through a contract from the Hong Kong Planning Department, displayed vegetation types (e.g., grassland, shrubland and woodland) and natural features (e.g., mangroves, badlands and rocky shores) [49,50].

2.2.3. Environmental Conditions

The environmental conditions included environmental quality, green space percentage and public space satisfaction. Participants were asked to rate environmental quality based on the six parameters of air quality, heat island intensity, noise, vegetation density, building height, building density and overall environmental quality. Each parameter was illustrated with a local reference photograph. Participants were asked to rate how they perceived their neighbourhood environment for each parameter on a scale ranging from 0 = extremely low to 100 = high quality. The parameters were validated as urban environmental quality indicators [51]. In the current study, Cronbach’s alpha for environmental quality was 0.83. In addition, six questions on satisfaction with public spaces, including greening, parks and gardens, recreation and sports facilities, promenades and rest areas, were rated using a five-point Likert scale (1 = very unsatisfied to 5 = very satisfied), where Cronbach’s alpha was 0.83.

2.2.4. Individual Health Behaviours and Health Utilisation

Individual health behaviours, including healthy eating, physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption, sleep and perceived stress, were measured in the study. Healthy eating was measured by healthy eating behaviours and fruit and vegetable consumption. Fruit and vegetable consumption was defined using the WHO [52] recommendation of at least two portions of fruit and three portions of vegetables per day. Healthy eating behaviour was based on the recommendations of the Department of Health, Hong Kong [53], and was defined as a diet low in fat, salt and sugar, as measured using a four-point Likert scale (1 = never to 4 = always). Physical activity (PA) in the last 7 days was measured using the Chinese version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ-C). PA was categorised into low-, moderate- or vigorous-intensity activities, and the total metabolic equivalent of task (MET) minutes per week was assessed. MET is the energy expenditure of physical activities [54]. Cronbach’s alpha for the IPAQ-C was 0.79, demonstrating an acceptable internal consistency. The concurrent validity of the IPAQ-C and MET-minute/week (%CV ranged from 49–113) with a total %CV of 43% [55]. Each PA activity was calculated according to the IPAQ scoring guidelines [56]. Smoking habit was reported as never smoked or former/current smoker. Alcohol consumption in the past year was measured using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Concise (AUDIT-C) [57] survey. The scores ranged from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating alcohol dependence. Cronbach’s alpha for the AUDIT-C was 0.79. The sleep quality of participants over the previous 3 months was measured using the eight-item Sleep Quality Index (SQI) [58]. Participants were asked to report the time taken to fall asleep (≤10 min, 11–30 min or >30 min), how often they had difficulty falling asleep, if they woke up during the night, woke up too early, had a disturbed night sleep or insomnia (no, <3 days/week or 3–7 days/week), morning tiredness (rather or very alert, do not know or rather or very tired) and their use of hypnotics (no, occasionally or at least 1 per week). The scores ranged from 0–16, with higher scores indicating more severe sleep disturbance [59]. Cronbach’s alpha for the SQI was 0.65 [60]. Perceived stress, including the ability to cope with stressors and the degree of negative emotional reaction towards stressors in the past month, was measured on a 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10) using a five-point Likert scale [61]. The total score ranged from 0 to 40, with higher scores indicating higher perceived stress. The internal consistency of PSS–10 was good with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83 [62]. For health utilisation, questions on the regular use of Western and Chinese medications, doctor consultations for Western and Chinese medicine, hospitalisations and sick leave taken in the past three months were assessed.

3. Data Analysis

The data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 25 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), and the mediation analysis was implemented using the SPSS macro PROCESS (version 3) model 4 [62]. PROCESS is a computational tool that uses the bootstrap resampling method to provide a bias-corrected indirect effect. We specified 5000 bootstrap samples based on 95% confidence intervals (CIs). An indirect effect can be found when the 95% CIs do not include zero. The mediation analysis investigated whether both path a (predictor to mediator) and path b (mediator to the outcome) were significant, even if path c (direct effect of predictor to outcome) was insignificant [63]. All alphas were set at 0.05 (two-tailed).
Individual health behaviours regressed on environmental conditions were together estimated as path a. WHOQOL-BREF regressed on individual health behaviours were together estimated as path b. The direct effect of the environmental conditions on WHOQOL-BREF was together estimated as path c. To compare the influence of the variables between different domains in the WHOQOL, four separate models for four WHOQOL-BREF domains (physical—model 1, psychological—model 2, social—model 3 and environmental—model 4) were conducted in the study. Covariates to be included in the model were determined by the univariate linear regression. Only those variables reaching a significance level for the WHOQOL-BREF were included as covariates. Based on the previous research showing that there was a correlation between sociodemographic, individual health behaviours and QoL, we hypothesised that environmental conditions affect the QoL of adults. Covariates were used to control for the initial differences in QoL.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Characteristics of Participants

We recruited 614 participants to take part in the study, though seven questionnaires were incomplete and thus discarded. Of the eligible 607 participants, 390 were female and 217 were male, and their mean age was 47.4 years (SD = 21.1). Over 44% had attained university education and 59.8% were married. The percentage of the consumer price indexes (CPIs), in ascending order, was 48.6 (grade A), 38.7 (grade B) and 12.7 (grade C). Over 63% of the participants said that their health was good or very good and 35.3% reported living with chronic illnesses. In terms of their health utilisation over the past 3 months, 55% of participants sought doctor consultations, 41.8% took regular medication, 9.1% took sick leave and 2.8% had been hospitalised. In terms of individual health behaviours, over 90% of the participants were non-smokers. The mean score for alcohol consumption was 1.0 ± 1.6. The majority of them reported that they did not meet the guideline for fruit (84.7%) and vegetable (90.4%) consumption. Over the previous 3 months, the mean MET-minutes/week was 2406.5 ± 1709.4, perceived stress was 15.9 ± 5.5 and sleep was 4.6 ± 3.4. For environment conditions, the mean score for green space was 10.1 ± 7.9. The perceived environmental quality was 57.7 ± 15.5, and public space satisfaction was 3.3 ± 0.7. For QoL, the mean score for the four domains were 60.5 ± 10.5 (physical), 62.8 ± 13.6 (psychological), 62.9 ± 12.5 (social) and 61.9 ± 13.5 (environmental). Table 1 gives the descriptive characteristics of the participants.

4.2. QoL and the Predictor Variables

The basic model for the demographic characteristics, individual health behaviours and environmental conditions contained all the covariates in the study. Those included in the model were determined by the univariate linear regression. Only those variables reaching similar significant levels as the WHOQOL-BREF were included as covariates. Males (p < 0.05) and individuals with chronic illness (p < 0.05) were significantly negatively associated with social QoL. A higher environmental QoL was reported among those who had attained higher education (p < 0.01) and who met the guidelines for fruit and vegetable consumption (p < 0.05). Participants who met the guidelines for both fruit and vegetable consumption had higher QoL. Table 2 provides the covariates.

4.3. Mediation Effects for Physical QoL

The regression model for physical QoL was significant: F (8, 598) = 41.08, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.36. The bootstrap result revealed that perceived stress was a mediator of environmental quality (β = 0.046, 95% CI = 0.003–0.072) and public space satisfaction (β = 0.056, 95% CI = 0.002–0.112) in model 1. Sleep quality only mediated environmental quality (β = 0.033, 95% CI = 0.013–0.055). Fruit and vegetable consumption was adjusted to test whether physical QoL improved when environmental conditions were introduced after the mediators had been included. Figure 1 shows the mediation model for physical QoL.

4.4. Mediation Effects for Psychological QoL

The regression model for psychological QoL was significant: F (8, 598) = 43.50, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.37. The bootstrap result revealed that perceived stress was a mediator of environmental quality (β = 0.067, 95% CI = 0.034–0.102) and public space satisfaction (β = 0.081, 95% CI = 0.004–0.165). Sleep quality only mediated environmental quality (β = 0.032, 95% CI = 0.012–0.057). Figure 2 shows the mediation model for psychological QoL.

4.5. Mediation Effects for Social QoL

After adjusting for fruit and vegetable consumption, gender and chronic illness, the overall regression model for social QoL was significant: F (10, 596) = 12.77, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.186. The bootstrap result revealed that environmental quality was mediated by perceived stress (β = 0.044, 95% CI = 0.021–0.071) and sleep quality (β = 0.021, 95% CI = 0.007–0.040). Figure 3 shows the mediation model for social QoL.

4.6. Mediation Effects for Environmental QoL

After adjusting for fruit intake and education level, the regression model for environmental QoL was significant: F (10, 596) = 38.54, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.39. The bootstrap result revealed that environmental quality was mediated by perceived stress (β = 0.046, 95% CI = 0.022–0.075) and sleep quality (β = 0.021, 95% CI = 0.007–0.039). Figure 4 shows the mediation model for environmental QoL.

5. Discussion

Quality of life models often focus on dimensions of physical and psychological health. Most of the literature investigating QoL does not specify the links between environmental conditions and QoL domains of health. This study demonstrated that environmental conditions do affect QoL, and as a core element of QoL, it is linked with various factors. In this study, both objective (green space percentage) and subjective (environmental quality and public space satisfaction) aspects of the environmental conditions affecting QoL were analysed.
The studied population resided in a typical urban neighbourhood covered by limited green space. The level of green space in the study districts was low (mean 10.1 ± 7.9, range 0–100), as is the case in most urban areas of Hong Kong. The findings suggest that it positively affected physical activity and physical QoL, even if the space was limited. Previous studies suggest that green space has a positive effect not only on physical health and activity [25,30,44,64] but also on psychological health [21,28,65]. In our study, there were significant benefits of green space on physical activity and physical QoL but not on psychological QoL. This may be due to factors such as perceived stress mediating the results. Studies suggested the exposure to green space is a major factor that affects perceived stress. Every 1% increase in exposure to green space is associated with decreased cortisol levels and decreased self-reported stress [33]. Living less than 1000 m from a green space can lead to less stress and improved QoL [11]. In our study, we measured the green space cover within a 500 m radius of residence and found no benefit to psychological health and stress.
Although the objective value of green space in the study districts was low, the satisfaction with public space was moderate (mean 3.3 ± 0.7, range 0–5) in our study. Public space satisfaction was positively associated with all domains of QoL. This result was similar to those of other studies on public space satisfaction [64,66]. Public space satisfaction refers to leisure and recreation facilities. Although there is no standard for satisfactory public spaces, the requirements of the residents in the studied districts were met. People reporting less satisfaction with public spaces had higher perceived stress. As a mediating factor, the higher stress negatively affected both physical and psychological QoL. Perceived stress was related more strongly to the quality of public spaces than the quantity [26]. A local study suggested that recreational and public spaces are important in Hong Kong for environmental satisfaction, regarding both private and public housing [24]. Housing environments in neighbourhoods are fundamental to residents’ overall life satisfaction [67], but the expectations for their housing environments are inconsistent. Those living in public housing were concerned about the accessibility of the housing location, whereas those in private and subsidised housing were more concerned with the appearance of the housing environment. The association of QoL with the types of housing and their locations should be further studied.
Besides green and public space satisfaction, environmental quality also influenced QoL and mediated both stress and sleep. In this study, environmental quality was negatively associated with QoL through perceived stress and poor sleep. Living in an urban neighbourhood can be stressful, where exposure to environmental risks, such as heavy traffic and pollution, can negatively influence general health [68]. A significant association has been found between perceived stress and physical exposure to noise, the safety of public spaces and QoL [69]. The detrimental effect of stress on health is evident. In our study, perceived stress was shown to have a significantly negative effect on QoL (β = 0.622–0.961). Sleep was also a significant mediator of all four QoL domains in this study; as a physiological process that restores and repairs body functions, good sleep is fundamental to health and quality of life. Like perceived stress, poor sleep quality had a significant negative effect on QoL (β = 0.566–0.890). This finding was in accordance with previous research, which showed that people with poor sleep perceived lower QoL [37].
Stress and poor sleep are common risk factors of non-communicable diseases. The local government launched a strategic plan for 2025, involving multi-sectoral actions, including urban planning and the creation of health-supporting environments to enable people to make healthy choices, to enjoy healthy living and to fight against non-communicable diseases [70]. Various measures can be taken immediately to reduce the disease burden that is attributable to environmental determinants. The government should consider taking not only access to green space but also the quality of the environment and public space into consideration when designing healthy communities. These can support good neighbourhood environments and the livelihood of people. The findings suggested that poor sleep is associated with perceived higher levels of stress and increased reports of physical health discomfort and poor mental QoL. Strategies to improve environmental quality are essential to reduce stress and promote sleep, thus resulting in good QoL.
Urbanisation contributes to the fact that more than half of the world’s population lives in cities [71]. There has been a growth of research interest regarding the impact that the urban environment has on health and QoL through its physical design, land use and service delivery [72]. The impacts of the urban environment on human health have been targeted for public health policy across the globe. The importance of promoting a healthy environment in both developed and developing countries and region, such as Africa Australia, China and England, have been reinforced [73]. International objectives and strategies to enhance the environment and health have been emphasised amongst international organisations, including the World Health Organization [6], the World Bank [74], the European Union [75] and the United Nations [76]. Previous studies have observed the impact of the environment on health; for example, the influence of neighbourhood safety, pollution and traffic on physical and psychological well-being. Environmental conditions can influence residents’ capability to handle stress and maintain mental health [77]. Stress can be a positive or negative life process [78]. Urban environment conditions are both a source and a resource that help people to cope with stress [79] and to get proper sleep [40,80].
This study explained the dynamics of QoL in the urban city. The model helped to describe and determine the causal relationships between environmental conditions and QoL, with the mediating effects of stress and sleep. Our study has several limitations. First, the limited sample size and homogenous culture of the participants may affect the generalisability of the results. A more diverse culture and larger samples could be considered to further confirm the association between environmental quality and QoL. Second, the outcomes of the study were based on subjective measures. Future studies could include objective measurements, such as those of cortisol levels for stress and physical fitness tests. Associations by age category and different neighbourhood environments of the participants could further be explored in future studies.

6. Conclusions

In this study, WHOQOL-BREF served as an important outcome regarding how residents interact with their neighbourhood environment. The findings suggest that access to green space was associated with physical QoL and physical activity. Individuals with a positive evaluation of public space satisfaction and environmental quality were more likely to perceive a good quality of life. The influence of objective and subjective measures of environmental conditions on QoL was mediated by stress and sleep. The findings of this study further supported the importance of individuals’ stress and sleep in mediating the relationship between the environment and, as a direct consequence, QoL. Environmental conditions and interventions should be considered whenever making public health policies regarding urban populations.

Author Contributions

F.K.Y.W. was the project leader; K.K.P.C. and F.K.Y.W. drafted the manuscript; K.L.C. and F.W. coordinated the data collection; H.C.H., M.S.W., Y.S.H., J.W.M.Y., J.Y.-m.S. and L.Y. were involved in the data interpretation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the Green Deck Project and the Dean’s Reserve Fund from the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all residents that participated in this study. We express our deepest gratitude to Lam Ying Ying and Barry Yu for the data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

AUDIT-CAlcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Concise
CIConfidence interval
DEMDigital elevation model
DSMDigital surface models
IPAQ-CInternational Physical Activity Questionnaire–Chinese
METMetabolic equivalent of task
PAPhysical activity
PSS-1010-item Perceived Stress Scale
QoLQuality of life
SF-36The Short-Form 36 Health Survey
SQISleep Quality Index
TPUTertiary planning unit
WHOThe World Health Organization
WHOQOL 100World Health Organization Quality of Life 100
WHOQOL-BREFWHO Quality of Life Brief Scale

References

  1. The WHOQOL Group. The world health organization quality of life assessment (WHO QOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Soc. Sci. Med. 1998, 46, 1569–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ware, J.E.; Gandek, B.; Kosinski, M.; Aaronson, N.K.; Apolone, G.; Brazier, J.; Bullinger, M.; Kaasa, S.; Leplège, A.; Prieto, L.; et al. The equivalence of SF-36 summary health scores estimated using standard and country-specific algorithms in 10 countries: Results from the IQOLA project, International Quality of Life Assessment. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1998, 51, 1167–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. World Health Organisation. WHOQOL-BREF Introduction, Administration, Scoring and Generic Version of the Assessment, 1996. Available online: http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/76.pdf (accessed on 8 August 2018).
  4. Hsiao, Y.Y.; Wu, C.H.; Yao, G. Convergent and discriminant validity of the WHOQOLBREF using a multitrait-multimethod approach. Soc. Indic. Res. 2014, 116, 971–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ferrans, C.E.; Zerwic, J.J.; Wilbur, J.E.; Larson, J.L. Conceptual model of health-related quality of life. J. Nurs. Scholarsh. 2005, 37, 336–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. World Health Organisation. Urban Green Spaces: A Brief for Action, 2017. Available online: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/urban-health/publications/2017/urban-green-spaces-a-brief-for-action-2017 (accessed on 8 August 2018).
  7. Van Dillen, S.; De Vries, S.; Groenewegen, P.; Spreeuwenberyg, P. Greenspace in urban neighbourhoods and residents’health: Adding quality to quantity. J. Epidemiol. Community 2012, 66, e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Dadvand, P.; Bartoll, X.; Basagana, X.; Dalmau-Bueno, A.; Martinez, D.; Ambros, A.; Cirach, M.; Triguero-Mas, M.; Gascon, M.; Borrell, C.; et al. Green spaces and General Health: Roles of mental health status, social support, and physical activity. Environ. Int. 2016, 91, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Van Den Berg, M.; van Poppel, M.; van Kamp, I.; Andrusaityte, S.; Balseviciene, B.; Cirach, M.; Danileviciute, A.; Ellis, N.; Hurst, G.; Masterson, D.; et al. Visiting green space is associated with mental health and vitality: A cross-sectional study in four European cities. Health Place 2016, 38, 8–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. De Sousa, C.A. Unearthing the benefits of brownfield to green space projects: An examination of project use and quality of life impacts. Local Environ. 2006, 11, 577–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Stigsdotter, U.K.; Ekholm, O.; Schipperijn, J.; Toftager, M.; Kamper-Jørgensen, F.; Randrupi, T.B. Health promoting outdoor environments—Associations between green space, and health, health-related quality of life and stress based on a Danish national representative survey. Scand. J. Public Health 2010, 38, 411–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mitchell, R.; Popham, F. Effect of exposure to nature environment on health inequalities: An observational population study. Lancet 2008, 37, 1655–1660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Vogt, S.; Mielck, A.; Berger, U.; Grill, E.; Peters, A.; Döring, A.; Holle, R.; Strobl, R.; Zimmermann, A.K.; Linkohr, B.; et al. Neighborhood and healthy aging in a German city: Distances to green space and senior service centers and their associations with physical constitution, disability, and health-related quality of life. European. J. Ageing 2015, 12, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Akpinar, A.; Barbosa-Leiker, C.; Brooks, K.R. Does green space matter? Exploring relationships between green space type and health indicators. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 20, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Van Den Berg, A.; Hartig, T.; Staats, H. Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. J. Soc. Issues 2007, 63, 79–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Shields, M.; Shooshtari, S. Determinants of self-perceived health. Health Rep. 2001, 13, 35–52. [Google Scholar]
  17. Gobbens, R.J.J.; van Assen, M.A.L.M. Associations of environmental factors with quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist 2018, 58, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sugiyama, T.; Leslie, E.; Giles-Corti, B.; Owen, N. Associations of neighbourhood greenness with physical and mental health: Do walking, social coherence and local social interaction explain the relationships? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2008, 62, e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Handy, S.L.; Boarnet, M.G.; Ewing, R.; Killingsworth, R.E. How the built environment affects physical activity: Views from urban planning. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2002, 23, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Buffel, T.; Verté, D.; De Donder, L.; De Witte, N.; Dury, S.; Vanwing, T.; Bolsenbroek, A. Theorizing the relationship between older people and their immediate social living environment. Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 2012, 31, 13–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wong, F.Y.; Yang, L.; Yuen, J.W.M.; Chang, K.K.P.; Wong, F.K.Y. Quality of life using WHOQOL-BREF: A cross-sectional study on the association between quality of life and neighborhood environmental satisfaction and the mediating effect of health-related behaviors. BMC Public Health 2018, 18, 1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Keles, R. The Quality of Life and the Environment. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 35, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Streimikiene, D. Quality of life and housing. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 2015, 5, 140–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Ng, S.L.; Zhang, Y.; Ng, K.H.; Wong, H.; Lee, J.W.Y. Living environment and quality of life in Hong Kong. Asian Geogr. 2018, 35, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Maas, J.; Verheij, R.A.; Groenewegen, P.P.; De Vries, S. Green space, urbanity, and health: How strong is the relation? J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2006, 60, 587–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. De Vries, S.; van Dillen, S.M.E.; Groenewegen, P.P.; Spreeuwenberg, P. Streetscape greenery and health: Stress, social cohesion and physical activity as mediators. Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 94, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Gong, Y.; Gallacher, J.; Palmer, S.; Fone, D. Neighbourhood green space, physical function and participation in physical activities among elderly men: The Caerphilly Prospective study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Richardson, E.A.; Pearce, J.; Mitchell, R.; Kingham, S. Role of physical activity in the relationship between urban green space and health. Public Health 2013, 127, 318–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Richardson, C.R.; Faulkner, G.; McDevitt, J.; Skrinar, G.S.; Hutchinson, D.S.; Piette, J.D. Integrating physical activity into mental health services for persons with serious mental illness. Psychiatr. Serv. 2005, 56, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nutsford, D.; Pearson, A.L.; Kingham, S. An ecological study investigating the association between access to urban green space and mental health. Public Health 2013, 127, 1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Triguero-Mas, M.; Donaire-Gonzalez, D.; Seto, E.; Valentín, A.; Martínez, D.; Smith, G.; Hurst, G.; Carrasco-Turigas, G.; Masterson, D.; van den Berg, M.; et al. Natural outdoor environments and mental health: Stress as a possible mechanism. Environ. Res. 2017, 159, 629–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Christensen, D.S.; Dich, N.; Flensborg-Maden, T.; Garde, E.; Hansen, A.M.; Mortensen, E.L. Objective and subjective stress, personality, and allostatic load. Brain Behav. 2019, 9, e01386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Thompson, C.W.; Roe, J.; Aspinall, P.; Mitchell, R.; Clow, A.; Miller, D. More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2012, 105, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Yang, L.; Ho, J.Y.S.; Wong, F.K.Y.; Chang, K.K.P.; Chan, K.L.; Wong, M.S.; Ho, H.C.; Yuen, J.W.M.; Huang, J.; Siu, J.Y.M. Neighbourhood green space, perceived stress and sleep quality in an urban population. Urban For. Urban Green. 2020, 54, 126763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Daubenmier, J.; Lin, J.; Blackburn, E.; Hecht, F.M.; Kristeller, J.; Maninger, N.; Kuwata, M.; Bacchetti, P.; Havel, P.J.; Epel, E. Changes in stress, eating, and metabolic factors are related to changes in telomerase activity in a randomized mindfulness intervention pilot study. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2012, 37, 917–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Wolitzky-Taylor, K.B.; Arch, J.J.; Rosenfield, D.; Craske, M.G. Moderators and non-specific predictors of treatment outcome for anxiety disorders: A comparison of cognitive behavioral therapy to acceptance and commitment therapy. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2012, 80, 786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. LeBlanc, M.; Beaulieu-Bonneau, S.; Mérette, C.; Savard, J.; Ivers, H.; Morin, C.M. Psychological and health-related quality of life factors associated with insomnia in a population-based sample. J. Psychosom. Res. 2007, 63, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Johnson, D.A.; Billings, M.E.; Hale, L. Environmental determinants of insufficient sleep and sleep disorders. Curr. Epidemiol. Rep. 2018, 5, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cote, K.A.; Milner, C.E.; Smith, B.A.; Aubin, A.J.; Greason, T.A.; Cuthbert, B.P.; Wiebe, S.; Duffus, S.G. CNS arousal and neurobehavioural performance in a short term sleep restriction paradigm. J. Sleep Res. 2009, 18, 291–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Astell-Burt, T.; Feng, X.; Kolt, G.S. Does access to neighbourhood green space promote a healthy duration of sleep? Novel findings from a cross-sectional study of 259 319 Australians. BMJ Open 2013, 3, e003094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Myint, P.K.; Welch, A.A.; Bingham, S.A.; Surtees, P.G.; Wainwright, W.J.; Luben, R.N.; Wareham, N.J.; Smith, R.D.; Harvey, I.M.; Day, N.E.; et al. Fruit and vegetable consumption and self-reported functional health in men and women in the European prospective investigation into cancer—Norfolk (EPIC—Norfolk): A population-based cross-sectional study. Public Health Nutr. 2006, 10, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Marans, R.W.; Mohai, P. Leisure resources, recreation activity, and the quality of life. In Benefits of Leisure; Driver, B.L., Brown, P., Peterson, G.I., Eds.; Venture Publishing: State College, PA, USA, 1991; pp. 351–363. [Google Scholar]
  43. Marans, R.W. Understanding environmental quality through quality of life studies: The 2001 DAS and its use of subjective and objective indicators. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2003, 65, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Marans, R.W. Quality of urban life studies: An overview and implications for environment-behavior Research. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 35, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Yuen, J.W.M.; Chang, K.K.P.; Wong, F.K.Y.; Wong, F.Y.; Siu, J.Y.M.; Ho, H.C.; Wong, M.S.; Ho, J.Y.S.; Chan, K.L.; Yang, L. Influence of urban green space and facility accessibility on exercise and healthy diet in Hong Kong. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 16, 1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Daniel, W.W.; Cross, C.L. Biostatistics: A Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences; Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  47. Naing, L.; Winn, T.; Rusli, B.N. Practical issues in calculating the sample size for prevalence studies. Arch. Orofac. Sci. 2006, 1, 9–14. [Google Scholar]
  48. Consumer Price Indices. 2014/15 Household Expenditure Survey and the Rebasing of the Consumer Price Indices. Available online: https://www.censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/sp290.jsp?productCode=B1060003 (accessed on 8 August 2018).
  49. Ho, H.C.; Wong, M.S.; Yang, L.; Shi, W.; Yang, J.; Bilal, M.; Chan, T.C. Spatiotemporal influence of temperature, air quality, and urban environment on cause-specific mortality during hazy days. Environ. Int. 2018, 112, 10–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Wong, M.S.; Ho, H.C.; Yang, L.; Shi, W.; Yang, J.; Chan, T.C. Spatial variability of excess mortality during prolonged dust events in a high-density city: A time-stratified spatial regression approach. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2017, 16, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Nichol, J.; Wong, M.S. Mapping urban environmental quality using satellite data and multiple parameters: Environment and planning B. Plan. Des. 2009, 36, 170–185. [Google Scholar]
  52. World Health Organization. Healthy Diet: Key Facts. Available online: http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/healthy-diet (accessed on 8 August 2018).
  53. Department of Health. Healthy Eating for Adults. Available online: https://www.chp.gov.hk/en/resources/e_health_topics/12703.html (accessed on 8 August 2018).
  54. Jetté, M.; Sidney, K.; Blümchen, G. Metabolic equivalents (METS) in exercise testing, exercise prescription, and evaluation of functional capacity. Clin. Cardiol. 1990, 13, 555–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Macfarlane, D.J.; Lee, C.C.Y.; Ho, E.Y.K.; Chan, K.L.; Chan, D.T.S. Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of IPAQ (short, last 7 days). J. Sci. Med. Sport 2007, 10, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. IPAQ Core Group. Guidelines for Data Processing and Analysis of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)—Short and Long Forms, 2005. Available online: http://sites.google.com/site/theipaq/scoring-protocol (accessed on 8 August 2018).
  57. Centre for Health Protection. Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention: A Guide for Use in Primary Care. Available online: http://change4health.gov.hk/en/audit (accessed on 8 August 2018).
  58. Chung, K.; Kan, K.K.; Yeung, W. Assessing insomnia in adolescents: Comparison of insomnia severity index, Athens insomnia scale and sleep quality index. Sleep Med. 2011, 12, 463–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Cohen, S.; Williamson, G.M. Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In The Social Psychology of Health; Spacapan, S., Oskamp, S., Eds.; Sage: Newbury Park, CA, USA, 1988; pp. 31–67. [Google Scholar]
  60. Urponen, H.; Partinen, M.; Vuori, I.; Hasan, J. Sleep quality and health: Description of the sleep quality index. In Sleep and Health Risk; Peter, J.H., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1991; pp. 555–558. [Google Scholar]
  61. Leung, Y.P.; Lam, T.; Chan, S.S.C. Three versions of perceived stress scale: Validation in a sample of Chinese cardiac patients who smoke. BMC Public Health 2010, 10, 513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Hayes, A. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed.; The Gilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  63. MacKinnon, D.P. Multivariate Applications Series. Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis; Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  64. Sugiyama, T.; Thompson, C.W. Associations between characteristics of neighbourhood open space and older people’s walking. Urban For. Urban Green. 2008, 7, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mitchell, R. Is physical activity in natural environments better for mental health than physical activity in other environments? Soc. Sci. Med. 2013, 91, 130–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Cho, Y.; Park, G.S.; Echevarria-Cruz, S. Perceived neighborhood characteristics and the health of adult Koreans. Soc. Sci. Med. 2005, 60, 1285–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Gou, Z.; Xie, X.; Lu, Y.; Khoshbakht, M. Quality of Life (QoL) survey in Hong Kong: Understanding the importance of housing environment and needs of residents from different housing sectors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Leslie, E.; Cerin, E. Are perceptions of the local environment related to neighbourhood satisfaction and mental health in adults? Prev. Med. 2008, 47, 273–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Parra, D.C.; Gomez, L.F.; Sarmiento, O.L.; Buchner, D.; Brownson, R.; Schimd, T.; Gomez, V.; Lobelo, F. Perceived and objective neighbour environment attributes and health related quality of life among the elderly in Bogota, Colombia. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 70, 1070–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Department of Health. Towards 2050: Strategy and Action Plan to Prevent and Control Non-Communicable Diseases in Hong Kong; Department of Health, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China: Hong Kong, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  71. United Nations. Population Facts: The Speed of Urbanization Around the World. Available online: http://www.unpopulation.org (accessed on 23 October 2020).
  72. United Nations. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision. Available online: http://population.un.org/wup/Publications (accessed on 23 October 2020).
  73. Bai, X.; Nath, I.; Capon, A.; Hassan, N.; Jaron, D. Health and wellbeing in the changing urban environment: Complex challenges, scientific responses, and the way forward. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2012, 4, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. World Bank Group. The World Bank Environmental and Social Framework; International Bank for Reconstruction and Department: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  75. The European Union. Communication and Roadmap on the European Green Deal. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en (accessed on 23 October 2020).
  76. United Nations. Strategy for Sustainability Management in the United Nations System, 2020–2030. Phase I: Environmental Sustainability in the Area of Management; United Nations System: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  77. Evans, G.W.; Wells, N.M.; Moch, A. Housing and mental health: A review of the evidence and a methodological and conceptual critique. J. Soc. Issues 2003, 59, 475–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Salleh, M.R. Life event, stress and illness. Malays. J. Med Sci. 2008, 15, 9–18. [Google Scholar]
  79. Frumkin, H.; Bratman, G.N.; Breslow, S.J.; Cochran, B.; Kahin, P.H.; Lawler, J.J.; Levin, P.S.; Tandon, P.S.; Varanasi, U.; Wolf, K.L.; et al. Nature contact and human health: A research agenda. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017, 125, 075001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Jiang, B.; Chang, C.Y.; Sullivan, W.C. A dose of nature: Tree cover, stress reduction, and gender differences. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2014, 132, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 17 08529 g001 550
Figure 1. Mediation model for physical QoL. The analyses controlled for fruit intake and vegetable intake. Unstandardised coefficients are displayed. The values indicate the strength of the relationship between the variables. Red arrows depict positive relationships, blue arrows show negative relationships and grey arrows depict non-significance. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 1. Mediation model for physical QoL. The analyses controlled for fruit intake and vegetable intake. Unstandardised coefficients are displayed. The values indicate the strength of the relationship between the variables. Red arrows depict positive relationships, blue arrows show negative relationships and grey arrows depict non-significance. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Ijerph 17 08529 g001
Ijerph 17 08529 g002 550
Figure 2. Mediation model for psychological QoL. The analyses controlled for fruit intake and vegetable intake. Unstandardised coefficients are displayed. The values indicate the strength of the relationship between variables. Red arrows depict positive relationships, blue arrows show negative relationships and grey arrows depict non-significance. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Mediation model for psychological QoL. The analyses controlled for fruit intake and vegetable intake. Unstandardised coefficients are displayed. The values indicate the strength of the relationship between variables. Red arrows depict positive relationships, blue arrows show negative relationships and grey arrows depict non-significance. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Ijerph 17 08529 g002
Ijerph 17 08529 g003 550
Figure 3. Mediation model for social QoL. The analyses controlled for fruit intake, vegetable intake, gender and chronic illness. Unstandardised coefficients are displayed. The values indicate the strength of the relationship between variables. Red arrows depict positive relationships, blue arrows show negative relationships and grey arrows depict non-significance. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3. Mediation model for social QoL. The analyses controlled for fruit intake, vegetable intake, gender and chronic illness. Unstandardised coefficients are displayed. The values indicate the strength of the relationship between variables. Red arrows depict positive relationships, blue arrows show negative relationships and grey arrows depict non-significance. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Ijerph 17 08529 g003
Ijerph 17 08529 g004 550
Figure 4. Mediation model for environmental QoL. The analyses controlled for fruit intake and education level. Unstandardised coefficients are displayed. The values indicate the strength of the relationship between variables. Red arrows depict positive relationships, blue arrows show negative relationships and grey arrows depict non-significance. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 4. Mediation model for environmental QoL. The analyses controlled for fruit intake and education level. Unstandardised coefficients are displayed. The values indicate the strength of the relationship between variables. Red arrows depict positive relationships, blue arrows show negative relationships and grey arrows depict non-significance. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Ijerph 17 08529 g004
Table
Table 1. Descriptive characteristics.
Table 1. Descriptive characteristics.
Variablesn = 607
Age, M ± SD (years)47.4 ± 21.1
Gender, n (%)
Female390 (64.3)
Male217 (35.7)
Education, n (%)
Primary117 (19.3)
Secondary2178 (29.3)
Diploma42 (6.9)
University270 (44.5)
Marital status, n (%)
Single192 (31.6)
Married363 (59.8)
Widowed/divorced/separation52 (8.6)
Occupation, n (%)
Not working202 33.3)
Working193 (31.8)
Homemaker or student212 (34.9)
AUDIT-C (0–12), M ± SD1.0 ± 1.6
Smoking status
Non-smoker552 (90.9)
Some days22 (3.6)
Every day33 (5.4)
Fruit intake, n (%)
Did not meet the guideline514 (84.7)
Met the guideline93 (15.3)
Vegetable intake, n (%)
Did not meet the guideline549 (90.4)
Met the guideline58 (9.6)
Chronic illness, n (%)
No393 (64.7)
Yes214 (35.3)
CPI, n (%)
Grade A (5500–24,499)295 (48.6)
Grade B (24,500–44,499)235 (38.7)
Grade C (44,500–89,999)77 (12.7)
Individual monthly income, n (%)
0259 (42.7)
<10,000143 (23.6)
10,000–14,80059 (9.7)
14,800–23,00051 (8.4)
>23,00095 (15.7)
Green space (0–100), M ± SD10.1 ± 7.9
Environmental quality (0–100), M ± SD57.7 ± 15.5
Public space satisfaction (0–5), M ± SD3.3 ± 0.7
Sleep Quality Index (0–14), M ± SD4.6 ± 3.4
IPAQ, M ± SD2406.5 ± 1709.4
Perceived Stress Scale (0–40), M ± SD15.9 ± 5.5
WHOQOL (0–100), M ± SD
Physical60.5 ± 10.5
Psychological62.8 ± 13.6
Social62.9 ± 12.5
Environmental61.9 ± 13.5
Doctor, n (%)
No273 (45.0)
Yes334 (55.0)
On medication, n (%)
No353 (58.2)
Yes254 (41.8)
Hospitalisation, n (%)
No590 (97.2)
Yes17 (2.8)
Sick leave, n (%)
No552 (90.9)
Yes55 (9.1)
CPI: Consumer Price Index, AUDIT-C: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, IPAQ: The International Physical Activity Questionnaire–Short Form, WHOQOL: World Health Organization Quality of Life 100.
Table
Table 2. Univariate analysis (linear regression).
Table 2. Univariate analysis (linear regression).
VariablesPhysical QoLPsychological QoLSocial QoLEnvironmental QoL
Age0.0510.010−0.0470.060
Gender
FemaleRefRefRefRef
Male0.0480.027−0.090 *−0.13
Education
PrimaryRefRefRefRef
Secondary0.008−0.494−0.4901.298 **
Diploma−0.098−0.265−0.3260.792 **
University−0.014−0.415−0.4191.510 **
Marital status
SingleRefRefRefRef
Married0.0890.0690.0570.019
Widowed/divorced/separation−0.006−0.0230.0050.002
Occupation
Not workingRefRefRefRef
Working−0.079−0.024−0.003−0.132 **
Homemaker or student−0.0370.0230.036−0.060
AUDIT–C (0–12)−0.006−0.076−0.009−0.030
Smoking status
Non-smokerRefRefRefRef
Some days−0.059−0.068−0.071−0.045
Every day−0.065−0.045−0.059−0.062
Fruit intake
Did not meet the guidelineRefRefRefRef
Met the guideline0.085 *0.130 **0.092 *0.087 *
Vegetable intake
Did not meet the guidelineRefRefRefRef
Met the guideline0.122 **0.089 **0.090*0.039
Chronic illness
NoRefRefRefRef
Yes−0.028−0.055−0.090 *−0.009
CPI
Grade A (5500–24,499)RefRefRefRef
Grade B (24,500–44,499)0.0360.0720.0700.190 *
Grade C (44,500–89,999)−0.063−0.076−0.0060.074
Individual monthly income
0RefRefRefRef
<10,000−0.0010.0220.0230.008
10,000–14,800−0.050−0.044−0.035−0.079
14,800–23,0000.010−0.0010.0220.019
>23,000−0.0600.0270.043−0.006
Greenspace (0–100)
Environmental quality (0–100)0.062−0.012−0.048−0.027
Public space satisfaction (0–5)0.270 ***0.318 ***0.150 ***0.451 ***
Sleep Quality Index (0–14)0.269 ***0.291 ***0.183 ***0.449 ***
IPAQ−0.478 ***−0.361 ***−0.251 ***−0.296 ***
Perceived Stress Scale (0–40)0.116 **0.121 **0.0340.034
Doctor−0.407 ***−0.521 ***−0.334 ***−0.387 ***
No
YesRefRefRefRef
On medication−0.025−0.025−0.0370.050
No
YesRefRefRefRef
Hospitalisation−0.053−0.058−0.0610.047
No
YesRefRefRefRef
Sick leave−0.075−0.0120.002−0.028
No
YesRefRefRefRef
−0.0280.0210.082−0.011
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. QoL: quality of life, CPI: Consumer Price Index, AUDIT-C: Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, IPAQ: The International Physical Activity Questionnaire–Short Form, WHOQOL: World Health Organization Quality of Life 100.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chang, K.K.P.; Wong, F.K.Y.; Chan, K.L.; Wong, F.; Ho, H.C.; Wong, M.S.; Ho, Y.S.; Yuen, J.W.M.; Siu, J.Y.-m.; Yang, L. The Impact of the Environment on the Quality of Life and the Mediating Effects of Sleep and Stress. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8529. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228529

AMA Style

Chang KKP, Wong FKY, Chan KL, Wong F, Ho HC, Wong MS, Ho YS, Yuen JWM, Siu JY-m, Yang L. The Impact of the Environment on the Quality of Life and the Mediating Effects of Sleep and Stress. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(22):8529. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228529

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chang, Katherine Ka Pik, Frances Kam Yuet Wong, Ka Long Chan, Fiona Wong, Hung Chak Ho, Man Sing Wong, Yuen Shan Ho, John Wai Man Yuen, Judy Yuen-man Siu, and Lin Yang. 2020. "The Impact of the Environment on the Quality of Life and the Mediating Effects of Sleep and Stress" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 22: 8529. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17228529

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop