We knew that living near the sea made us “win” years of life. What we did not know is that it was literally

We have known for a long time to approach nature has benefits on our health. Beyond avoiding the contamination of our cities, approaching the natural environments around us can improve our psychological well -being, perhaps even inciting a more active life. Little by little, we are also observing that something similar happens if we change the mountain for the sea.

More sea, more life. A study has observed a correlation between residing in coastal areas and greater longevity. The analysis It provides new tests of the link between the bodies of water and the health and well -being of the people. Of course, the relationship between “blue spaces” and health is a bit more complex than it might seem.

50 kilometers. The study observed that the benefits of living near the ocean improved the quality of life of the people who lived in a strip of about 50 kilometers of the coast. Inside, however, they observed a very different trend: the people who resided in the vicinity of water bodies of a certain size (about 10 km² on surface) tended to hope for short life.

“Globally, residents of the coast are expected to live one year or more above the average of 79 years, and those who lived in more urban areas near rivers and interior lakes were more likely to die around 78 approximately. The residents of the coast probably lived longer due to a variety of interconnected factors,” stood out in a press release Jianyong “Jamie” Wu, member of the study responsible for the study.

66,000 census areas. The study was conducted in the United States, where the team analyzed 66,263 census areas, studying life expectancy and its relationship not only with the proximity of water bodies, also with socio -economic and demographic factors to control the results. The details of the study can be consulted In an article Posted in the magazine Environmental Research.

Looking for the cause. The team indicates different factors that could mediate this relationship, such as softer temperatures, better air quality, greater number of opportunities for recreational activities, better transport, less vulnerability to droughts, or rent.

These factors could explain why residing near the coast is associated with greater life expectancy, in contrast to people who live near interiors. “Contamination, poverty, lack of opportunities to be physically active and a greater risk of flooding are the main triggers of these differences,” Yanni Cao indicatedCo -author of the study.

Correlation or cause? It fits remember that the existence of a correlation does not always imply the existence of a direct (not even indirect) relationship of causality. For example, if income is the determining factor, this causal relationship could have different forms.

A possible way would start from the fact that coastal areas They would be more expensiveso they would attract people with more rent, being income, a factor we know affects our life expectancy. Another possible way would be in the fact that the coastal areas generate greater income by offering more job opportunities, and these income again would be the determining factor in longevity. In both cases the mediating factor is the same, but the causal relationship does not.

In Xataka | Why is it more hot in cities than in the field: the urban heat island effect

Image | Emiliano Arano